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,
Do I hear it said that Obama’s illegal and immoral acts may not be excused simply by virtue of him operating in a ‘bad economy?’
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/08/11/drill-baby-drill/#comment-151843
Et seq.
Say it ain’t so!
MS I’ve come to the same bad conclusions and the same worry for the near future.
Events begin to have the feel of moving us along. To what?
We keep voting for Democrats because we’re hopeful. And the Republicans are sooooo bad.
Mike,
While I have been an influence in the Democratic Politics I can say that I agree with you….However….I voted my conscience and did not have to hold my nose or even wince….I as you are aware I gave Obama the support even though I did not vote for him…..
I still think he is the lesser of the evils that were out there….Now if we could only get people to vote for real choice…
Swarthmore,
Once again: I use words carefully. What I say is just one end of a conversation. By a consistent refusal to address any points beyond the ones you wish to discuss, you’re limiting the conversation. That’s your right, I’ve done it myself in the past. I always try and be open when I do it, and generally say “this is what I’m interested in.” Which is a different beast than the implied “this is what should be considered” of your end of this conversation. One only addresses the individual’s tastes, the other making a universal judgment of worth.
By the way, while you have attempted to limit the conversation, I never insulted your morality. As near as I can tell this is the closet I came:
“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.”
It certainly lets you know what my morality leads me to think of your decision. It in no way says that your decision isn’t consistent with another form of morality. I would think in the context of the greater conversation here, it’d be pretty clear that the only person I hold to my standard is myself.
In fact, even within this same discussion, I later said this as clarification:
“I think that everyone here makes theirs based on noble ideals.”
Mike S.,
As usual well said. I agree with your review of the candidates in 2008 because I was originally a Kucinich backer until he was no longer a candidate and I then settled on Obama. I don’t regret the vote because as you suggested, McCain/Palin would have been disatrous. We will see who runs in 2012, but I don’t see any Dem challenging Obama. Maybe by then his “base” can get him to understand the importance of the rule of law, even in torture cases.
“I just find it hard to believe that, considering his background as a constitutional lawyer, and his past statements regarding indefinite detentions and military tribunals, he really does believe in this as policy.”
SL,
This is how I see it, but while I think it so doesn’t mean it is.
I believe that anyone who would run for President has to have a sociopathic tendency and a touch of narcissism. Who in hell would want that job except someone to whom power means everything? Who would want to go through the insanity of a campaign for President, without those pathological tendencies. What would characterize a mindset like this would be the unshakable belief that their presence as leader was absolutely necessary. In that sense ethical considerations mean nothing, political philosophy means nothing and Constitutional prohibition is only seen as an obstacle to overcome.
Now I could be mistaken but wasn’t Scalia also a constitutional
lawyer? Compare and contrast Scalia’s outlook with JT’s. Huge differences twixt the two. The President is a success junkie, who’s needs are to rise to the top of whatever he does.
This though may be only part of the explanation. As has been stated since taking office he has really continued the Bush II
foreign policy, which among the US Foreign Policy Establishment
has been canon. given his action why should we not believe he is doing what he thinks is in the Country’s best interests, even though most of us here know it actually is the initiator of
disastrous unintended consequences.
A further part of the explanation is that the CIA/NSA/Joint Chiefs are really running things, in the name of the powerful Plutocrats behind them. If true one could look back to JFK’s assassination as the time when the “coup” took effect. The hits on MLK and Malcolm X took out the power of the Civil Rights Movement. The RFK hit, he would have won the Presidency, gave the Presidency to Nixon, who considered himself THE foreign policy expert and so he had to go via well placed leaks to the
WAPO. Gerry Ford was the Warren Commission member who proposed the “single bullet theory.” Jimmy Carter has some ties with the military that were not really fully explained. Finally comes hack actor Ronnie, a stooge for his VP whose father had NAZI ties, was involved in a broken plot to assassinate FDR in a coup,
etc., etc,…..
Now is that last piece the truth? I don’t know and frankly don’t want to know. However, given the long, sophisticated political
maneuvering in human history, it is not even far fetched. What ever is afoot Obama must bear the onus of continuing what I see as illegal policies.
Now the side argument of this thread, tangential though highly pertinent is what to do about the 2012 election in light of this Administration’s continuance of torture and other repugnant, illegal activity? Since we live in a corrupt, plutocratic pseudo
democracy, with a two party system that only mirrors the plutocrats desires, do our votes mean anything? The argument can be validly put forth that they don’t, so the only ethical action is to either not vote, or vote for someone who can’t possibly win. I can’t say this is wrong per se, because I feel its’ tug upon my conscience.
I will vote though and it will be for Obama, who I presume will be the Democratic candidate. My reason is that while I think the system is rigged, elections I believe are used by the Plutocracy as a poll on how far they can go towards their ultimate aim, which is feudalism, before serious disruption occurs. Since things have already gotten very bad, I shudder to contemplate what a Republican regain of the Presidency would mean to us all and to humanity.
Now I must add the caveat that I voted for Obama and argued for others here to do so in 2008. My candidate, who I voted for in the primary, was Edwards because of his economic justice stance, which I believed was a winning campaign theme. So that shows how good I am as a political predictor. However, what would things be like now under a McCain/Palin Administration? Would they be worse or better. I personally believe infinitely worse, but as I’ve admitted my opinion may not be worth much.
If someone has a good idea on how to make things better by either not voting, or not voting for a major candidate, I can be convinced to change my mind. If the premise of that particular strategy though, is to let things get worse so that the people will open their eyes to rise up and sever their chains, I’ve been through that in the 60’s and it doesn’t work.
Hitcher….
If you are going low…then you need to see the sheen thread…. Bangcock….love story… If you are going High…then see HuffPo…
Which side is selling low papahiram and which high papalorum?
I forget.
Thanks for that hint AY.
Enlightenment just might be getting to a place in your life where you won’t vote for a lesser weevil.
Gyges, How can someone limit what you want to post? You want to know what I get insulted by is other posters calling into question one’s morality. It has happened to me over and over because of my support for democrats.
AY I had this same discussion in 2000. I was told by many even my own husband that Al Gore was the lesser of two evils. Yet I could see a certain reckless blood thirstiness in Bush which Al gore certainly possess. The same thing exists now to me. Obama has many shortcomings but we are better off with him than the crazy right wingers that are lining up.
Blouise,
I use my words very carefully.
“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).”
Who feels insulted? Me
When am I insulted? When X does Y to Z
Who is X? Somebody
What is Y? an attempt to force Z into a binary frame of reference.
What is Z? my decision.
Y is an attempt to limit conversation to a narrow frame of reference, when my decision rests on considerations outside that reference, not an attempt to force me to do anything. The implication of that attempt is that my considerations aren’t important. Which sure feels like an insult to me.
Blouise,
Apparently you do not understand how this web site really operates…..If you disagree with what is posted by someone else then…you can tell them and then they can start a verbal assault…..and then get really upset and then quit posting because it is interfering with other functioning in ones life…..
Gyges,
Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean trying to force you into anything … it just means disagreeing with you.
Swarthmore Mom,
You are correct about McCain. He has gone off the reservation ever since the 2008 elections.
AY,
Good thing you corrected that to America or the Birthers would have been all over us! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg McCain in 2007
AY McCain is tied for being the most conservative member of the US Senate. I think he is every bit as nutty as Palin. He is no maverick.
America…..Correction…..spell chech goofed it up…
Gyges,
I will say again….. I did not vote for Obama….I was going to Vote for either of the John’s….One lost out….The other got a nut job as a Veep candidate…. The lesser of the two evils forced me to vote for a 3rd party candidate or not vote at all…..I chose Nader….. I still offered my vocal support for Obama…. Now the Support hath waned….
What Wrath Hath God Brought Assunder to Africa…