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
Mike S.,
Very well said!
“I would welcome Mr. Spindell’s take on the subject.”
Buddha,
Unfortunately, I spent the day getting a medical checkup and it went well. Little did I know what a firestorm would erupt after my last post and that after dinner I would be called on to clarify my remarks, of which the last paragraph is below:
“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.”
However, following that there seems to have been a split with one part of the equation accusing the other of “cult” thinking and also a failure to live up to their purported ethics. For some reason, despite the totality of my comment I seemed to have been lumped in with those generalizations. I resent it. The “cult” thing was an attack and to be frank totally silly, in not only my case but in the cases of the others who were “lumped” in
to this “cult” idea. I read no one here defending Obama, yet some of us have admitted that it’s possible that we might vote for him.
If this is seen by some as a “sellout” of values, then from my perspective I see their position in that labeling as immature
politically and ultimately selfish personally. I’m ready, willing and able to join with any movement, that through non-violent means works to create a third force in this country.
It is one thing to say you’re not going to go along with a corrupt system and quite another to take steps, other than wishful thinking, to bring this change about. Ralph Nader garners about 2% of the vote with his third party candidacy, not enough to move anything towards a proper direction.
Having spent my life working with people oppressed by this society and having also experienced what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck with children to support, I see things in concrete rather than dialectical terms. The election of a Republican President will be a catastrophe for a majority of Americans. From a personal perspective I wouldn’t be alive today,
literally, without Medicare and I couldn’t afford to live on without Social Security. Under a Republican President, with a presumed Republican Congress, made up of increasingly insane individuals, my new found life might be short in term.
Nevertheless, if you’ve got a valid idea of how we can replace Obama, via an alternative strategy I am quite willing to take the risk and join in. If your only strategy is not to vote, or vote for someone with no chance, then I’ll follow my own instincts, which are anything but cult like. I believe that your ethical intentions are good if you follow that route and that there are strong arguments to be made for your side, so follow your inclinations by all means. However, if any of you are implying that I, or others of like mind on this thread are either sheep to the slaughter, cult-like, or insincere ethically,
then I believe that you are projecting your own selves upon others.
“Obama is Dick’s clone at least in this regard.”
Darth Vader had a brother?? I thought he just had a twin sister …
Anonymously Yours:
I am saying Dick Cheney. Obama is Dick’s clone at least in this regard.
R. Pennington,
I understand what you are saying…. There are just some both male and female that prefer Dick… I understand from the other side…I don’t play for the same team…
AY,
Now you know. I couldn’t keep my secret any longer. I’ve been cult-tivating followers!
😉
We just cant seem to get away from Dick, can we?
Blouise,
I am imagining an Italian woman is all sorts of positions….maybe she should start in the house…. Not to limit options….But it could prove to be a real proving ground….
Now…about me in dresses….a queen never kisses and tells….. But then again….I am not a Queen….But I would never tell if I wore a dress….Howard R. Hughes did and so did Hoover….See…
Hey man….all members of the cult are call man for simplicity… there is a Republic of Texas…
For those interested here is the web site for informational purpose… This is not Propaganda…it is the dissemination of information from there point of view…. if you have a problem with it…Join it or STFU ….is the motto..
SwM,
Ok … I’m going to give this some thought … fresh face, experienced, Latino appeal, possibly a female in position 1 or 2.
AY,
Ha … don’t try to dress it up … I know you just want to hang out with all those exotic, foreign women.
Options are always open associate of Elsine…. I am Fiscally conservative and socially liberal…..Thats why I know I should be the roving ambassador…
Blouise, I mean the latter and someone with appeal to the growing latino population. I have no one in mind though.
SwM,
AY would love to join us but he’s still hoping Texas will secede. Anyway, he’s a cult unto himself.
SwM,
Yeah … a fresh face but … the problem with a fresh face is the same problem people had with Obama (no history upon which to make a sound judgement, just a glib talker) or do you mean an experienced politician who hasn’t sought the Presidency yet?
AY We have about 5 or 6 “cult” members here. I don’t think you have joined us. I guess you are keeping your options open just hoping for that moderate republican to show up.
Blouise, I liked Kucinich in 2004 but he did not carry one state. We need a fresh face possibly a female.
Blouise,
I have not expressed an opinion on Dennis…He is a stand up guy so far…
Black Dress….all the time…them you don’t get confused…
AY,
Yeah … I was just on the thread mentioning The Shock Doctrine when I took some time to read over a few of the comments and was amazed that Elsine had been outed. I commented that I found myself belonging to too many cults and had no idea who my leader was nor what color I was supposed to wear on Saturdays.
Seriously for the moment … think ahead to 2016 … would you, personally, consider voting for Kucinich for President on either the Democratic ticket or on a third party ticket? I guess what I’m asking is what you think of Dennis Kucinich … I can’t remember if you’ve expressed an opinion about him.
Buddha,
So what’s the solution? Seems like the argumentation bulls-eye has gotten incredibly small. And even if you form the most precise argument aligned with the truth, what do you do when the normally rational crowd dismisses it out of seeking tranquility over the truth?