In yet another slap at civil liberties and civil libertarians, President Barack Obama signed an executive order Monday that will resume military tribunal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama has ordered the resumption of these trials — denounced both domestically and internationally as trumped up proceedings designed to make convictions easier by omitting core constitutional and procedural protections. Indeed, these tribunals are being heralded as guaranteeing swift punishment — an implied recognition that we could not convict some of these individuals in a fair federal trial.
It is a cynical calculation by the Administration that civil libertarians have no where to go in the next election — a calculation that has been reaffirmed by many liberals who complain about Obama’s anti-civil liberties policies but still say that they have to support him. This support is continuing despite Obama’s blocking of any prosecution for torture or investigation of alleged war crimes.
The Republicans have complimented Obama on his decision and drawn the fair and obvious conclusion that he has once again reaffirmed Bush’s policies. Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, observed “the bottom line is that it affirms the Bush administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities.”
The Obama Administration’s position is perfectly incomprehensible. As with Bush, Obama will now choose Caesar-like between those who will receive a fair trial in federal court and those who are sent to military tribunals. The decision will be made on the need for the tribunals to secure conviction under “special” rules that deny the defendant core protections and rights.
Source: The Washington Post
Jonathan Turley
Gyges I see the tea party as a far more dangerous and evil force than I do Obama. They have a very racist and evil internet campaign going.
Blouise,
Everyone makes their own choices. I explained mine, and will take responsibility for them. I think that everyone here makes theirs based on noble ideals.
I just feel insulted when someone tries to force my decision into a binary frame of reference when there’s at least three options (support A, Support B, Support neither A nor B).
My lack of support for Obama doesn’t translate to a support for Tea baggers.
Swm,
And then there are the social issues …
Gyges,
Pin the responsibility elsewhere … I won’t accept it. I was pissed out of my mind when Obama won the nomination … and I expected nothing more than what we got … since I never bought into the hype I suffer none of the remorse.
In 2012 I will only cast a vote for him if the republican ticket looks like it has a chance of winning for then I would be looking at a whole administration of republican teabaggers … Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General. That’s way too much evil for me.
Et al,
I think I’m being misread here.
If you can find a place where I said I would vote for a Republican presidential candidate, please do (at this point, since there is no Rep. presidential candidate, I’ll simply say, it’s extremely unlikely, but still possible that I would vote for one). If you can find a place where I said that I like the Tea Party, please do.
Let me state categorically, that I refuse to vote for anyone that supports breaking, or has broken any convention against torture or other war crimes; any gross violation of basic human rights, including unreasonable limits on access to abortion (reasonable limits being pretty much what the current national system is); or supports any institutionalized discrimination.
The thing is, I’ve been thinking about history lately. Specifically about some of the boneheaded choices America made during the Cold War in who we allied ourselves with. It’s occurred to me that supporting somebody just because they claim to be against “the enemy” leaves you with a share of the blame when that person turns out to do bad things.
I voted for President Obama based on what his positions were during his campaign, but I will not vote for him again, base on his actions as President. If that means that my support goes to a candidate who loses, that means that my support goes to a candidate who loses. What it doesn’t mean is that I actively worked for the winner; I don’t hold a vegetarian responsible for factory farmed chicken because they didn’t buy free range chicken at a farmers market.
So, if you have a reason why I should vote for Obama based on his actions, please give them. Just don’t expect me to vote for him based on someone elses actions. As I pointed out in my first comment, at some point choosing the lesser of the two evils makes you responsible for that evil.
Blouise, The social issues had not come into play yet.
SwM,
When I was talking about how scary the republican was I wasn’t saying I would vote for him/her … I would never vote for a republican president. I’ve voted for republican mayors from time to time but that’s it. (I might have voted for Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson … maybe … but that election was before my time … wouldn’t it be nice to have a choice like that now)
Blouise,
It isn’t difficult for a President to do the right thing, if he or she are not looking at political concerns with each decision.
Swarthmore,
You are correct that all of the Teapublicans are anti-women and anti-middle class. Other than that they are just peachy!
Bloiuse. Some people probably don’t think Romney is as scary as the others. All are anti-choice.
rafflaw and AY,
Yep, they took over during the Reagan years thanks to his VP, George Sr., and really ran amuck during George Jr. terms.
It is going to take one hell of a strong individual to bring that agency back under control. Obama isn’t strong enough so they are going to have the rest of this term and his next term to solidify their hold on the nation.
SwM,
There ya go … the republicans got us here and putting them back in would be literal suicide for the nation.
I don’t know what I’m going to do in 2012 … it is possible I won’t vote for either … much will depend on just how scary the republican is and how strong his/her chances are of being elected.
Right now I don’t think it’s an issue as I fully expect Obama to run and easily win, but things could change.
My big issue is getting someone with real balls (which will be needed to withstand the pressures of the CIA and corporate America)to run on the democratic ticket in 2016.
rafflaw, Blouise…..
CIA Bush Administrations….really you jest…..No connection….None to Iran and the release of the Americans on a January 20….eons ago…..wink…wink..
Gyges,
I do not know of a presidential candidate in the last 50 years with the exception of LBJ that was an incumbent that did not run…. If you are suggesting that there is a better candidate than Obama…I am like Ross Perot…All Ears….
If you could figure out how we could get Obama out and another candidate to run….again, I am all ears….
If Perot did not have enough money to run as a third party candidate… who would you suggest that has enough money or connections to do that other than the Republicans/Tea-Party…
Blouise,
The CIA has been running “things” for quite awhile. The CIA has been calling the shots on torture from the beginning of the Bush regime and it continues to call the shots today by screaming that Obama can’t investigate and prosecute the CIA agents who actually did the torture.
Gyges,
I think you are forgetting that if you vote to replace Obama with any of the announced Republicans, you will continue to get the torture and detainee kangaroo trials, but you will also be writing a death sentence for womens rights in this country.
Gyges, I will take the other side of that. If the republicans win, many more rights will be violated both in this country and abroad including the rights of the american worker and the rights of women. Voting against Obama does not give one the moral high ground.
Covert action is ordered by the president and carried out by the CIA.
In 2009 Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair sought to change the chain of command, putting his office more directly in charge of clandestine operations, but the White House rejected the proposal. Blair also wanted to review operations of the CIA including the CIA’s campaign of Predator missile strikes against militant targets in Pakistan, as well as secret paramilitary and spying operations in other countries. The CIA were criticized for the use of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects. It was a battle between Blair and CIA Director Leon E. Panetta
Director Blair resigned in 2010. Panetts remains.
Now just exactly who do you think changed Obama’s mind? Blair lost and Panetta won. Obama isn’t being run by the Bush “plan”. He’s being run by the CIA. In my opinion the President no longer controls that agency, that agency controls the President.
Here’s a quote from the movie The Good Shepherd:
“Mafia guy -: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?
CIA guy -: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”
Swarthmore,
You can keep plugging your ears and chanting “Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin,” but in the end, it boils down to the fact that if you continue to support Obama you’re supporting a man who has repeatedly violated a wide variety of people’s basic human rights.
If you can live with yourself having made that decision, that’s up to you. But don’t expect the rest of us to quake in fear at the mention of your particular boogieman that he protects you from.
I would rather someone I oppose politically won without my vote than someone who condones torture and the violation of human rights wins with it.
Gyges, As a pro-choice voter, there are no candidates in the republican primary to vote for.
Gyges, If Obama loses, he will not be replaced by Nobama. I would like a name of a candidate that is willing to run that encompasses you positions.