« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Report: Obama Admin Drafts Memo To Detain Terror Suspects Indefinitely
The latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics:
The Washington Post and Pro Publica report:
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
One administration official tells the reporters: "Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order."
But it doesn't sound like those groups are pysched about the news, exactly. Shane Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights told TPMmuckraker via email:
Prolonged imprisonment without trial is exactly the Guantanamo system that the President promised to shut down. Whatever form it takes - from Congress or the President's pen - it is anathema to the basic principles of American law and the courts will find it unconstitutional.
Kadidal continued:
Another thing that's odd about this is the idea that this detention authority would somehow be more transient if it were authorized through executive order (which can be reversed at the stroke of the president's pen) rather than a statute (which could sit on the books indefinitely). If the last eight years have taught us anything, it's that executive abuses, left to continue unchecked for many years, have a tendency to congeal into precedent.
I am going to encourage the Administration to go #$@% itself.
*cough*.
June 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, is this a Friday news dump?
June 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to encourage everyone I know to vote for Ralph Nader's dead body.
Anything has to be better than this.
June 26, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Right, Just.Another.Politician; a reputable civil liberties organization told you this was OK.
I saw through Obama more than a year ago and voted Green again.
Stop enabling Democrats, anybody who wants real change. And, yes, that's what it is.... enabling, just like the spouse of an alcoholic or addict.
June 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm glad that the majority of Americans had a better grasp on the actual choices of this election. No matter how bad Obama gets (and he's shaping up to be quite the stinker) - the alternative was McCain and the GOP, not the Greens.
I don't regret my vote for a moment.
June 26, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. I think Obama is substantially better than Bush or the alternatives.
June 26, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's playing chess, they're playing checkers. He has sooooo much on his plate. Would you rather have McCain. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
BUSH IN FUCKING BLACK!
June 26, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cowardice by Obama. Just sickening.
June 26, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that even if this is done by executive order that the Obama administration will work with the Congress on what to do with those detainees who can't be put on trial because information obtained on them was done via torture yet they are considered the worst of the worst.
I wonder why the Obama administration has to do that. What exactly is in some of these detainees' files.
Sounds like a Friday night dump.
June 26, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What should be done is clear. The torture makes any confession fruit of the poison tree. Thus if Obama holds to American principles of justice, they should be released.
June 26, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to wonder what's in the detainee files, while this approach isn't very good in terms of going around congress, I do have to disagree with David Kurtz. Gitmo is closing because of all of the torture incidences that occured there, not because of the legal morass.
June 26, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further one should hope the administration will make public of exactly which detainees are going to be detained indefinitely along with case files as to WHY they are going to be detained indefinitely.
June 26, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not happy about this either but what do you do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The guy should spend the rest of his life in the Colorado Supermax with his nephew, Ramzi Yousef. But how do put KSM on trial considering the fact that most of the info we got from him was obtained via torture. I mean, we waterboarded the guy 100 times. This is the legacy Bush handed down to Obama - but then the torture supporters don't care if KSM rots in jail for life, uncharged and unconvicted. Frankly, I'd like him to rot in jail for the rest of his life, but you need to try him for what he did. Unfortunately, we can't do that, thanks to Bush. That is, of course, absent new legislation that would come up with some sort of system to try folks like KSM.
June 26, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is release him or put him on trial -- an actual, open trial with all Constitutional protections in place. If the Bush Administration fouled the evidence, that's TFB. Prove him guilty or let him go.
June 26, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
June 26, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is exactly what has to be done, in order to comply with our system of justice. Just as we let the Alaska scumbags walk due to prosecutorial misconduct, we have to let "terrorists" go for the same reason.
June 26, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we do not have lawful evidence to convict even that scumbag, then even he goes free. What do we pay the CIA for? If we have no means to convict, declare KSM to be a turncoat, a great source of information and an informant. Release him in Afghanistan and have him tailed. Track those who come to kill or retrieve him and call it a day. True Americans don't p*ss themselves at the thought of a few moronic thugs walking the streets. What matters is if he is neutralized. Track him and let him go if we can't convict him.
June 27, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And where do you put Obama's re-election chances with the right wing noise machine blowing how Obama has proven himself a terrorist by letting KSM go?
June 27, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you can't counter moronic 'arguments' with principled reason, you don't deserve to win (see: john kerry). we elect the president to be commander in chief, not panderer in chief. wiping your ass with the constitution just to win elections isn't anything i would ever even think of supporting. a good presidnet will lead public opnion down the right path, not cower at it.
June 27, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been for the last thirty years (at least)? When has "principled reason" EVER won out over lies and demagoguery in an American presidential election?
And what's with the "you don't deserve to win (see: john kerry)" bullshit? Kerry lost because the media decided that the "issues" in 2004 were Kerry's "flip flops' and that he shot himself in the ass three times to get out of Vietnam with a medal. The American people are idiots, and most are more than happy the support policies that they would go to war over when committed by leaders in other countries.
I'm just as disgusted as anyone with Obama's record on civil liberties to date. It's despicable. But don't pretend that there wouldn't be political consequences, possibly severe ones, associated with doing the principled thing when it comes to issues associated with national security.
June 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of hard to claim 'moronic argument' if KSM, the media hailed "911 mastermind" instrumental in planning and killing of 3000 innocents, is released without charge and turns up on the next Bin Laden video again vowing Jihad against the torture loving Americans.
You can say it's a principled stand all you want, but Americans overall will see it as proving true the Cheney GOP line of Obama making us less safe.
Add another attack, domestic or foreign, claimed by KSM and not only will Obama kill his future re-election chances, but bring the whole party with him as the party of principled naive weaklings that can't govern in the real world.
Sorry, but your 'principled' argument is fatuous.
June 28, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oglibera, as you saying that torture worked with KSM? I thought torture didn't work!
June 27, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should clarify what I wrote. The fact that the guy was tortured at all taints pretty much everything that he told us, in addition to the fact that he was held for months/years in a black site with no legal representation. Any lawyer worth his/her weight would use even one instance of torture used on the guy as the grounds for dismissing anything he told us. And he may have said, "I was the 9/11 mastermind", after a torture session. But that would have been unnecessary torture. This guy would have screamed from the mountaintops that he was the mastermind behind the attacks simply if we said to him, "You weren't the mastermind. We heard from a bunch of folks that you were just a errand boy." This guy liked playing international terrorist more than anything - the Islamic stuff was just a convenient vehicle for him to play that role.
June 28, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
the fact that most of the info we got from him was obtained via torture.
i thought we got the info from him before he was tortured. after he was tortured he told us that saddam worked with al qaeda. which is what we wanted to hear, but has no bearing on KSM's crimes. (real crimes as opposed to thoughtcrimes or precrimes)
June 27, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have remained cautiously optimistic in the face of Obama's reluctance to deliver what has been promised. With seven and a half years left to go, I've been thinking his plan is to go slow and steady, one step at a time.
But today my disappointment becomes more bitter. This is betrayal.
June 26, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way Obama is going, you should make that "with three and a half years to go".
June 29, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
UPDATE: POLITICO states that the WH DENIES this exists.
"A White House official disputes the accuracy of the WaPo-ProPublica report that the administration has drafted an order to hold some detainees indefinitely. "There is no draft executive order," the aide said. "The task force has not finished its work on these issues."" - via www.politico.com/politico44
June 26, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Administration" didn't draft an executive order - a member of the DOJ drafted it.
Or, if you prefer, the executive order is in final form, not draft form.
Or, it is complete except for the "Draft" stamp being placed on it.
This is the same type of misleading answer given out by any number of Bush press agents and White House spokespersons.
June 28, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's one other reason for closing GTMO -- the whole reason there's a prison there was that GTMO is a "constitution-free zone". At least if the residents of GTMO were transferred to Super Max, the courts could theoretically intervene.
Not much consolation, but some.
June 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The courts can intervene anyway. The Supreme Court said so.
June 27, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
White House is disputing the WaPo article as FALSE.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/
"A White House official disputes the accuracy of the WaPo-ProPublica report that the administration has drafted an order to hold some detainees indefinitely. "There is no draft executive order."
June 26, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is true, so what? What work still needs to be done? You open the meeting. Everyone reads the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution, along with Article I Section 9. You adjourn. Done.
June 26, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maritza you have to be the most gullible person in your neighborhood. Obama could piss on your face, and tell you it's raining, and you would believe him.
You probably still think that Obama didn't lie when he promised to fillibuster any FISA bill with telecom immunity, etc.
June 27, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have some nerve calling someone gullible. As much as the Left and the Right spit on the media for being inept and biased, you guys are pretty quick to believe anything that they report so long as it supports the little narrative you have going in your head.
How many times does the media have to piss on you before you learn to believe none of what you hear and half of what you see?
June 27, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have more nerve than all the Dem Senators combined.
this has nothing to do with the media, or the unbelievable denials from the WH. (reminds me of Bush saying he didn't have war plans on his desk months after he requested battle plans for Iraq - cuz they were in a computer file, not papers on the resolute desk)
Obama gave a major speech where he said he wanted a system to hold people forever with no trials.
Obviously Obama doesn't ad-lib his speeches, so this was an idea that they have discussed, gamed out, planned for, etc. That alone is upsetting and horrible coming from a constitutional scholar.
You say I shouldn't believe the media, blah, blah, like I've never heard of Bob Somerby. I'm basing my comments on what the President himself has said, and his spokesman has said. I'm not relying on any second hand sources here.
Before you lecture me on not believing what you see and hear go and read the press conference from 5-21 on the WH website.
----------------------------------------------
MR. GIBBS: Well, and what the President, I think, outlined quite clearly in the plan was we obviously have rules relating to war, but instead of -- I mean, the whole theme of the speech was what we have right now at Guantanamo doesn't work. We have ad hoc patchwork of legal theories, some being undone by courts across our country today. What the President wants to do with the fifth basket, as he termed it, of detainees, is work with Congress and the courts to ensure that whatever system is set up is done through a means where -- using a phrase that he's used many times -- somebody watches the watcher. I think what got us into a series of the hasty decisions that the President talked about yesterday was one person or one group of people thought they alone had a legal theory that could govern all of what we did at Guantanamo Bay.
We found that that's not working. We found that courts have ruled -- by judges appointed by the very administration that set that up -- have decided that they don't have the authority to do some of the things that they're doing, or they have to grant certain rights to detainees, or they don't have the evidence to hold them for what they've been charged with. That's why we're in this mess.
But if the President didn't read to you a piece of legislation yesterday about basket number five, it's because he intends to work with Congress and to ensure that a process complies with the laws of our country in order to make progress. But the notion that we're not making progress on this I think is disputed -- I'm guessing that your network has done stories on our decision on military commissions, I'm guessing your network has done stories on the decision of the Justice Department to transfer a detainee to New York 11 years after committing a series of violent acts to bring them to justice.
So the notion that progress isn't being made I think just isn't borne out by the facts.
Q Yes, but this is something new. This is holding somebody indefinitely.
MR. GIBBS: Well, unfortunately, Jill, it's not something new. (Laughter.)
Q I shouldn't say that, let's go back a hundred years --
MR. GIBBS: We've been doing it for going on seven years.
Q -- to American traditional legal approaches. So aren't you --
MR. GIBBS: How's it different than -- I don't think it's -- let me just say for the umpteenth time, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But if somebody is picked up on a battlefield you can detain that person for the length of the conflict. I think that's fairly well-established.
But, again, what the President wants to do is something that meets with agreement across a broad spectrum of people in Congress. I think that's what's important, that somebody as he has said on any number of government things that somebody has to watch the watchers, that not one person or one group of people is going to make a decision and justify it legally that they're going to work within a process that does this stuff adequately.
June 28, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like Obama is a bit of a wimp. He shies away from taking a courageous stand on everything, and has become taken over by the status quo.
I kind of expected that as soon as he got in office he would ignore all the Bush regime's misdeeds with his "looking forward" rhetoric but I am suprised he has gone so far as to replicate those illegal policies as his own.
So what principle is the line in the sand he won't abandon?
June 26, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem. He draws lines in the sand rather than buildd walls on bedrock.
June 26, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't going to be torturing anybody. I don't think it is a matter of being a wimp but rather just what kind of shit that Bush has left him. Obama wants to close Gitmo but the Congress won't even give him money to do that.
June 26, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure he wouldn't? Closing Gitmo is an empty gesture if he institutes indefinite detention somewhere else.
June 26, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likely not, Stanley McChrystal will be handling that part of the operation. Obama loves him some DADT.
June 26, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you want proof that he's not going to torture? Since he's giving the FBI MORE POWER in interrogations of terrorist suspects, and the FBI DOES NOT Torture, then it's pretty obvious that they won't on his watch.
June 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAW! The FBI doesn't torture. Their too busy doing other things!
"The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here."
June 26, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama wants to close Gitmo but the Congress won't even give him money to do that."
With all the ways Obama has to obtain funds, this is a complete cop-out.
As Commander-in-Chief, Obama can order the Military to abandon Guantanimo completely, not just close the "Detention Facility" there. Obama can also order the military to transfer the prisoners there to where ever he wants them transferred - Diego Garcia, the "secret sites in Poland, or to federal prisons in the USA.
All Obama needs is the guts to take action.
.
June 29, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At first I thought he was talking about David Vitter not bible David!!!!
June 26, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there ever a one top story on TPM about President Obama that is positive? It's seems all the so called progressive websites are taking money from corporate America.
Even before Obama was President we heard the typical Obama is a wimp and he's just like Bush. What a bunch of scheming liars. If he was just like Bush, the Republican Party would be voting with him 100% of the time! Do you know why? They haven't made the slightest change to the middle.
There was a false story about John Kerry supporting a trigger. The corporate attacks have gotten so bad that I'm almost in favor of President Obama using the CIA on these folks.
There are a couple of good vids on Youtube with George Carlin. "George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America" and "George Carlin on Our Similarities." It's obvious stuff, but true.
June 26, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real change would have been Kucinich. But America isn't ready for real change we can believe in.
We are, however, ready for centrists.
June 26, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garuda, I wish I could rec your comment. ...It's embarrassing!
June 27, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two disparate thoughts:
1) Either our Constitution works, and we can live with it, or we throw it out and start again. From Ollie North's whining to Congress about "There are bad guys out there" to the entire Junior Bush show, the subtext on the right has been "The Constitution is for pansies."
2) As for Greens, Nader, and all things third party: sorry, but you only have two issues to work on, public financing and Instant Runoff Voting. They're the only way you're funded on a level field, and voting for you isn't a vote for the worse of the two major parties.
Get on it.
I'm a hard-core Dem, but I donate to both causes, to encourage more representative government.
June 26, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Green Party has been working, steadily, to get IRV adopted all over the place, ever since the 2000 election. Sadly, we Greens have found the effort thwarted at many turns by--doubly sadly--the Democratic Party. As it happens, it's in the Democratic Party's best interests that the Green Party retain its status as sidelined and marginalized scapegoats... and the best way for the Dems to perpetuate that is, of course, to prevent the adoption of any electoral reform (such as IRV) that may eliminate the spoiler dilemma and allow progressives to vote their conscience without fear of inadvertently aiding the Republican candidate. That fear, the Democratic Party knows, is the only thing that keeps progressive American voters punching the chad next to the Democratic candidate year after year, no matter how regressive he or she may be.
So, anyway, yes, we Greens know very, very well that IRV (and full public financing) are necessary precursors to any genuine progressive third-party participation in our electoral system. And we've been working hard at it. And today's news about indefinite detention only reminds us all of the severe need for genuine progressive third-party participation in our electoral system. Which we've also been working hard at. But we Greens can't do it alone.
If you would like to join us in the fight for this necessary electoral reform that can loosen the Democrats' stranglehold on our nation's progressive electorate and bring a long-overdue end to the spoiler dilemma, please sign up with (and contribute to) the Center for Voting and Democracy, at www.fairvote.org
They're doing good work, and they deserve your support.
Thanks,
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
June 26, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations."
That sentence doesn't even say that the "three government officials" are actually, you know, INVOLVED in the deliberations, just that they possess "knowledge" of the White House deliberations (who's been hanging around the water cooler again?). I have no doubt someone at those meetings said that the White House could simply continue GWB's policy, but that is NOT the same as planning to continue said policy.
Of course, you wouldn't be able to piss and moan and threaten to "go Nader" if you actually read what the article contains instead of just the headline, now could you?
June 26, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenzilla did a pretty good critique of how sloppy the story was. The real problem here is that the story is very believable in light of Obama's civil liberties speech where he described the "prolonged detention" program he wants to institute.
Since WaPo and Politico are both right-wing stenographers, maybe this story just represents an effort to put pressure on Obama to actually implement the program he described.
June 27, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today is the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Andy Worthington has a comment on his blog and explains how this day came about.
Mr. Worthington is probably the best specialist right now on all the Guantanamo detainees. He wrote the book The Guantanamo files His blog is: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/
June 26, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Worthington notes as of 06/09 that detainees are still being force fed. They are still on a hunger strike.
Do we plan to force-feed them indefinitely? Do we think we might ever try force-feeding them food that is legal to eat, according to their religion? Would they still fast?
Do we plan to keep them in perpetual solitary?
Are we punishing them?
How can we know we are not punishing them?
June 26, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an absolute outrage! Everyone, even scum are entitled to a day in court to challenge their detention. If we have no evidence that can be lawfully used, then even the guilty must go free. If we give up that sacred principle, then we truly have nothing left. I did not vote and send money to Obama to make him a king, I will happily send money to primary challengers if he thinks that he can get away with this. I will never support Obama if he is nothing more than Bush with brains and the ability to sell Bush policies. Habeas corpus for all or liberty for none.
June 26, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, but, you all don't mind Obama's lies to workers, breaking his promises to long suffering displaced American citizen workers. You don't mind his lying about fighting more outsourcing, and then last Friday fast tracking more outsourcing to India. You didn't bat an eye over his being found to be a liar about not having lobbyists in his administration, and each and every member of his cabinet is either an pro-outsourcing, betray the worker lobbyist or corrupt pol in the lobbyist's pockets, kee-rect?
Sooooo... like the German people in the '40s, who didn't mind Hitler tossing first the Jews, then they gays, then the gypsies and the Poles in death camps, but then were shocked when the insanity started to hurt them.. do you expect any sympathy or respect for your cavalier, fascistic indifference to the suffering imposed upon the poor and struggling middle class Americans? I'm sure you haven't given a though to exactly what cap & trade will mean, despite the fact that in the UK, the EU, and especially Spain it's been proven to not only be a complete failure, but something that creates even worse poverty, job loss and suffering. Most likely, you resent poor and struggling citizens, you know, those you dismiss as, "the masses". Rather like the democrats who were the party of slavery and Jim Crow, oppression and hatred of those you choose to reduce to lesser thans, comes naturally to you?
Here's a wake up call for you.. like the so called "good" Germans, you've allowed others to be persecuted and oppressed, smug in your belief that it can't happen to "special" types like yourself.. well, they will come for you and no one will speak for you, and no one will care when you are dispossessed. You betrayed civil rights, you betrayed the issues you feigned commitment to.
June 27, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is baloney.
That Obama is a pragmatist and disappoints the cause of justice in being pragmatic does not make him a fascist.
I am profoundly disappointed if he has, in fact, written an executive order to hold anyone who has not been charged with a crime. Such an order violates the very bedrock of legal tradition concerning human rights -- rights that are the currency of democracy. If this report is accurate and such a grevious violation of our trust has occurred, it is time for those of us who were inspired and encouraged by the Obama candidacy to continue the movement without him. We must insist that the government of the United States be accountable to our constitution and the principles it proposes to underwrite.
However to imagine the Obama regime as a fascist project is wildly inaccurate and the facts you present are erroneous.
June 27, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatist?
He is a flat out liar. While I don't agree with everything written in it,there is far more truth in the post you call baloney than there is in your denial of the clear truth that Obama is a massive liar and hypocrite whose Presidency is devoted to keeping the rich richer and the empire at war. Pragmatist indeed.
June 27, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
googling "obama outsourcing india" is not bringing up any hits that I can see to support this. Do you have a link?
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of your comment are pretty far off the rails, and I write as someone who has offered a lot of criticism of Obama.
So I'm afraid you gotta offer some substantiation of the claims in paragraph 1.
July 3, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who torture or protect those who do are the antithesis of everything this nation has stood for and is bringing dishonor for the millions of soldiers and civilians who have given their lives these past 250 years.
Civilized people DO NOT TORTURE... PERIOD!!
My conscience will not allow me to support ANY person or party who treats or supports those who treats ANYONE in this manner.
I will NEVER support Republican or Democrats again, because for me, every other policy or tax or law is fundamentally less important than this one concept... that treating other human beings with dignity and not subjecting them to actions which are even illegal for animals... is part of what makes us a civilization.
Anything less is nothing but barbaric, and I have NO intention of teaching my children otherwise.
After all, people... don't we owe it to our children to at least teach them that human beings... no matter what race or what they have done... deserve some dignity, and those people who believe they deserve to be tortured... for ANY reason... are in fact just as bad as the guilty?
If we cannot even teach them this... we have totally lost the humanity part of being human... and our civilization (and probably world) is doomed for destruction by future generations... because are being taught that one of the most horrendous act known throughout history... is now in vogue... IMHO
June 27, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'll be accused of being an Obama Lover, blinded to his faults by my infatuation, but here's what I think: he's got to keep presidential control for now because if he doesn't, Congress will have too much say in whether Guantanamo closes. He wants to close it by fiat, so he needs fiat powers. Once he's closed it and relocated the prisoners, he can relinquish the power to detain indefinitely, etc. (that will be the true test, as no politician willingly lets go of power once he's got it).
June 27, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it:
"he's got to keep presidential control for now because if he doesn't, Congress will have too much say in whether Guantanamo closes."
Obama doesn't have presidential control now. Congress is refusing to fund closing the detention facility at Guantanimo and Obama is lying down and letting Congress rule.
It would be easy for Obama to issue an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanimo and using his powers of Commander-in-Chief to order the military to move all the prisoners there to federal prisons in the USA.
Obama is letting Congress dictate policy to him.
.
June 29, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama sold us "CHANGE we can believe in." I think a more accurate statement would have been "COMPETENCE we can believe in." He's is an obviously refreshing change from Bush in his general ability - great to see non-cronies in political appointee roles, and great to see rational foreign policy in the face of the Iranian crisis.
But CHANGE? Sorry, the economic policy of this team is laughable - let the bankers run everything on tax payer money is not change. Healthcare? Let 10,000 lobbyists weigh in a kinda-sorta-universal payer system is not the systemic change required. Transportation? We need public transit and smart growth; Obama's buying car companies and paying for highway reconstruction. Iraq? "Military advisors" will be hanging out for years, a la Kennedy in Vietnam. War on Terror? Well it IS a matter of national security...etc.
Obama is shaping up to be Clinton with a functional marriage.
June 27, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYABO
there is only one principle worth fighting for: the glory of Obama
striving for a more perfect union, the rule of law, and protecting the constituion is so boring.
we should have a daddy-president who keeps us safe, no matter what laws that violates
June 27, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The administration is going to wake up in 2 years and wonder where all its donors, volunteers, and enthusiastic supporters went.
June 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, they will still have our communications monitored illegaly thanks to Senator Obama folding like a house of cards on the FISA bill. The FBI will still be monitoring bank accounts illegally, or former supporters will be detained indefinately - because they might commit future crimes based on their expressed dissapointments with Obama
June 27, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Terrorism suspects"
That could potentially be any American protesting in the streets since that has been defined as terrorism.
Americans will soon be protesting against what the admin is NOT doing to protect the environment.
Get ready for the green 'terrorists.'
June 27, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So let's hear from the Obama apologists : What gives?
WELL??
Someone please post a vid link to Obama on campaign trail saying he would do the exact opposite - as I swear he did.
This is a disgrace. :(
June 27, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, closing GITMO isn't an easy thing to do under the circumstances but Obama has committed to doing it. The Democratic senators abandoned him completely on relocating the detainees so Obama probably realizes that nobody but he will take the heat for whatever happens to GITMO and the detainees. Second, there is no point in debating something that hasn't happened yet and may not happen at all, such as these rumors of an executive order re GITMO. Third, this topic has been beaten to death and, quite frankly, there are other and much more important issues to worry about. For instance, did you hear that the House passed a Green energy and global warming bill yesterday? Or that the Senate is trying to draft a health care reform bill? Or that Iran is cracking down the middle? Or . . .
June 27, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
you and Maritza should both take your heads out of the sand together, if you are nervous about that, I can count down from three for you both
June 27, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
wbgonne, you stand exposed as a liar, a fraud and a troll. Your credibility is exactly zero. You make shit up, you refuse to cite evidence for your claims, you cherry-pick quotes to make people appear to say the opposite of what they actually are saying. So go on posting here, but don't expect to be taken seriously by people who can actually think.
June 28, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect. Glenn Greenwald's Clown Posse citing itself for substantiation. Or, maybe . . . maybe you are Greenwald himself working some more of the sock-puppetry for which he is infamous.
BTW: How did GG's moneygrubbing campaign go over? I'd imagine that bashing Obama would bring in a few Looney Left bucks, but times must be tough since the Great Satan (Bush) left office. But, hey! It's not about what's best for the country, it's what's in it for me that counts.
Let me know if or when you have an original thought. Otherwise, just run along now.
June 28, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you have tacitly admitted...
.... that you did, in fact, cherry-pick from Feingold's statement to make it appear that he said something 180 degrees from what he actually said -- in other words, that you lied, as Greenwald demonstrated.
.... that, in fact, when you last claimed that I had cited a "Tom Cruise movie" for documentation, what I'd actually linked to was an extended discussion on the Rachel Maddow show of Obama's "preventive detention" proposal, and which demonstrated, with actual quotes from the president himself, that that was exactly what he was proposing, contrary to your baseless claim;
.... that, in fact, the reference to Minority Report (the "Tom Cruise movie") constituted 4.6% of that segment by time, and 2.3% of that segment by word count -- in other words, that it was another example of your notorious cherry-picking when the evidence is inconvenient, which is exactly what Greenwald ripped you a new one for (link # 1 in my previous comment);
.... that New York Times reportage, linked to in my replies, corroborated Greenwald, Maddow
and Warren on the preventive detention issue;
.... that Greenwald's "clown posse" includes folks like veteran NYT columnist Bob Herbert (who, like Greenwald, also has plenty of good things to say about Obama when they are deserved), Jeremy Stone, head of the Federation of American Scientists, Ithaca College's independent media research center, and The Economist;
.... that you deliberately and consistently mischaracterize what Greenwald has written;
.... and therefore, that, unable to actually contest Greenwald's points, you are reduced to making strawmen of them in a feeble and transparent attempt to distract;
.... that those you smear as 'third-rate" are actually consistently praised by colleagues in journalism and by the Columbia Journalism Review;
.... that you can't be bothered even to use the copy and paste function in your computer's OS to, you know, back up a single claim you make;
.... that if you had been able to contest or refute a single point I, Greenwald, or GM made in the posts I linked to, you would have done so here;
.... that you didn't actually read anything in the posts I linked to, other than to check names so that you can repeat empty ad hominems to cover up for your inability to cite facts and discuss issues, and that you insult the intelligence of your readers by hoping that nobody else would bother to check and read the links and thereby discover what a colossal fraud you actually are.
July 2, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Late breaking: wbgonne channels John Yoo. Or maybe the other way around. Hard to tell sometimes.
In fact, maybe someone here can guess whether the following quote comes from Yoo or wbgonne:
Answer: Yoo.
Pretty hard to tell, though, wasn't it?
August 3, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's next for Gitmo?
Check out http://gitmotourism.blogspot.com
June 27, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is fucked up and cowardly. I knew Obama would disappoint on some issues - but come on.
June 27, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you commenting here are being utter idiots. Obama is not a Dictator, he has to play the hand of cards he's been dealt. "Three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations" sounds like the leak was deliberate. Which means the O Admin wants to see what kind of hand he has.
We do know that some of these guys really are bad people. You know, the kind of people who will behead somebody in front of cameras to make a point. Nobody wants them (except the Taliban and Al Qaeda). And you can't just go to the border and dump them somewhere.
Obama didn't create this situation. I think it's safe to say he's trying to resolve it with the minimum amount of political damage. Damage which could easily affect other initiatives.
For those of you feigning outrage, you're only proving that the looney left is just as retarded as the looney right.
June 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see. so the only two choices are to "Detain Terror Suspects Indefinitely" OR Set them free in the continental United States.
Buh? Ever hear of a T R I A L? Find them guilty, and them lock them up. Otherwise, they are innocent and you set them free.
However, the practice of detaining terror suspects indefinitely is wrong. It was wrong when W did it, and it will be wrong when Obama does it.
Only thing is -- W didnt decry its use and swear to put a stop to it. Obama did.
Disgusting.
June 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, ignoring the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regularly engaged in brutality on a scale that Jeffrey Dahmer would appreciate, we'll just "set everybody free" who doesn't get a proper trial?
So, where are you planning on setting them free? The low hanging fruit has already been picked. Those detainees that are readily identifiable as mistakenly incarcerated have been released. Nobody wants these guys. It's not politically viable to just "set them free" here, nor would any of our friends appreciate us dumping them at their border.
It's not a clean situation. It's dirty. It's ugly as all fuck. But making a blanket observation that we should simply "set them free" (without any party willing to take them) because they can't get a fair trial is nuts. And yes, I agree it's not fair to those detainees that aren't guilty of terrorist activities--assuming that they exist.
Until we have a resolution on where we can release these guys--and most of them will be eventually released, I would imagine, because of a lack of evidence--then they have to stay incarcerated. What other alternative is there? For all practical purposes, these guys are prisoners of war and the war is still going on.
June 28, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we now letting the Taliban and Al Queda set our standards of conduct for us?
.
June 29, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spam rhetorical questions much?
June 29, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your comment:
"the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regularly engaged in brutality on a scale that Jeffrey Dahmer would appreciate, we'll just "set everybody free" who doesn't get a proper trial?"
Just because the Taliban and Al Queda treat people brutally doesn't mean that the USA must abandon its principles to match their brutality.
The basis of the American judicial system is that everyone, not just a non-terrorist, is entitled to a presumption of innocense until convicted in a court of law. If evidence of their guilt doesn't exist, they should be set free.
What is at issue here is that the evidence for a conviction doesn't exist (or they would be tried and convicted) and their treatment (torture) has turned them into US hating potential terrorists.
The reasoning that we cannot turn them loose now because we treated them so bad that they hate us has no foundation in any legal system.
.
June 30, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're trying too hard and you're doing it all wrong. What you should have said was "What if there was a war and no one came?" or "If we all would just love one another then there would be no war".
And we would all be amazed with your intuition and perception.
Also, confirming that the world would be a lovely place if we lived in your alternate reality universe. Please go back there.
June 30, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The alternate universe you want me to return to contains a Bill of Rights, the concept that any individual accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to a timely trial if accused of any crime.
Yours seems to contain indefinite incarceration at the whim of a chief executive or government official, no bill of rights, and no right to a trial when accused of a crime.
I much prefer mine.
July 2, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think, "We know some of these people are really bad guys."? All the cases that have become public so far show that isn't true. The so-called "evidence" against them has been downright embarrassing, it was so flimsy and tenuous. Holding a guy for seven years because another guy arrested at the same hostel as him supposedly made some phone calls to Afghanistan? We know of at least seven who were grabbed by mistake because they were let go. How many more are still being held because nobody is willing to admit they were grabbed by mistake? How many of those being held now were the next-door neighbor who was grabbed because the guy they were supposed to arrest wasn't home?
"Rule of Law" doesn't mean giving trials only to people you are sure you can convict, then setting up a different kind of proceeding where you can be sure of convicting some more, and keeping the rest in prison forever because convicting them is too hard. "Fair trial" doesn't mean the government is certain of getting a conviction. That's called a "show trial".
If you don't have evidence to convict, what is your basis for saying a person is dangerous?
June 27, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether you have, or don't have, sufficient evidence to convict, has nothing to do with whether a person is dangerous or not.
I'm not defending the Bush created system of renditions, torture, and incarceration at Guantanamo Bay. I'm saying the the best way to terminate this system (with the least political damage) is to unwind it responsibly.
If a detainee can be released--for whatever reason--in such a way that another injustice isn't committed, then I'm all for it. Dumping detainees into environments where they aren't welcome isn't responsible. Or worse, releasing them so they can rejoin the Taliban or Al Qaeda and commit further atrocities isn't responsible.
Sometimes your only responsible choice in a bad situation is the least ugly one. We'll see.
June 28, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If a detainee can be released--for whatever reason--in such a way that another injustice isn't committed, then I'm all for it."
And, if the injustice being committed is retaining prisoners when there is no evidence available to convict them of any crime?
Being picked up on the "battlefield" as a crime is ridiculous since all of Iraq was considered a battlefield.
And, if the only reason for keeping them prisoners is that they are so pissed off at the treatment (torture) they received while incarcerated that they are likely to become "terrorists" if released?
The argument that they should remain incarcerated because their release might create another "injustice" is vague and vacuous.
.
June 29, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A list of detainees can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees
"Being picked up on the "battlefield" as a crime is ridiculous since all of Iraq was considered a battlefield."
You'll note, hopefully, that not one of them came from Iraq.
You also failed to note the difficulty in determining where these detainees might be released--given their various nationalities and backgrounds--when we decide to release them.
Also, confirming that I'm a vague and vacuous person.
June 29, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not saying you are a vague or vacuous person.
Stating that your arguments are vague and vacuous.
There have been numerous cases where "detainees" have been determined to be innocent of any crimes and the Bush Administration released them. What is most troubling is that there are also "detainees" who have been tortured to the point that they are likely to hate the USA with a passion and try to get revenge.
Your position that the USA has to hold these people indefinitely because they were tortured and they now hate the USA is untenable, unjust, and is contrary to the basic moral foundations of US society.
July 2, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not, we are in a war, and some of these people we objectively know are too dangerous to be released.
But before people go on their latest "I'm disappointed in Obama" rant, which seem to come rather easily to some, Let's recognize a few things first.
First, this is not an undisputed news item. Until it is, we should give it no more credit than we do any other rumor.
Second, this is not a surprise. He told us there would be some folks he would lock up indefinitely
Third, this group that he's planning on locking up in this fashion are not even the majority of prisoners. He's sending some home, putting some on trial in our regular courts, some on trial in military tribunals, and only some are to be indefinitely detained.
That, as opposed to indefinitely detaining EVERYONE.
Fourth, his plans are to do this under Congressional oversight, so this isn't just some executive branch practice.
He is doing much that the previous president refused to do, and his system is objectively better than Bush's.
June 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
what a crock
you remind me of "conservatives" who only come around to progressive ways of thinking when something happens to them personally.
so it is OK to torture people forever with no evidence of their guilt, so long as it isn't ALL prisoners? That is about as un-American as it gets pal.
you say "some of these people we objectively know are too dangerous to be released"
if that is the case, it should be rather simple to have them convicted in court, according to our legal system.
Instead, we have our King decide who will get what type of legal process, based on his gut feeling, the amount of evidence and the likelyhood of convicting them.
Is that what passes for American Democratic values? Due process for those who will surely be convicted, and an "ad-hoc legal approach" for the remainder - exactly what Obama criticized in his boffo hypocrital speech at the national archives.
It is said to read the moronic comments of those who are OK with giving away all of our rights and freedoms piece by piece because they are chickenshit scared of da terrists, and only a daddy figure knows best and can keep us safe in our beds at night.
Grow a pair, and understand that our legal system has worked for hundreds of years just fine, and terrorism is nothing new that justifies undoing all of our protections from the government, incrementally or all at once.
June 27, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very distressing to read but I have to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this. Remember, the circumstances of this whole messed up detention system have to be dealt with in a lawful and legitimate way -- Obama has been handed a bucket of shit. A stroke of the pen is not going to erase the magnitude of the institutional damage that the previous administration wrought on this country. The outcry has been fierce about these detainees and I think the DOJ is moving forward as best it can under the circumstances.
Call me an apologist, but the pressure of hate continually put on this president without evidence of any real track record, day after day, has got to give any person pause. He's GOT to ignore the clamor from all sides in order to set in cement a rule of law that cannot be abused willy-nilly again. DADT falls in this category as well. By voting for Obama I was hoping to see a leader that would use his head, not just his gut or his corrupt self image. I am seeing that.
The disgust I feel toward the Bush administration and more and more toward the Clinton administration cannot get in the way of trying to understand that what has been done will not be easily undone. The moment I saw those planes hit the Twin Towers in New York was a moment of knowing that we as Americans were in for a very long ride for what is held most dear to us as citizens. I think Obama is keeping the ultimate goal clear and is trying to remove the debris of eight years and more of stupidity and hubris. I don't think he likes it any more than I do.
June 27, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
To allow someone... ANYONE... to torture or cause torture, and not press for accountability, is discusting, as far as I am concerned... especially since we common folk are pretty much without the power to do so.
However, we vote in people who are supposed to have an obligation to the rules of law, as well as ethical convictions to promote our heritage and what we have stood for in these couple hundred years.
Has our society gone so far downhill that people no long stand up,,, whether politically expedient or not... to stop the horrendous acts of others?
These people in Washington are the ones MOST capable of stopping and preventing this behavior, and their oaths of office are for our Constitution and nation, not their own agendas and protection of their political parties or friends!
... and currently, those we have honored with this obligation have decided prosecuting people who are in or have had power, is no longer applicable.... so apparently those in charge can murder, rape, pillage... whatever... as long as THEY believe it is the right thing to do.
Commoners, however, will still pay the maximum price and may be executed for the same crimes... even if they also believe they have a good reason and it is the right thing to do...
June 27, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a liar and hypocrite. It's just that simple. All the hoo ha in the world rationalizing why he is a Bush clone on all these issues now that he's President cannot hide this plain and simple truth. And it isn't a problem solely because he has adopted Bush's illegal and immoral approach. It is a problem because this approach is bad for our country. This continuation of lawless imperialism makes the United States the primary agent of catastrophic violence and oppression on earth. And it is not the sort of policy that will never have an effect on the daily lives of Americans. That has already happened. It is only a matter of time before these totalitarian policies begin to become openly oppressive here at home too. Because of this lawless, dictatorial approach, Obama, like Bush before him is a tyrant. Yes, he's better than Bush, but only on the margins and yes I still think he was the best of the field last year and would never want McCain. But Obama's adoption of the imperial positions and his embracing of totalitarian and dictatorial methods demonstrates that change is the last thing that will happen under his watch. How sad and how pathetic. He can bask in the glow of his current popularity, but history will take a dim view of him and it won't take long as the final and fatal blows against the dream that was America are delivered by teflon Democrat from Illinois.
June 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a fool! This story has been updated to say that President Obama has NOT signed this executive order! You are a complete wingnut, go back to your loser party of other like minded idiots. Maybe you can all live on an island and screw that up, too!
June 27, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with all of you idiots?! This story by WAPO has once again been proven incorrect. How many times has that happened? How many times are you idiots going to jump the gun? This President has been in office for 5 months and done more good in that short period of time than the previous horrible administration did in 8 very bad years. The patience level being shown here is that of a 2 year old child, grow up people, stop whining. The wingnuts will always be losers and in the wrong and the rest of you need to stop taking misleading stories at face value, stop listening to idiot pundits who know nothing and just want higher ratings. 5 months is a very short period of time, it didn't take you people long to turn on him did it? Where were you when bush and cheney were fear mongering and taking away our rights? Most of you were cowering and afraid to speak up and out, the stupid wingnuts were just fine with that garbage. Now that we finally have a good, intelligent man in office you are complaining about everything. Grow Up! Wingnuts go back to your fixed news and your loser party!
June 27, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This President has been in office for 5 months and done more good in that short period of time than the previous horrible administration did in 8 very bad years."
Just out of curiosity, like what? What good has he done in five months? What's better than it was?
June 28, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Signed: Monday, June 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
Signed: Wednesday, April 21, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed: Monday, March 30, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed: Friday, March 20, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Signed: Tuesday, February 17, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
Signed: Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Signed: Thursday, January 29, 2009
June 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the drill is to never focus on the good President Obama does or says. Forget the fact he has to work with Congress rather than be dictator and chief like George Bush was.
Forget the fact that some cases are more complex than others.
Forget that it was only one of many proposals.
Don't these pretend liberals on the blogs have parents that taught them not to decieve people? They are outraged every time President Obama burps. He has the most complex job in the world. He's also dealing with a corrupt and corporate media.
June 27, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay,
well I am not surprised by this because the president already used the word POW in reference to the detainees which allows him to hold them indefinitely so to speak in the 'war on terror'.
(That is an issue in and of itself that may need to be reviewed by the international community).
It has already been made clear that there are certain individuals that they believe would be a threat to our country if released that they may not be able to 'try', I am guessing because they were tortured or abused.
The dilemma may be that having been tortured and abused by the idiots of the previous adminstration means that we could have to release those who will lead in the war and commit crimes against us? Whereas had they not been tortured...we may have been able to try and detain them... Should we detain them indefinitely to keep them out of the conflict we are currently fighting?
So, the idea that this makes him 'like Bush' is just another stupid observation in my perception of people who want to see it that way.
The thing I DO find ridiculous, and outrageous is that we are going to pay tons of money and create obligations/use favors with other nations to hold many of these detainees 'just' to keep them off of foreign soil... where they will be a threat to no one other than those who committed torture against them and abused them.
THAT is the part of the detainee situation I take exception to.
We need complete accountability for the mulititude of abuses of the previous adminstration. And I find the lack of action on this infuriating.
June 27, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
the farce that you have regurgitated is the notion there are these scary evil subhuman arabs that
"they may not be able to try."
This is a euphamism for "they likely cannot convict"
Surely, they can get a courtroom, a judge, some lawyers, a jury and have a trial. The problem (for authoritarians, chickenshits, and guilty by-gut-feelings types) is that there is not admissable evidence, or no evidence at all to convict them.
So therefore, the specious logic goes, we should punish them before establishing guilt.
That is the new justice in this country, that Obama, and his childish celeb fan clubs want to cement as precedent for any person who personally offends the eminent sensibilities of the President/King whose #1 job is to keep us safe, instead of protecting the constitution, as the oath of office says.
June 27, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the sheer amount of untempered outrage after several people have pointed out that the WH denies this rumour to be hilarious.
It is one thing to be -- or become -- vigilant after the rumour circulates, to ensure that there is not and will not be any truth to it...but some of you all are just comedy gold.
Of course, the "why oh why only report the bad things about Obama crowd" are equally clueless -- this would be a really fucking serious thing if true -- and hilarious.
June 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This site gets more and more like Dkos everyday. I thought I would be amongst reasonable and intelligent people who I could learn from. Obama's not the fraud here, that's for sure.
June 27, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama does not seem to understand that pragmatism is ruining his ability to get things done, not helping it. He's got the senator disease. Compromise on everything, hope to get some shred of a workable plan.
What happens instead is a half or quarter plan which "succeeds" in getting passed and gaining some illusory "political capital" but fails utterly the American people.
We can't go forward on quarter plans. We can't be blaming the previous administration even for things that are their fault (and there are many). You have to LEAD. This is where Obama has been criticized (including me, even as a supporter).
You have to be REALLY post-partisan, not bi-partisan, meaning kissing up to no party. You have to crack some heads and spend that precious political capital setting a strong progressive precedent and then (good cop/bad cop) relent a little on the peripheral issues to allow Congress to retain some of its vanity.
Instead Obama is compromising from the get-go on the big, central issues. Come on. You don't go into a Moroccan market and then agree to take someone's asking price. You offer a third or fourth and go from there.
If you're Obama you invite in single payer and use that to set the bar and "compromise" back to a public option. You DON'T signal you are willing to abandon the public option altogether in order to "succeed" passing the bill.
You do what you promised on national security as well. Otherwise you are a liar and a hypocrite.
Obama keeps pretending these progressive changes and a return to transparency/accountability/rule of law he kept talking about were things I wanted, rather than things he promised, but more importantly said were "him", said HE stood for.
Now he making like his own words and principles are simply another interest group he has to bring into the mix. It is disgusting. Because this is exactly what Washington has become-- profoundly expedient and unprincipled.
The wrenching thing is, with all Obama's "team of rivals" rhetoric, the one group he gets offended by is the one group that put him in office-- progressives.
We're just going to have to keep rolling up our sleeves.
June 28, 2009 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
off-thread, re:
the one group he gets offended by is the one group that put him in office-- progressives.
I keep seeing people use this argument, but damn, I'd sure like to see evidence that it was "progressives" that put him in office.
Seems to me it was fans of Obama the man and his "hope" speeches that helped him win the primary, and once he had done that, his behavior and campaign against McCain helped him win enough of the center necessary to win.
Seems to me it was clear the majority of progressives would have voted for whoever the Democratic candidate was this time around and he knew that, and didn't see himself as owing them anything.
He worked heard years before announcing, to make sure he was seen as a centrist, starting with his books, then moving on to dis groups like the "netroots."
If he "owes" anyone in the qui prod quo sense of the term, it was the "fans" who kept donating over and over and over and going door to door and having Obama parties and the like. And he's got all the names, email addresses and phone numbers of those "supporters," along with a lot more data on them than any other previous president. Most of them gave all their marketing info. to him freely, and hung out on a website he made for them, and even eagerly waited for his text messages. He knows a ton about what they like and don't like, more than any previous president (though Rove was damn good with the polls, he had nothing like Obama has on his "supporters.") I think they mainly wanted him the man, including his professed centrism. (BTW, recall that Hillary had a more "left" reputation among large pockets of working class in some swing states, and with groups like labor, not so deserved in my opinion, but it was a reality nonetheless. But these were not at all the same as the fans of Obama willing to give and give and give.)
June 28, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What alternatives does the Administration have? In all of this gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, I haven't seen a single rational alternative to indefinite detention. It's easy to criticize, but not so much to figure out a solution.
June 28, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOT the Change We worked so hard to elect.
SIGN THE PETITION & Forward our website to all
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
God bless
NOTE: We are helping progressive groups cause prosecution of the torturers simply by doing the commenting we normally do on related news articles and blogs. It really Works! Takes no more time than you already devote to commenting.
How do we do that. Simply by adding the text below after our daily comments on news articles and blogs.
SIGN THE PETITION
To Prosecute Those who Tortured In Our Name at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
-------------------------------------
It Really Is THAT SIMPLE.
Do this yourself on related articles and you will reach readers who are sympathetic to prosecution of those who conspired to torture.
Just One of our commenters causes over 5,000 new petition signers to go to the petitions each month. With only a few comments a day!
If you were to help by just adding our Url to the bottom of a half dozen of your daily comments you too could help add 5,000 signatures a month to the Petitions to Indict and Prosecute Bush, Cheney and staffers who conspired to Torture in our Name.
June 28, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God I made the right choice in the voting booth and cast my ballot for Heinrich Himmler instead of Herman Goering.
What would the country have been like if I had voted the other way???
June 28, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, it would be nice if I could get some actual perspective on this rather than the hair-on-fire-hysteria.
I'm nothing resembling a constitutional lawyer and I don't know legalize all that well but it seems to me that in all the wailing, screaming, and gnashing of teeth come key questions are not being answered.
First, the president does NOT have the power to set rules regarding capture of prisoners on land or on sea. That power is explicitly given to congress.
So in IMHO the we should be yelling about Pelosi and Reid totally failing to do their sworn constitutional duty and lead on this issue. Obama went out on a limb with some key aspects of this and when FOX said "BOOO! Scary Muslims in America" and weak kneed Dems ran screaming for cover.
I don't see the key issue here as being indefinite detention. The last administration simply took it upon themselves to exercise powers that they where not given by any constitutional authority.
This is about "rule of law" but not in the "we have to get the bastard who broke it" version that Republicans latched onto ten years ago and Dems latched onto this year. And no, this is not conflagrating the two issues but that the emotional investment seems more related to revenge than restoring the proper checks and balances in the constitution with clear laws regarding captives.
What Bush and Cheney did was create a system with "no controlling legal authority" and their partisan patsies and congress lay supine for it. All he did to lessen their power while enhancing his and they didn't care until Justice raided a crooks fridge. Eventually even this SC managed to ,if barely, notice that the president did not have that power in the constitution.
What people are expecting here in my view is not to much or to little of Barack Obama but far to much out of the Office of the POTUS.
As far as I am concerned if he calls these people POW's and it becomes their official status then they are being detained in accordance with the rules of war set by the proper constitutional authority and thus in accordance with rule of law. If their are problems with these rules then it is up to congress to do something about it.
June 28, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
An observation: The Obama = Bush-lite meme has been gleefully co-opted by the Far Right in order to drive a wedge between progressives and undermine all of Obama's policy initiatives. Those of you who are propagating that myth -- and losing all perspective in the process -- are diminishing the prospects for progressive legislation of all kinds. In my opinion, there are MANY issues that are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what happens to a handful of detainees who are dangerous but cannot be tried b/c Bush f-ed up their legal cases. I am much more concerned with global warming, the economy, the Middle East, Iran, health care, etc. etc. etc. I suspect that each of you has policy issues that you care about very deeply. Keep your eye on the ball. And watch out for charlatans.
June 28, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read your tete-a-tete's with Greenwald, (assuming you are the same person) and think you have a good perspective, so I'm not attacking. I know you are sincere in your beliefs about the President. All that said, I want to ask you this:
Do you believe that Obama's actions and stated stance on this issue is keeping with the spirit of his campaign? Is this what we voted for? Do you people voted to expand Executive power because they trusted Obama more than Bush? Do you think people voted for a President who wasn't going to allow them to see the White House appointment schedule? Whose DOJ was going to petition to disallow defendant's right to see prosecution DNA evidence? Who was going to argue for more secrecy? Do you think that was who people thought they were electing?
I don't. Obama may not have specifically broken any promises here, but he certainly has violated the spirit of his campaign, and that is what is so frustrating. He ran on a platform of change and transparncey; in office he is continuing or expanding the same policies of secrecy.
And if he's willing to change on those things -- those things that I felt were at the core of his campaign -- why are you so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on those other issues you consider important?
You mentioned health care reform, and climate change as policies that might be getting lost in this debate. But those were never central to his campaign. Barak Obama's campaign was about changing the culture of Washington, about undoing the previous eight years. It was about little else. And that hope was enough. But as reality starts, more and more, to show that nothing about the culture of Washington or the Executive Branch is changing but the President, it becomes harder and harder to feel good about who I voted for.
June 28, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, those are fair points but it that's not how I see it. I think Obama ran as a pragmatist. I don't think that he ran as a moralist or an ideologue. He certainty did decry the lawlessness and corruption of the Bush regime and I agreed with every word he said. How could you not? And Obama is simply NOT doing what Bush did. Bush broke the law. Bush hid everything he did from Congress and the courts.
As a president there are, however, institutional prerogatives and pressures to protect the institution. It is inevitable. And now that Obama is president, he has far greater responsibilities and much more information than he had as senator or candidate. Again, inevitable.
Of course, character can make a big difference because character can affect, if not pre-determine, decisions. So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama lacks integrity. These items you mention are, to me, insignificant or explicable in the big picture. In the big picture, what matters is that the president makes correct decisions for the country and the world. I believe that Obama has, in fact, been remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, especially when one considers the upheaval he inherited.
Which brings me (thankfully, I'm sure) to my final point: I think we should be chary of castigating Obama for what I'll call "Bush-legacy problems." Obama has to live and work with many of the career people -- intelligence, justice, etc. -- who were there for the Bush years. We don't do purges here. So, as I began, Obama ran as a pragmatist and that, I think, is precisely what he has been. Intelligent. Rational. Practical. Decent. Sensible. That's about all I expect from a president.
June 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your feedback.
I guess this is the point that I disagree with. Obama may have given pragmatic policy statements, but he surrounded himself and his campaign with a much higher moral purpose. The pragmatic chadidate int he primaries was Clinton. We pretty much knew what we were getting with her.
But Obama ran with an optimistic idea that things didn't have to be the same, that they could be different than the last two or three decades suggested. After all, you don't have a slogan, and crowds chanting, "Yes We Can!" if you're talking about making slight alterations to existing policies. You don't run a campaign of "Change We Can Believe In" if the changes you are proposing are minute. You don't talk on and on about the necessity of transparency and then actively work to remain, at best, opaque.
So when you talk about character, you're saying that you're giving him credit for character as am improvement on Bush, even though his actions have been contradictory to the meme of his campaign.
June 28, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I appreciate the civil discussion.
You --- like some of the others here who are criticizing Obama -- seem well-intentioned and highly-motivated. You think you see enough evidence to make a negative judgment about Obama and I think it is premature. My feeling is this: If Obama is a bum we will know soon enough. Then you can count on me to be all over him like a cheap suit. I guarantee it. Unless and until that happens, however, I want Obama and his policy initiatives to succeed.
In the meantime, I suggest you use that energy for something constructive: call your U.S. senators and tell them you want a climate change bill. Tell them you want health care for all. These are HUGE issues and there is a very good chance that neither bill will survive the Senate unless their is pressure applied to the recalcitrant Senators.
June 29, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify one piece of this. In my view unless I hear a better argument it would be unconstitutional to significantly change the rules without them going through congress. Right now he is abiding by the laws they passed and should. He can fudge the status some but not make up a whole new system. If congress can't get off its cowardly ass then POW or indefinite detention with military tribunals as already authorized by congress is the law of the land and what he has to do.
If somebody knows something I don't about this that a constitutional lawyer President should know I would be interested.
June 28, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of beating a dead horse into a deeper death, Congress has abandoned Obama on this matter. That was made utterly clear when just about every DEMOCRATIC senator voted against the bill to close GITMO. My guess is that there cannot be any legislation b/c Congress simply refuses to take any political risks re: the detainees. And since Obama has committed to closing GITMO, the detainees have to go someplace under some legal regime. An executive order is not the way it should be resolved but since Congress is abdicating its responsibilities -- yet again -- it is all on Obama. Such is life.
June 28, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when congress "abdicates it's responsibility" by not doing what the President wants ... the president is justified in declaring himself unilateral "decider"?
Didn't work for me when the Bushies made this argument, doesn't work for me now.
June 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that Congress isn't doing "what the president wants," it's that Congress won't do ANYTHING. Watch how the Senate Democrats -- that's right, the DEMOCRATS -- try to derail health care reform and the global warming bill. You want to do something constructive? Call your U.S. senators and tell them to enact a public option for health care. And call them and tell them not to kowtow to big oil by derailing the climate/energy bill the House just passed. The Senate is where the problem is. Not in the White House.
June 28, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the president is justified in declaring himself unilateral "decider"?"
Kind of a big strawman you got there. You've added nothing other than to mischaracterize Obama as claiming "he's the decider". You can't just make shit up like that.
June 28, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Congress has abandoned Obama on this matter"
Thank you.
Now can any of our various hysterics please explain where Obama would get the constitutional authority to do anything other than abide by the present laws which give him the authority in question?
In my view this respect for the process is what makes him different than Bush.
June 28, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way wbgonne I do not think this is really flogging a dead horse because when the left always loses when they descend into the same partisan and narcissistic ignorance of the actual parameters of law and process of government that "conservatives" always do.
Maybe its just that I'm not an idealouge myself and thus what I really responded to in the Obama campaign was his pragmatism and respect for the process of government. To me he made nerdy attachments to these things sound inspirational.
I never quite understood where anybody got the idea that electing him was going to give them somebody who would hammer in "progressive values" like the GOP hammered in "conservative values". I never thought that he gave that impression.
June 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
June 28, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The president has TONS of power beyond making laws. He has the press... and many voters would spend the next four years getting people organized and pushing for MANY things on his agenda... just because he asked them to.
When he said those folks would not be prosecuted for torturing... he did not need a law or statute... or Congressional bill. He pretty much squashed it just with his statement, due to his enormous influence.
To say he has no power severely diminishes the truth in this regard. The president of this nation has tremendous power... all over the world... he speaks and folks pay attention... it may not be a good thing, but it is true...IMHO
June 28, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to read through Greenwald piece on this but with all the shrill hysteria I found it awfully hard to sort through the exact parameters. What I got out of it as far as my question goes is that if Obama decides what he has is better than what congress is capable of accomplishing within a reasonable amount of time then he is abandoning all that is right and just in the world.
WTF!?
Congress is a dysfunctional wreck and pretty much everything they have done for ,oh, the last 20 years or so disgusts me. It seem like the institution has become entirely partisan and self interested.
The problem here is their total lack of courage and responsibility. Any sane and competent administration is going to do whatever is necessary to get the job they are facing done. The expectation for checks and balances is incumbent upon congress exercising some initiative to act on their constitutional powers.
Expecting the office of the President to do all the heavy lifting to provide constitutionally mandated balances is absurd. That expectation is in fact the ultimate view of the unitary executive. He's not just supposed to act like an executive he's supposed to lead congress into acting like a congress as well.
Something has really gone wrong with our system and I think maybe we are looking at the wrong branch of government to fix it. Congress needs to excersize their authority.
June 28, 2009 12:36 PM |