Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Admin Moves to Protect Military Officials
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is trying to protect top Bush administration military officials from lawsuits brought by prisoners who say they were tortured while being held at Guantanamo Bay.
![[A protester, dressed as a Guantanamo Bay prison inmate, calls for the closing of the US military prison at a protest in front of the White House in Washington, DC in early February. (AFP/File/Nicholas Kamm)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/shutdownguantanamo.jpg "shutdownguantanamo.jpg")
The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy.
The Obama administration was expected to take another stand affecting Guantanamo detainees' lawsuits Friday. A federal judge overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention has given the Justice Department until the close of business to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an "enemy combatant."
Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year, and Justice Department lawyers are already trying to find courtrooms or foreign countries to place the 240 people still held there.
The new administration is seeking to craft new rules for when and how a terror suspect can be seized, and what interrogation methods may be used in trying to extract information from them. But while it works on those rules, the Obama administration appears to be sticking with Bush administration legal definitions in pending litigation.
Last month in another court filing, the Justice Department sided with the Bush White House by arguing that detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.
"The president has ordered a comprehensive review of both the government's overall policy for detainees and the status of detainees held at Guantanamo," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. "The Guantanamo detention facility will be closed by January 22, 2010, but in the meantime, we will continue to litigate cases involving detainees."
The suit before the appeals court was brought by four British citizens - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith - who were sent back to Great Britain in 2004. The defendants in the case include former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Eric Lewis, attorney for the four, said Friday that military officials should be subject to liability when they order torture.
"The upshot of the Justice Department's position is that there is no right of detainees not to be tortured and that officials who order torture should be protected," Lewis said.
The men say they were beaten, shackled in painful stress positions and threatened by dogs during their time at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. They also say they were harassed while practicing their religion, including forced shaving of their beards, banning or interrupting their prayers, denying them copies of the Koran and prayer mats and throwing a copy of the Koran in a toilet.
They contend in their lawsuit that the treatment violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides that the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."
The appeals court ruled against them early last year, saying because the men were foreigners held outside the United States, they do not fall within the definition of a "person" protected by the act.
But later in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have some rights under the Constitution. So the Supreme Court instructed the appeals court to reconsider the lawsuit in light of their decision.
61 Comments so far
Show AllIf Obama moves to protect those guilty of war crimes, Officers or not. Then the USA must grant pardons for those convicted of Nazi war crimes. Every officer and enlisted man or woman in the services is aware that they are not obligated to follow illegal orders and should report those same orders to the proper authorities. Failing to do so is in it's self a war crime and they should face the death penalty as outlined in various agreements etc that the USA is signatory too. Failure of the government to act just proves that documents and contracts etc put foreward by the USA are worthless. Proove that they are liars and all the very worst kind of criminal. The ICC should indict, try, by absentia if needs be and have dead or alive posters etc posted. There are many that will get behind this idea.
Grappa
There is something funny about this hole approach to passing specific legislation for military personnel protection. There would seem to be a great number of protections already on the books that would adequately protect those that have done no wrong. If you are talking about overhauling the tart laws in general, that's different,and certainly worth investigating and holding hearings on..
What I worry about is this, legislation would also give cover to the civilian bureaucrats that gave the orders. Depositions are required from high ranking officers as to who gave the orders and their responses. The integrity of this information showing chain of command up through the military, and including the civilian hierarchy is essential to get at the truth. Punishment to those who are responsible for operating out side the codes of conduct would require a military role..
The United States has been an extremely bellicose nation since it's inception and especially since WWII. In my opinion, a good case could be made that we are not a democracy but in fact a military dictatorship. By this I mean the Pentagon (along with the CIA, DOD contractors and Congressional enablers). The military needs a lot of oil. They always get what they want. It takes more than courage to butt heads with this juggernaut. Please wake up Americans.
>>The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy
The nazis tried at Nuremberg simply needed Obama and the US state department in their corner.
Obama’s handlers and supporters placed considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.
In an address designed to display his foreign policy bona fides, Obama showed his continuing willingness to take seriously the claim that OIL was an effort to “impose democracy” on Iraq, even faulting the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on the basis of unrealistic “dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government” (Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs [CCGA], November 22, 2006).
Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s call for “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” included repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency”—a goal that means continuation of the war.
Obama’s November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq “scenario” in which “U.S. combat forces” might remain in the occupied state for an “extended period of time.” Obama advances a “reduced but active [U.S. military] presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized “embassies” in history) while “sending a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.” This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that, “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq.”
At one point in his CCGA oration, Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens support “victory” in Iraq: “The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah.”
This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for a colossal U.S. war atrocity. Crimes included the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city—in April and November 2004. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dared to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah is a leading symbol of U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and “resolve” in the occupation of Iraq.
It gets worse. Obama repeatedly voted to spend billions on the illegal invasion since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. He inveighs against the “Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party” and has told congressional Democrats they would be “playing chicken with the troops” if they dared to actually (imagine) de-fund the Iraq “war.”
He voted to confirm as Secretary of State (of all things) the mendacious war criminal Condaleeza Rice, who played a critical role in advancing the preposterous Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) claims Bush used to invade Iraq.
He distanced himself from fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin when Durbin faced vicious right-wing attacks after daring to tell some basic truths about U.S. torture practices in Iraq.
Obama has repeatedly and absurdly claimed that the illegal invasion was launched with the “best of democratic intentions.”
He praises U.S. military personnel for their “unquestioning” “service” in Iraq and (despite numerous U.S. atrocities there) for “doing everything we could ever ask of them.”
His belated calls for withdrawal are hedged by numerous statements indicating that an Obama White House would maintain a significant military presence in and around Iraq for an indefinite period of time. And Obama has refused to support taking a reckless (possibly even nuclear) U.S. military assault on Iran off the table of acceptable U.S. foreign policy options.
Barack Obama reacts to the world's response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called "war on terror," to take "the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it.
A very perceptive analysis, in my own opinion, and one that will undoubtedly bring down upon your head the wrath of those who are so desirous of change that they see it where it does not exist.
rogue military, rogue president, rogue country u.s.a....
When Obama doesn't push the investigation of the previous administration due to fears of undermining "executive privilege" and fear of future litigation, nothing down the chain of command will be held accountable. Legality, and morality go from the top down not from the bottom up. If the President is corrupt, the whole administration is corrupt. If there is fear of litigation, then there are plans of illegal activity. But, "I was just following orders" didn't hold water at Nuremburg, of course they were serious about prosecutions there. Of course, those who were victims of the Holocaust are creating their own in the Mid-East. Perhaps Obama is right, the tables do turn.
On the onme hand why should anyone be shocked, puzzeled, or even surprised by such developments on the other hand had so many not been so hopeful, they could not have been so disappointed. Change we can believe in and "yes we can" has turned into the same old crappola and "no we won't".
Poet
There is some interesting reading between the lines in this article. And those ideas are that this president is being thrown to the wolves by his own party, that the media is criticizing him as if he were a pariah (did anybody pay attention to that fool Dobbs on CNN?)and all of a sudden that he is responsible for everything wrong with this lame-ass country of sniveling morons.
Does anybody remember how fast and devious the Republican party was on the so-called 'Patriot Act?'How about all the subsequent 'legal qualifications' of criminal behavior enacted? How about the inconsistencies of Obama while he was campaigning? Remember how he voted on a couple of MAJOR issues? After saying the complete opposite not a week earlier, in one instance?
If it were any more obvious that we are allowed to exist under this, this fantasy flag of freedom, and a phony piece of old parchment, because we are nothing more than slaves to a bankrupt notion of 'decency' and the concept of someone else's definition of 'free will.'
If a bankrupt mental case like Ayn Rand continues to rule minds with the putrid slop of writing being touted about as if the words were chiseled in stone by, say Plato or even Isaac Newton. Well...?
What do you expect?
It just gets uglier and more depressing every day.
Can you blame the hopeful voters who just wanted to feel good for a change after eight years of Bush criminality? They voted for hope. The well-funded Obama campaign - funded by Wall Street banksters - beckoned to them. It was like a dream come true. Some are still there, in dreamland.
Can you blame them? Well, yes ... yes you can. But only partly. They fell for a brand in the land of advertising.
Alas, the country isn't in the right place. People have to reject the frauds and misdirections. This is not so easy to overcome.
People were driven by fear (of McCain or whatever). They supported the old patterns that haven't worked for years. It was the football mentality - loyalty to one side of a two-party system that's really one. And nothing shows up the deception more, I suppose, than to see the Obama administration adopt Bush's policies and defend Bush administration officials who committed grave crimes.
So, I think we're at a new stage now. It's time for U.S. citizens to finally understand what the progressive left has been saying for so long. It's time for them to become human beings and change their thinking. They need to see the world with the eyes of the underdog. They need to feel empathy for the dispossessed and anguish for the dead - killed in unnecessary, profit-laden imperial wars that continue to this day.
It starts with a change in thinking, but it must end in group action. Are loyal Dems starting to get the picture now? No one really knows, but we'll see them in the street when that time comes. And may it come soon.
-TIA
fear of litigation? What happened to the blindfold and the last cigarette?
Hector
"The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy."
Hmmmmm == "The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding unemployed and other destitute persons alleged to have stolen food, clothing or money liable for their treatment of other people's property could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate action to feed and clothe their families".
This is not the change we hoped for, nor is it the way we wish our government to act.
Quote "holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy." End quote
Isn't "fear of litigation" what the law is supposed to do?
If there an appropriate military policy that is illegal then we need to change the
military policy or the law.
You have asked the right question. This is the most blatantly false statement yet from this administration. The only reason they would fear litigation is if they DO NOT follow appropriate military policy. Giving a pass on what has happened will insure that it will happen again. Obama is moving fast from disappointment to unacceptable.
This is a tough one. I agree, that detention center was not the American way. If these guys are so dangerous, try them in a military tribunal and get it over with.
they select so we may elect. they gave us change alright, chump change. same ol same oil.
We knew what game Obama was playing for sure when he announced his selection of Rahm Emanuel...and now it's reported that he's 'the lobby's' creation.
Who the hell do we think we are? The ancient Spartans? Just a standard war-lovin' people?
Why must we protect officers more than they're already protected? Maybe if we protected them less, they wouldn't act like murderous, torturous creeps.
And why must we "support" this present group of emotionally retarded troops?
I was at a reading where someone thanked Brian Turner-- the first major poet to emerge from the Iraq War-- for his service.
The crowd applauded, and Turner accepted the remark with grace, but me, I wanted to gag.
I would thank Turner any time for his poetry but not for his service.
This is a volunteer Army we have, and each soldier is creepy in his or her own way, almost like the pied piper they followed, the former president George W. Bush.
Bring America Back !!!!...Yes Bottle, and you must have really enjoyed the appearance of General Betrayus at the Super Bowl in January !!!!
Sure let us sheeple bow down and honor the Surge General of a damn War we should not be in, in the first place !!! How rediculous it is.
Pre-emptive Wars are illegal nationally and internationally !! Get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran !! Those are the orders Obama should be giving to his military minded Retards !! But Barak is too busy playing commander and learning how to return those sharp salutes from the White House honor guards.
Exactly.
"The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy."
Dear DOJ,
Have you never, ever, heard of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. Or are you just that hard up for a defense, of all the US war crimes. What are you smoking at 'Justice' and is that legal now?.
LAYMAN's translation:
"prosecuting military officers could cause them to STOP TORTURING and STOP dreaming up other extraordinary renditions and other extraordinary interrogation techniques"..........
or shorter:
"prosecuting officials could STOP them froM TORTURING and KILLING SOME MORE and SCHEMING some more to do the same things".........
or shortest:
"prosecuting officials could STOP the USA from TORTURING and committing MORE war crimes...we can't have that".
Prosecuting the Military officers would force the prosecution of the old regime and that would open a can of worms that the new regime couldn't cover up.
The only thing that changed was the faces.Obama doesn't seem to want to relinquish many of the powers that Bush claimed for himself.
To quote Lord Acton;
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
http://www.sheeple.net
"The only thing that changed was the faces."
Are you kidding? The same bunch of murderous hawks that have been in there for the past eight years and more are still there!
Do you see any of the outspoken advocates for peace, for a return to the Constitution, for rejoining the community of civilized nations, in the cabinet or in responsible posts in the government?
Basically, what I see is Bushit Lite, slightly coated with sugar for easier consumption. As Cindy said, we've been buried in bullshit and horseshit for so long that we no longer notice the taste or smell.
The can of worms is open and boy does it stink! This ain't ovaH!
I would like to see military officials being held accountable just like the rest of us.
What could be wrong with that?
"The upshot of the Justice Department's position is that there is no right of detainees not to be tortured and that officials who order torture should be protected," Lewis said."
I was once castigated here for saying 'meet the new boss same as the old boss' yet that is what we seem to see in this matter of torture and justice. One of the attorneys for the imprisoned detainees noted that the new justice dept lawyers were making EXACTLY the same case as the old Bush justice dept lawyers made, word for stinking word!
Certainly, on other matters, Obama has made speeches and comments that are encouraging and I await more concrete actions than words on those matters. But this is one of the single most important issues of our day, the USA has tortured, murdered and toppled the rule of law. Our reputation around the world is sullied and will remain so until we restore that rule of law. This means investigations,prosecutions and convictions if guilty verdicts are obtained.
Does this mean they will release Lynndie England?
Or does this reveal the overall contempt the powerful have for the weak? After all, she was only obeing "orders." And had no power against the pressure of her peers and superiors who encouraged her on.
The argument the Obama administration offers is as valid for her and all the other who have been forced to pay for these vile policies. Which is, after all, an argument nobody would apply or care to think of unless it favorably affected top administration officials.
Well put. It's just pure "rank hath its priviledge" crap. Sickening Obama hypocrisy. It's sad.
What do the pathetic Obama supporters have to say?
Nothing I bet. Oh I forgot, we couldn't let McCain/Palin win. But you fools got McCain/Palin anyway.
This protection of torturers is yet another proof that Obama is the greatest liberal fraud that ever ran for office but his supporters are too stupid or cynical to admit the truth. They're the real reason we can't have real "change" in America.
Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum, chum. The real choices like Ron Paul and Kucinich were railroaded. Even so, Obama is less "in your face" about fascism than McCain. But granted, both are a continuation of our dictatorship called a democracy.
How long did it take to get Pinochet into a Courtroom?
"A federal judge overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention has given the Justice Department until the close of business to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an "enemy combatant.".."
Many thanks to the judge who has the "audacity" to ask this question. As we all know, after a second go-around with the hidden agenda of the "Patriot Act", we STILL don't know the definition of an "enemy combatant". And until this definition is made public, the citizens of this country will never know how much "power" our public servants or serpents intend to usurp from our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They wouldn't have let him take office if their protection had not been assured. I mean, really, why would BushCo have gone to so much trouble to consolidate all this power in the hands of the executive branch just to hand it over to a guy that was going to have them all locked up? They could have run another black op and then legally have suspended everything or declared Marshall law. Remember -- as Seymour Hersch recently revealed, they have their own death squads. You just know some kind of deal was cut -- no new 9/11 in exchange for no prosecution, or some such thing.
Who is 'they'? The neocon think tanks+Republican party+CIA+big corp -- the ones that pretty much control all the money, the media and the world's biggest arsenal who have been running the show for decades. Putting on my tinfoil hat, maybe, but there was something so creepy the way John McCain and the Republicans seemed almost jubilent on election night, and Obama had this look like he just had a visit from the mob.
Agreed. However, I think the "visit" occured before election night. The powers that be are playing with fire this time. We are 70% of GDP. It's our money that fuels this economy, not the "investment capital" of the rich. That was and is just a bunch of elite insiders using priviledge to get huge loans at low interest to loan to us. The rich weren't even toughing their own money. So let's reclaim our freedom with frugality. Do the world a favor: Stop torture and war by starving the rich of their profit. If the elite don't have money, they can't buy our government officials to make war and place bases all over the world to defend corporate interests. The Pentagon is a corporate defender, NOT a patriotic organization. We, the American people, have been betrayed by traitors. You can't fight them with weapons but you can embrace austerity.
When debt is considered we are at exactly 100% of GDP....
funeocons, exactly! The only thing I would add, is the dems are just as guilty and behind the people you listed is a shadow government made up of international bankers and the very,very, wealthy, world elite.It is always about power and $$$ and congress is nothing but ( with very few exceptions,) a bunch of corrupt attorneys who are the lieutenants for the crime family while pretending to be patriotic statesmen.
funeocons- You explained it very well. They planned ahead with a good old fashioned dark horse candidate. Coup d'etats are so 1963.
If we can't prosecute our own war criminals some other country will do it for us.
I can only hope...the thought of Cheney, Bush, Rice and Gonzales cramped four to a cold, dingy and dark cell leaves me all warm and cuddly inside
"The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy."
God forbid that your public servants make decisions based on what is legal.
Where are all the hordes of people who were writing on CommonDreams that things, such as prisoner treatment, would change under Obama, by the way? They seem to have evaporated.
Good comment, jlocke123, and well-deserved criticism, and you initiated a good thread of posts and thought-provoking statements. "Slow of hoof and wit" is reporting, late as usual.
As one who has supported President Obama, I am troubled with this news report; this action is indefensible. BushCo are criminals. Who can't see that?
In theory we have this gift of a democracy that inspires our statements and our participation in elections, and in practice we support fear and wrongful detentions and discretionary and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Gaza. And now, no one is held accountable!
And a few months from now Congress, Democratic Party majorities, will "debate" and pass this year's $600 billion dollar military spending bill which the president will sign, and I will again be reproved and chastened for gullibility and political naivete. So be it.
"...Where are all the hordes of people who were writing on CommonDreams that things, such as prisoner treatment, would change under Obama, by the way? They seem to have evaporated..."
- You don't understand, jlocke123. You see, it goes without saying that Obama WANTS to change things like prisoner treatment. In his little heart of hearts, he really really wants to. Honest & truly he does.
But he can't do it right now, because if he does, the Republicans will paint him as a terrorist-sympathizing socialist. Then he'd lose the next election -- and then where would we be?
He has to be re-elected before we can get into all that wonderful oh-so-progressive stuff. And of course, we need 60 Dems in the Senate, to be able to stop Republican filibusters.
So we should get to the prisoner treatment stuff by around 2015. Just be a little patient!
What a cynical joke your post is.
Why are you Dem Party Apologists always making the most outlandish excuses for the crimes of the Democratic Party?
Republicans right now have absolutely no credibility, Obama's enjoying high approval ratings. No one would give a damn if Republicans called him a terrorist-sympathizing socialist. His ratings would in fact only rise.
The reason Obama won't move a finger is because, first, Democrats were aware and approved all of Bush's crimes of torture and, second, Obama's committing the same crimes as I type these words.
The 60-vote majority is another pathetic attempt by Democrats to excuse their corruption and negligence, please spare us the lies.
Cape_fear,
You are right. My comments are directed at Bronstein, not you.
Sure, sure, us versus them, etc., etc., ad nauseum. If you're looking to start another straw man fight with holy, honest reptilians versus wily, slippery, dumocrats, stuff it. We've got real dictatorship problems and your comments don't help. Sell it to someone else, pal.
I believe you owe an apology. Sarcasm is difficult to see on this media, nevertheless that is what that post was expressing.
Sarcasm, irony, etc. are hard to accept while people are being tortured and killed. I guess my sence of humor is depleted today. Maybe we all need to be more patient. After all, they can't take your real freedom away if the one you have is an illusion produced by excellent media PR. After all, they can't take your democracy away if you live in a de facto dictatorship. And furthermore, they can't kill you when you are dead, right?
"Where are all the hordes of people who were writing on CommonDreams that things, such as prisoner treatment, would change under Obama, by the way? They seem to have evaporated."
I think that many Obama supporters never really cared much about those issues. I'd like to be proven wrong, though.
They were all blinded by the bright and sparkly things that were dangled in front ot them. They couldn't be bothered with such silly things as real issues, but OMG!! did you see Oprah!?! ;)
www.oldelmtree.com
"Where are all the hordes of people who were writing on CommonDreams that things, such as prisoner treatment, would change under Obama, by the way? They seem to have evaporated."
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you for pointing this out. I said for the longest time back then that rather than falling in love with Obama like love-sick teenagers, his positions on various Human rights issues should be deeply and thoughtfully considered. It was then, as it is now, practically impossible to say anything requesting objectivity in regards to O-bummer, and now look what we have. More of the same, more of the same.
The horde has indeed thinned out considerably, but as with any horde, the slow of hoof and wit remain behind; there are a few lame stragglers still braying piteously here.
The Obama apologists have exhausted their two main counter-critiques. Perhaps I should say that they naturally attenuate as a function of time and overuse.
The first was simply the objection that Obama hadn't been in office but a day, a week, a month, and that since both the government and the economy are in ruins, he hasn't had a chance to advance his reform agenda. That's as may be, but by the "handsome is as handsome does" standard, he's hardly impressive.
The second is what I've called the Political Master Ninja hype. Others characterize it as "multi-dimensional chess master". It's the assertion that Obama is a super-smart, super-crafty political strategist who is so skilled at Machiavellian manipulation (upgraded to the virtue of "pragmatism" to make it sound like an ASSET) that We the People have no idea what he's REALLY up to.
He's always ten steps ahead of us, see, and only the adept and faithful can even BEGIN to follow the blur of his technique.
Such claims are strongest when they're first started up-- but once they're driven off the lot and around numerous S-curves and hairpin turns with sudden jolts, skids, stops and reverses, their power quickly evaporates. It's that much harder for apologists to sell the prospect that a Master Ninja Master Plan is unfolding.
And there's the peculiar popular notion that clapping one's hands faster and faster, and investing "faith" and "hope" in a politician, is vital to the politician's success. Sometimes this is expressed by a seemingly contradictory point, i.e. that We the People are obliged to hold a politician's cloven feet to "the fire" to kick-start him out of inertia and begin to aggressively repair the depredations of the previous criminal maladministration.
Because he can't launch overdue and profound reforms of his own free will, even if he wants to. (And I presume that apologists trust that he DOES want to, a view I do not share.) It's one of those ideas that sounds reasonable at first, but raises nagging doubts the more one reflects upon it.
DOES he even WANT to back down the steroid-fed Unitary Excutive, Security-State, post-Constitutional, corporatized government monster raised by his predecessor? If so, why is he so reticent about it, and why are We the People undermined by the DOJ's enthusiastic continuation of the most abominable Bush Security State policies?
Apologists avoid such unanswered and emergent thorny questions by slathering themselves with the grease of faith and trust, or even merely unconditional positive regard, then sliding right past them.
Of course, even when the meat is stripped or rotted from the bones of their argument, they always break off the bones and simply fling them like spears (or Hamas rockets), or swing them like clubs at the rest of us. You know, the rancorous attacks scolding the doubting as mean-spirited, evil-minded, corrosively cynical, etc.
I don't envy them.
· Yr Obd't Servant
They are afraid of the truth because most everyone, at least a large majority in Government and especially the military went along in one way or another. Many are probably feeling vulnerable even if they were silent.
Like the new CIA director, Panetta, was told by his superiors, "Don't open Pandoras Box!".
If you believe in the Greek Gods, Zeus had the first mortal woman he created, Pandora, release all the evils of the world as a revenge for Prometheus, another God, who gave the the gift of fire back to the earth.
Amazing how these War Criminals think like children, afraid the world will open up their crimes while they act like God was on their side. Mythology is always useful for the powerful to confuse committing evil with the necessity of a free people to expose it.
There are millions of government secrets but nobody has shown me one that was opened or leaked that should have remained locked in the box for the good of the people.
I think Obama feels he can't have all of these government people, maybe a majority fearing the consequenses of a scandal and who then to protect their job security or freedom would want to get rid of him and he would lose his stated desire for a united country. Well, things are beyond that simple.
If Obama is gonna let the Bush Gang get away free like he is inclined so far, he would look bad to prosecute those who were following Bush's orders... like when Bush overturned the ban on assassination.
I don't think there will be real recovery, or peace without Justice. We'll See.
And maybe he is scared shitless that they will hurt him or his family. I'm not making excuses for him. I don't think the POTUS is anything more than a figurehead in our corporate dictatorship. A case in point is Rumsfield. I'll bet he was the one giving orders to Bush and Cheney and I'm not sure he is gone. Why no news coverage? Why no noise about the numerous lawsuits against him? Why do they permit us nobodies to yell and scream on these blog comments? Because people like Rumsfield are part of the corporate elite that runs our dictatorship. They won and they don't give a damn.
"Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy." This pretty much sums it up. What would be the fear if the decision was based on appropriate military action? ...if prisoners were treated according to the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. There would only be a fear if their actions were against these laws and in favor of torture or rendition.
Punishing the lower echelon participants is highly debatable, but this does not get us any closer to JUSTICE. At the least, those who carried out these orders ahould be put on notice pending further investigation...not given a free pass. Remember, they carried out these actions in the name of WE the People.
'The new administration is seeking to "craft new rules for when and how a terror suspect can be seized..."'
The Associated Press is camouflaging the fact that other states long ago crafted such rules to deal with terror suspects. The effect of such camouflaging is well-known to be extremely destructive to the interests of the people. Elites controlling the US government will craft new rules that serve elite interests at the expense of the people, while the people learn nothing of the far more just rules implemented in other states to deal with terrorists.
The people demand due process for terror suspects. The people understand that without due process, the handling of terror suspects greatly contributes to chaos on this planet, not order. The Associated Press is violating the intent behind the US constitution which is that the press must serve the interests of the people, NOT the interests of elites.
Wikipedia: T. Jefferson's 'goal was to create a government that would provide both security and opportunity for the individual. An active press was essential as a way of educating the population. In order to be able to work freely, the press must be free from control by the state. Jefferson was a person who himself suffered great calumnies of the press. Despite this, in his second inaugural address, he proclaimed that a government that could not stand up under criticism deserved to fall.'
'Jefferson said: "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all avenues of the truth".'
If the administration will not go after those who were "just following orders" the real question remains: will they prosecute those who gave the orders?
We must understand how we got to the place that allowed the chain of command to function as it did. Obviously you can not control the military if they question all orders. They are trained to follow orders. We would all like to pretend that if we were in similar circumstances we would do what is "right". Our system is very broken right now and it will take more than prosecuting the lower level people on the ground. Let's face it, if this administration doesn't go after the people whose orders were being followed then the world courts will. They have already said as much. Leahy is not getting lots of support for his "truth and reconciliation" attempt because too many people believe accountability must be part of this equation. Prosecution for war crimes is essential to restoring the rule of law. This isn't about retribution it is about justice. Speaking of justice.... like I said our system is very broken right now.
The 2008 Dark Horse Candidate has arrived. Human rights will hereto forward remain suspended. War criminals may return home and are encouraged to go shopping.
Let em' go shopping. Just make sure you don't shop and also make sure the war criminals have to pay plenty for whatever they buy. The only way to strip the rich of their power is by making them lose money.