Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, Tell Us the Whole Truth
‘Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position." With these words, Acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz ended a dream. The dream that Barack Obama's presidency would inaugurate a transcendent world order on a new moral plane.
Late on Friday Mr Hertz told the Washington district court that the Obama administration maintained President Bush's view that prisoners held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan could not challenge their detention in US courts. For the cynics, this is "a previously articulated position you can believe in".
This newspaper was not so naive as to imagine that President Obama would immediately conform to the most scrupulous interpretation of US and international law. We are pleased that he has ordered the closure within a year of Guantanamo Bay, halted military trials and restricted CIA interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques. But the refusal to grant legal rights to detainees at Bagram is disappointing.
The US Supreme Court ruling in 2004 that prisoners in Guantanamo had the right to take their cases to US courts ended the anomalous status of the prison camp in Cuba. President Bush's attempt to create a legal limbo outside the American and international legal systems had failed. But he continued to try to deny legal rights to prisoners not just in Guantanamo but in Iraq and Bagram, too.
Mr Obama's closure of Guantanamo therefore smacks more of fulfilling a symbolic pledge than following it through. The Bush administration's legal case was transparently unconvincing. It argued that detainees were "enemy combatants" being held until hostilities ceased. If so, they should have been entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the rights of prisoners of war. Yet President Bush resisted even that, and now President Obama represents continuity with that policy.
Indeed, Elena Kagan, Mr Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, said during her confirmation hearing that someone suspected of helping to finance al-Qa'ida should be subject to battlefield law - indefinite detention without trial - even if captured in the Philippines, say, rather than a battle zone.
Nor is this the first disappointment of Obama's presidency. Earlier this month, a government lawyer stuck to the Bush line in a case brought by Binyam Mohamed, the British resident expected home from Guantanamo tomorrow - about whom Clive Stafford Smith writes today. Mohamed and others are suing a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging "extraordinary rendition" flights, by which they were taken secretly to other countries where they say they were tortured.
The Bush administration had argued that the case should be dismissed because discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations. When the case resumed after President Obama's inauguration, the judge asked the Justice Department's lawyer if "anything material" had happened to change that view. "No, your Honor," came the reply. The position he continued to take, he said, had been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration".
What is more, Leon Panetta, Mr Obama's nominee as CIA director, charged with ending the use of torture techniques such as waterboarding by US agents, said that the agency is likely to continue to transfer detainees to third countries. It would rely on the same assurances of good treatment on which the Bush administration depended.
The Independent on Sunday supports the military action to defend the people of Afghanistan. We accept that there are some difficult practical issues, not least caused by the impossibility of fair legal proceedings against existing detainees on account of their past mistreatment. And we recognize that, since Mr Obama's inauguration, the glass of justice is fuller than it was.
But the case for respecting human rights remains unanswerable. Brutality, torture and long detention without trial are all not just morally repugnant but counterproductive. That is an argument President Obama himself made when he was running for office. Yet he has said nothing about the disappointing retreats from those high principles made on his behalf by subordinates in the past three weeks.
Gregory Craig, the White House counsel, said last week that the new President intended to avoid "bumper sticker slogans" in deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited. Human rights and the rule of law are not bumper sticker slogans. For the sake of the struggle against extremism, Mr Obama needs urgently to deploy his thoughtfulness and great eloquence in explaining just where he stands.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllHarumph. Obama is simply continuing the Israelization of the U.S. manner of conducting war and policing its new vassals. The U.K. is no stranger to this, either, and the Independent undermines any credibility it might have on this issue by this fine bit of doublespeak: "The Independent on Sunday supports the military action to defend the people of Afghanistan." Ah, so it's the "people" of Afghanistan we're defending by blowing the place up and contaminating their environment till kingdom come! This is as bad as the U.S. press's attempt, two or three years back, to call Iraqi resistance fighters "anti-Iraqi forces." Nothing short of massive demonstrations and general strikes will bring this madness to a halt. We owe it to the beleaguered Muslim populations of the Middle East and South Asia, who are the primary victims in this shameless, endless war on their world, and we owe it to ourselves.
The editorial makes a case for basic civilized conduct and the rule of law, something that should be profoundly conservative, yet is beyond the pale in today's political lanscape.
We must conclude that the Obama administration represents a higher quality of barbarism than the Bush administration. This is not a matter of achieving everything quickly; it is basic principle.
What is needed is for members of Congress and their constituents to step up to the plate and insist that these matters be handled appropriatelty in accordance with international law and in conformity with the letter and spirit of U.S. law as well.
The recent comments of Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, were, for example, unacceptible. There is absolutely no practical reason why "terrorism" cannot be handled as a matter of criminal law in all its phases: prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment. The special designation "enemy combatant" which places suspects outside the rubric of human rights conventions while still allowing government officials to claim adherance to the Conventions of Geneva must be scapped forthwith.
Not only this but also the whole definition and usage associated with the so-called "war on terror" ought to be thoroughly re-examined in order to make the proper intellectual distinction between the motives and intents of aggression and the means that are employed to put that aggression into effect. Suicide bombings of innocent civilian populations are an anthema to civilized people but many of the political and cultural aspirations in furtherance of which such actions are perpetrated are legitimate and should be subject to negotiation and compromise. For example: the institution of Shariah Law in the Swat Valley, the demands of Hamas and other Palestinian groups that Israeli settlements that go against U.N. Resolutions should cease and be reversed, the claims of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that they should be allowed to engage freely in the electoral process.
In light of long-standing historical experience,the great and continued sufferings of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole notion of "nation building" and "counter-insurgency" as an effective means to spread democracy and the rule of law to nations far from our shores should be thoroughly re-examined and their opponents in the Pentagon, Dept. of Defense, National Security Council, State Department and Committees of Congress ought to be promoted to higher positions of responsibility and control.
Quit skipping around the issues, stop pushing fanciful half measures which can only delay reform (Truth Commissions), face the facts, be an advocate with clear demands, don't leave it all up to the President and then complain when he doesn't do what you'd like.
odoco
One cannot adhere to international law, or conduct itself in a way that fosters respect for human rights if it is attempting to secure a world-wide military and commercial enterprise. The two concepts are simply incompatible.
Whether we admit it or not, we have engaged in another "Cold War" against both Russia and China, and to some extent, the EU. The resource base is rapidly dwindling; climate change and environmental degradation are facts - not myths; population increases and resultant starvation patterns have already begun to identify themselves. Yes folks - all these situations were eerily predicted at the end of the 60's and beginning of the 70's by very astute scientists - AND WERE EITHER IGNORED OR PLAYED DOWN BY THOSE WHO REFUSED TO CHANGE THEIR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE MANADATED THAT WE CHANGE THE WAY WE LIVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE!
Now, Obama finds himself stuck squarely in this loop of deceit. If he dramatically pushes for full discovery and accountability will the system itself fall apart? Has he fallen for the Right Wing's scare tactics that if he does not pursue Bush's most egregious policies we will be attacked again - and human rights be damned? Or could he be afraid that if he does actually implement sound strategies - long-range strategies that incorporate real change, real respect for the constitution and human rights - that he will be killed by the very people that have put us in this situation that is now rapidly destroying the country? Do any of you doubt that is out of the realm of possibility?
‘Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position."
Translation: Screw you, you suckers.
I have already admitted I've been screwed. Oh, by the way, the banking system is also insolvent. Have a nice day.
" I've been screwed", blued, and tattooed :
[_____ Property of Corporape of America _____]
BUT, I'm far from ready to have a fork stuck in me.
Namaste
here's a bumper sticker for obama's policy:
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BETTER!
Having conned his way into the whitehouse with bumper sticker promises, why abandon them now?
I have reached the point with Obama that I cannot BEAR to see him on TV or hear his voice because I think he's a Bush-clone on human rights, imperialist foreign policy, and Constitutional matters, only with better speech and a different-colored skin. I flee the room or turn off the dial.
I never DREAMED I'd have such revulsion for someone I so enthusiastically supported and voted for such a short time ago.
Well, that's probably why I feel it so strongly. I don't take betrayal and being lied to very well. And nobody should ask it.
Like most progressives you hope or expect too much. We are significantly better without Bush: http://www.alternet.org/story/127848/5_great_progressive_moves_by_obama_that_you_might_have_missed/
Change takes time.
Also let's not lose sight of how much better Obama is than Bush or McCain.
I think what's going on here is a power struggle. I'm absolutely certain that Obama wishes to close Bagram. But I doubt the military agrees with him. He's already closed Guantanamo, banned torture, and not escalated the Afghan war as much as the military would like. So he's got to be careful or he'll face a full military revolt. But, overall, we're still moving in the right direction.
He's not better than Bush on foreign policy but intends to continue the imperialistic drive to unlawfully occupy other sovereign countries in violation of all international law.
He's not better than Bush on Constitutional matters but intends to continue the illegal NSA spying and Geneva Convention violations and violating the separation of church/state.
He's just more interested in domestic policy than Bush.
Before the collapse of the economy, the ONLY issues I was concerned about were not domestic. They were issues revolving around undoing the devastation that Bush brought down on us all in his foreign policy and on the Constitutional rule of law. Nothing has changed that for me. Obama could have undone 85% of that damage with the stroke of a pen. He didn't, just picked a couple that would cause less outcry from the right wing than some others.
You go ahead and make excuses for him. That's your right.
I won't do it. I think he has no courage and no integrity.
"He's not better than Bush on foreign policy but intends to continue the imperialistic drive to unlawfully occupy other sovereign countries in violation of all international law."
He's already withdrawing troops from Iraq, banned torture, shut down CIA "black sites", and increased our use of diplomacy. Also, there is absolutely nothing illegal about our efforts in Afghanistan - everything was approved by the UN.
"He's not better than Bush on Constitutional matters but intends to continue the illegal NSA spying and Geneva Convention violations and violating the separation of church/state."
No he doesn't. You have no evidence to support that claim. Obama will carry out intelligence operations in accordance with the law just like Clinton did when he got FISA warrants. I have no idea what you mean about the "Geneva Convention violations and violating the separation of church/state."
"He's just more interested in domestic policy than Bush."
Good.
"Obama could have undone 85% of that damage with the stroke of a pen. "
He's not a king or a dictator. He's not Jesus. He's just a mere mortal.
You are living in a fantasy land.
"I think he has no courage and no integrity."
How dare you! You have no evidence to support that claim. It's an insult to all of us who support our President.
I certainly DO dare. Hell, what I wrote isn't an insult. It's an opinion, but you may take offense if you wish, but I think you'll be offended by a LOT of people.
And you're dead-wrong. Everything I listed is true. It's all been in the news for the last two weeks.
Sheep to slaughter.
I may have some regrets on voting for Obama but it's not as if he's done all bad. It's only been one month anyway and everyone's ganging up on him like mad. Give it a rest already.
Exactly.
Except, I have no regrets about voting for Obama.
Why should I?
joehope, check out this link that Parallax posted earlier and then answer your own question in regards to having regrets.
tip. if you reply back to this in less than 2 hours you didn't watch the entire thing ;-0 so do your homework my friend and watch it with an open mind.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
Nathan,
The problem with this is, Obama is not steering the US off of the disastrous course we are on. He is certainly making some changes, but not any fundamental ones.
For example, he supports the US as the top imperial military power in the world, and intends to continue research and development into space-based weapons that will allow the US to dominate global resources and smash any possible resistance. Look up Space 2020, US Space Command, Full Spectrum Dominance, or the "defense" priorities on Obama's revamped White House web site. Continuing down this road is a guarantee for disaster.
This is ultimately why he supports Bush-era policies on spying, human rights, prisons, etc. He has made some changes but has NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED US POLICY OR PRACTICE, because these policies and practices are thought important for the continued maintenance of US global dominance against all possible adversaries.
And as long as the country i was born in continues on its long-term path to World War and planning to dominate the world, i am not "giving it a rest" - i don't care who is President or what the propaganda is.
i understand that many will simply deny that Obama or the US are involved in any such long-term planning. The evidence is widely available, for persons not distracted by the entertainment and "news" and "analysis" that is spread so thickly over our awareness...
One site i like to recommend is the Global Network, www.space4peace.org.
Nobody is claiming that Obama has done everything bad. Obama has just assertively and proactively endorsed many of Bush's worst illegal and unconstitutional policies in the short month he's been in office. They are policies that will keep America in its illegal imperialistic position and its Constitution in tatters, to the outrage of MANY. Obama has not been passive about what he intends to do.
Everyone is not ganging up on Obama. Look at all his apologists.
Hell, not even Bush did EVERYTHING bad. he seems to have breathing, drinking and eating down quite well, as is his ambulation.
>>He's already withdrawing troops from Iraq, banned torture, shut down CIA "black sites", and increased our use of diplomacy. Also, there is absolutely nothing illegal about our efforts in Afghanistan - everything was approved by the UN.
The UN never approved the Invasion of Afghanistan.
Please cite the Security Council resolution that authorized said attack.
deleted
It was not necessary for the Security Council to approve the invasion, because it was act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
However the UN acknowledged it's approval of the occupation by not bringing charges against the coalition and by the United Nations Security Council establishing the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on 20 December 2001 as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement. Perhaps you have forgotten the it was the UN who approved NATO's role in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan did nothing to justify America's invasion as a "self-defense". 911 was the work of a terrorist cell, not the sovereign countries of Iraq or Afghanistan, not even members of the Taliban. Furthermore, those the US said were piloting the planes were Saudis, not Afghanis.
Afghanistan, too, was an illegal invasion, though we didn't know it at the time, since we were told OBL was the mastermind of 911 and the Taliban was hiding him --- we believed the Bush administration's claim that OBL was the mastermind. Well, turns out America can't find any evidence for that either.
The UN's appearance on the scene was for the aid and protection of the Afghanis, not an approval of the US attack on Afghanistan. The UN sends emissaries into as many war zones that it can, formally or informally, to alleviate as many conditions as possible, certainly NOT to applaud the action of the illegal invaders.
Obama's bombing forays into Pakistan, in addition to his continuing and expanding occupation of Afghanistan, are illegal.
Hi A N N E Y,
Thank you for your thorough debunking of attempts at re-writing history.
I sincerely doubt that J O E could ever actually be so systematically in error on so many issues, when he so often most assuredly promulgates neCONer versions of "facts" that are no where evident in any reality human beings live in.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Namaste
"The UN's appearance on the scene was for the aid and protection of the Afghanis, not an approval of the US attack on Afghanistan. The UN sends emissaries into as many war zones that it can, formally or informally, to alleviate as many conditions as possible, certainly NOT to applaud the action of the illegal invaders."
Are you serious? Are you joking? You can't be that ignorant.
Did you miss this? The ISAF are not "emissaries".
"by the United Nations Security Council establishing the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on 20 December 2001 as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement. Perhaps you have forgotten the it was the UN who approved NATO's role in Afghanistan."
NATO is not handing out candy and flowers. They are assisting us in our combat missions. Get a clue.
"deploy his thoughtfulness and great eloqeunce".....can we stop the mythology now? "support military action to protect the people of Afghanistan".....please people, we don't have time for such wasteful drivel, but many thanks for pointing out the continuation of crimes against humanity by the Obama administration. The truth has power.
""deploy his thoughtfulness and great eloqeunce".....can we stop the mythology now? "
That's not a myth, Obama is thoughtful and eloquent, that's a fact.
""support military action to protect the people of Afghanistan".....please people, we don't have time for such wasteful drivel, "
Then why on earth are we there? Afghanistan doesn't have oil, it doesn't have anything we want. We're there to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban and to "protect the people of Afghanistan"".
Joe,
"We" are in Afghanistan as part of a strategy to win a global resource war and dominate the world. Again, the evidence is certainly there.
BTW, we sure are protecting the hell out of the grateful people of Afghanistan...
J O E,
Pursuit of OIL is not only the physical resource's ORIGINAL location, but also the delivery mechanism -- like a pipeline that just so "accidently" passes close to all of the US bases in Afghanistan in a direct line from where the oil is ( Northern neighbors ) to the Indian Ocean and tankers ( South ).
¿ Perhaps you can connect the "dots" ?
Namaste
Let's not forget the main resource in Afghanistan... Heroin.
Hi G O L D E N _ M E A N
Yes cash is king and w/o the opium production, our banksters ( & CIA ) would be starving.
Perhaps the Taliban do invoke real terror for the banksters -- as another year like 2001's heroin shortages might just cause a nasty financial crisis.
Namaste
The solutions to the problems that the world is facing, and that countries like the US and UK are creating, requires a fundamental shift in social, political and international policy.
The election of Obama, at best a centrist conservative interested more in protecting corporate interests, is proof that the US population has not been able to commit to the changes that are necessary.
This is reflected by the fact that many 'progressives' (this website included) endorsed Obama without any demand that he address issues is a way that would address the concerns of the general public.
Obama would rather that the conservatives be happy with his policies than the progressives.
I'm 50 years old, not an activist but involved, and have come to the realization that the changes that I believe will be necessary to evolve into a more just society will not occur in my lifetime (if ever).
www.NotOneMore.US
I'm not cynical, I'm just jaded.
Another view ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
great video link Parallax. thanks for posting.
This should be required viewing for those that worship Capitalism and who continue to claim the United States a force for good and freedom.
You can see the same tactics being used today with Chavez and Morales on the part of the United SDtates Government.
Good link.
PK
amen. this should be viewed by everyone.
Notice that it is always "someone in the administration" who talks and not him.He has to get up there and put his ass on the line if he is going to bush it.Tony
love that pun!
Europe should mind its own business as they're filled with just as dishonest leaders as this country. Hell, they wouldn't even elect an Afro-Euro to leadership. At least America showed its kind heart towards race for once and in a big way. Besides, it was Europe who divided India into India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc ... and it was Europe who divided Palestine up and let the zionists ruin the lives of everyone in the Middle East. Besides, Europe is still busy raping America with all those "free trade" deals and those military bases to protect them. Tell you what Europe, let's take away our military bases from you and see how you can be on your own. I love the way you people set a great example of public transportation and proving to us that going green is actually great for both the business and the environment but please stay out of our business. You UK Gaurdian post that you dropped in Ohio in 2004 was what gave Dubya his second term or else OH would have voted Kerry.
do you mean the independent can't comment on the actions of its most important ally (even if, as i think, some of those comments are deranged)? hopefully you feel the same about the innumerable commentary from the u.s. daily papers about european, canadian, latin american, etc., politics
btw, most europeans would be plenty happy if the u.s. packed its military bags and went home, disbanded nato, etc. they don't support either the afghan or iraq wars, are generally more balanced about israel, etc. european leaders are another matter. they are committed to the u.s. b/c, rightly or wrongly, they still view the u.s. as the best way to secure the interests of their own elites. one might think europe would be much better off ditching a moribund, crazed u.s. and cultivating better relations with russia and china.
"Tell you what Europe, let's take away our military bases from you and see how you can be on your own."
YES PLEASE!
YANKEE GO HOMELAND!
The European governments have not been torturing--and murdering-- helpless prisoners, rendering for the same, locking them up without trial. And this (USA)country should mind it's own business and not go around the world swaggering into invasions of other countries, committing mass-murder rapine, looting and mayhem as they go.
As for that ignorant nonsense about how they wouldn't elect an Afro-European, consider this: The first ship full of African slaves arrived in what later became this country just a couple of years after the Puritans landed. It's taken us about 4 centuries to elect a president who is part-African. Colored (let's call it that for simpicity) immigration did not get going in Europe until the 1950s. Already their parliaments have members and cabinet members from those immigrant backgrounds. Check how long we had to wait for A-A Members of Congress. Discount a very few in Reconstruction and we're talking almost all of our centuries on these shores.
And, FYI, as this country still proudly declares itself "The Leader of the Free World" (whatever that "Free World" means these days), I'd say the Europeans (and the rest of the world) have a perfect right to criticize the actions of it's "Dear Leader."
Rainborowe
The first boatload of African slaves landed in Jamestown in August of 1619, the year before the landing of the Mayflower.
I stand corrected! Actually I was doing it from ancient memory and erred on the side of caution!
Rainborowe
Obama is just Bush with jug ears, a suntan, and a toothy grin. Bombs away!
What would happen if Obama when he took office, faced with huge crises, a dismantled government loaded with Bush appointees and controlled by financial interests, immediately gave everything libs and progs want?
The question could more accurately be, what would happen to Obama?
straw man.
Continuing Bush policies on torture is not a matter of simple imperfection.
One thing that would happen is his progressive supporters would find new energy to continue to raise the bar. This country has backtracked so far in 8 years we need to move forward. This decision to continue a lawless policy is extremely disappointing. Obama has to make better decisions or he will lose a great part of his supporters, we do not need, cannot accept more of the past administrations failed policies.
"But the case for respecting human rights remains unanswerable. Brutality, torture and long detention without trial are all not just morally repugnant but counterproductive. That is an argument President Obama himself made when he was running for office..... For the sake of the struggle against extremism, Mr Obama needs urgently to deploy his thoughtfulness and great eloquence in explaining just where he stands."
He certainly does!
Clovis---
"The Independent on Sunday supports the military action to defend the people of Afghanistan."
Your comment on this quote is right on. I often get angry when hearing qualifying moderators like that from ostenible liberals, that enable the right wing to continue to frame the agenda.
Example: "While of course I support Israel I would like to point out that there is no evidence that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium or intends to."
Iran, which has no nuclear weapons as such, is a signatory to the NNPT and its nuclear production sites are regularly inspected by the IAEA. Israel is reported to have as many as 20 nuclear bombs yet does not admit to having any nuclear program and thus is not inspected.
Which of these nations is potentially the greater threat. This is not even a question.
Translation of the Independent's statement:"While we dare not take issue with the UK's imperial policy we do have a quibble on an issue of human rights."
It makes me wonder why Mr Fisk continues to write for them. He ought to be saying, "Mr Netenyahoo, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!"
***
shaplin---
I agree.
-30-
OleManRiver ".... Israel is reported to have as many as 20 nuclear bombs yet does not admit to having any nuclear program and thus is not inspected"
I agree with your sentiment; the usual intelligence estimate is between 200 and 250 nuclear devices and since some of these could be small tactical nukes, as in artillery shells etc., there is an even greater danger of their deployment by the ideological prophecy driven extreme right.