Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Civil Liberties Speech
Obama's speech this morning, like most Obama speeches, made pretty points in rhetorically effective ways about the Constitution, our values, transparency, oversight, the state secrets privilege, and the rule of law. But his actions, in many critical cases, have repeatedly run afoul of those words. And while his well-crafted speech can have a positive impact on our debate and contained some welcome and rare arguments from a high-level political leader -- changes in the terms of the debate are prerequisites to changes in policy and the value of rhetoric shouldn't be understated -- they're still just words until his actions become consistent with them.
Worse, Obama repeatedly invoked the paradigm of The War on Terror to justify some extreme policies -- see my post of earlier today on this practice -- beginning with his rather startling declaration that he will work to create a system of "preventive detention" for accused Terrorists without a trial, in order to keep locked up indefinitely people who, in his words, "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." In other words, even as he paid repeated homage to "our values" and "our timeless ideals," he demanded the power (albeit with unspecified judicial and Congressional oversight) to keep people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime having been committed, all while emphasizing that this "war" will continue for at least ten years. Compare the power of indefinite, "preventive" detention he's seeking to this:
"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269.
Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533 (1953) (Jackson, J.) (conc. op.).
Similarly, he simultaneously paid homage to "rule of law" while demanding that there be no investigations or accountability for those who repeatedly broke the law.
The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does: effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them (indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds). Like all political officials, Obama should be judged based on his actions and decisions, not his words and alleged intentions and motives. Those actions in the civil liberties realm, with some exceptions, have been profoundly at odds with his claimed principles, and this speech hasn't changed that. Only actions will.
UPDATE: Immediately reacting to speeches of this type, as I've done here, is always a perilous undertaking, since it generally helps to be able to reflect on what one has heard. It ought to be apparent that my reaction to Obama's speech was fairly mixed. There were some very well-delivered and well-argued parts -- ones that were important. And one sees the potency of the bipartisan political opposition -- and the vindictive conniving from some of Washington's permanent power centers in the intelligence and military community -- triggered by even by the mildest of changes, such as the closing of Guantanamo and the release of the OLC memos. Challenging that opposition, even rhetorically, entails political costs and deserves some credit. But I'm always going to assess Obama based on what he does, not on what he says.
Ultimately, what I find most harmful about his embrace of things like preventive detention, concealment of torture evidence, opposition to investigations and the like is that these policies are now no longer just right-wing dogma but also the ideas that many defenders of his -- Democrats, liberals, progressives -- will defend as well. Even if it's due to perceived political necessity, the more Obama embraces core Bush terrorism policies and assumptions -- we're fighting a "war on terror"; Presidents have the power to indefinitely and "preventatively" imprison people with no charges; we can create new due-process-abridging tribunals when it suits us; the "Battlefield" is everywhere; we should conceal evidence when it will make us look bad -- the more those premises are transformed from right-wing dogma into the prongs of bipartisan consensus, no longer just advocated by Bush followers but by many Obama defenders as well. The fact that it's all wrapped up in eloquent rhetoric about the rule of law, our Constitution and our "timeless values" -- and the fact that his understanding of those values is more evident than his predecessor's -- only heightens the concern.
So now, we're going to have huge numbers of people who spent the last eight years vehemently opposing such ideas running around arguing that we're waging a War against Terrorism, a "War President" must have the power to indefinitely lock people away who allegedly pose a "threat to Americans" but haven't violated any laws, our normal court system can't be trusted to decide who is guilty, Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans, the primary obligation of the President is to "keep us safe," and -- most of all -- anyone who objects to or disagrees with any of that is a leftist purist ideologue who doesn't really care about national security. In other words, arguments and rhetoric that were once confined to Fox News/Bush-following precincts will now become mainstream Democratic argumentation in service of defending what Obama is doing. That's the most harmful part of this -- it trains the other half of the citizenry to now become fervent admirers and defenders of some rather extreme presidential "war powers."
UPDATE II: There's very little worth saying about the speech Dick Cheney delivered after Obama's. It's just the same recycled, extremist neoconservative pablum that drove the U.S. into the deep ditch in which it currently finds itself. The central Cheneyite claim -- they were right because they prevented another Terrorist attack on the Homeland -- is so patently ludicrous, since (a) they presided over 9/11; (b) the post-9/11 antrax attacks happened "on their watch"; (c) Clinton "kept the country safe" for almost 8 years after the first World Trade Center attack (and, therefore, by Cheney's reasoning, Clinton's terrorism approach must have been optimal); and (d) it assumes without demonstrating that we're unable to defend ourselves unless we torture people, spy without warrants, and generally act like lawless, barbaric cretins.
I spent most of the first couple of years after I began writing, in late 2005, focused principally on the corruption and destruction wreaked by America's Right (with a secondary focus on their Democratic enablers). I did that because, back then, that was who mattered. I tend to ignore the Cheneyite Right now because they matter far less and their glaring flaws are manifest to most people, not because I think they're any less worthy of scorn and contempt.
UPDATE III: Upon further reflection, and after reading D-Day's reaction to Obama's speech, one point I made in the immediate aftermath of the speech isn't really accurate. Obama did not, as I inaccurately wrote, "demand[] that there be no investigations or accountability for those who repeatedly broke the law." Instead, he said that he personally is not interested in "re-litigating" those issues, and that he opposes an independent Truth Commissions, but also said:
I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.
That seems consistent with what he has said in the past -- that it is for the Attorney General to decide who should and should not be prosecuted -- though, as D-Day points out, those statements seem inconsistent with many of Obama's actions. That, I think, is the key point. As Holly McLachlan says in Comments: "Obama is a tremendous speaker. The best I've seen in national politics during my adult lifetime, without contest." Nobody can give as persuasive and moving a political speech as he can. That's all the more reason to be vigilant about judging him by his actions.
69 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
I think KAFKA was more prophetic than he may have realized in, "The Trial."
Greenwald paints the scary picture of slice and dice protocols originally engineered by the extreme right, now integrated into the basic workings of American power and policy. The slippery slope remains not only undefined, but open to chilling interpretation with respect to what (and who) fits the characterization of a threat to America. As big business (bankers, MIC, big pharma) increasingly find themselves positioned to influence (if not make) policy, those who wish to challenge their agendas can be defined as threats to the status quo, or the government, or who knows, American security?
Unbelievable that the nation has allowed the ruse of 911, followed by a false war, as a fair enough excuse to trade in its hard-won liberties, all the while being sung the lullaby, "You will be safe now," as they're lulled to sleep.
Just march on to the showers now. Your belongings will be returned after they've also been deloused.
... keep locked up indefinitely people who, in his words, "cannot be prosecuted" like Bush, Cheney
and all the kings men who have deliberately lied their country into the war crimes business.
Different year; same old lies! Germany was a modern state back then too folks.
The propaganda is far far ahead of the people.
It took Joe Sixpack five years to figure out Bush may not have been honest with him regarding Iraq. And Bush's lies were gross and transparent.
It'll be ten years or more before the typical Obama worshipper realizes he screwed them worse than Bush as his b.s. is smoother and his delivery is pitch-perfect.
The president's job is to protect and defend the Constitution...NOT KEEP US SAFE. It makes me sick to hear Obama dutifully recite this Rovian talking point.
You describe the exact reasons why ObamaInc is more dangerous than BushCo.
Obama's speech this morning . . . they're still just words until his actions become consistent with them.
Thank you. Like they always say, talk's cheap.
Glenn's first Update here is key to understanding how all this is and will be going down. Some of the most vocal critics of the Bush-Cheney atrocities from 2002-09 will soon be the most vocal defenders of those same exact policies.
As Obama recasts and reframes torture and illegal detention policy, he advaces the very worst elements of the Bush doctrine, making them his own, just as he makes Bush's illegal wars his own under the threadbare rubric of the War on Terror.
So we'll have platoons of Obama-defenders all over corporate media and the web, standing up for the very policies they spent the past several years decrying and railing against. All because they're now Obama's policies. This is one example of how we've swiftly become a nation not of laws but of men. Brainless leader worship will deliver that on our doorstep every time. The only delivery charge is forfeiting democracy and the freedoms it once promised.
But what the hell? Obama makes great speeches! That he repeatedly contradicts his words with his actions is consistent with the New Improved Hypocrisy most Americans either never notice of feel perfectly at home with.
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: Wise post! And some people don't think sports (hint: teams!) influence politics? Sports are the new opiate of the peoples in the USA and it's evident the team mania has transfered over to the political realm.
I tend to believe that, however many of the people that I speak with (who are not as political as posters here)agree that o Bomber is morphing into w before our eyes. We are probably better at spotting a lie than we were 8 years agoI must admit this is a bitter pill to swollow.
More like President tap dance and BS. I pity those who spent lots of money and time getting this guy elected.
Not quite so. Last night Rachel Maddows was the proverbial child that yelled "this emperor has no clothes"!
Sioux Rose,
You raise some excellent points. In some ways, Obama scares me in many of the same ways Bush does, only now, many progressives find it harder to rally Democrats to fight against the continuation of the Bush policy on torture/Guantanamo. "Brand Obama" is as slick as they come.
Does anyone know of any movements to draft Russ Feingold to enter the 2012 presidential race? We need a strong antidote for the poisonous philosophies that our current president is promoting. I've had it with spineless Democrats. Obama certainly is trending Republican-lite these days.
Sioux Rose
FARMGIRL: It's my wish that media truly become fair and balanced so that citizens get a chance to learn the truth and have skillful, intelligent voices deconstruct the false constructs upon which most base their opinions.
More than a decade ago I pitched an idea to people like George Soros and Ted Turner for a TV network devoted to higher thought. I envisioned programs on Yoga, spirituality, vegetarian cooking, holistic health practices (prevention over "cure"), and dynamic debates and dialogs among the leaders in the fields of new thought, sacred ecology, comparative religion, and the mystic arts.
There are networks for Christian groups, for sports, for so-called news, for drama, for history, but the thing missing is a vision that would transcend what most take for inescapable reality, a dead-end self-perpetuating feedback loop that results when marginalized voices remain cast under the false castigation of heresy. This deadlock over minds has gone on for centuries. Small wonder we arrive now at the juncture where values consistent with the archetypes of Mars and Mammon have been so successful in co-opting minds and government policy that the world faces economic and ecological collapse, just when armies everywhere are well-equipped to march and steal what they can from peaceful citizens. There are alternatives to the old recipe for disaster (now capitalism's favored basis for profit), but until a lot of people learn about them, they exist only in The Twilight Zone.
By the way, on this hopeful network political voices that reflected a more holistic vision for America and the world would be given the spotlight!
The Vichycrats desperately, and I mean DESPERATELY, need a democrat, a Gene McCarthy RIGHT NOW! Some Vichycrat has to become a Democrat again and be willing to go to war against Obysmal, this reincarnation of Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They can't wait until our equivalent of 1968. Do the Vichycrats have anybody with the courage RIGHT NOW to call Obysmal a liar, a warmonger, a killer by remote control and, perhaps most effective of all, the jerkoff who will lead them once again to defeat?
Meanwhile...Obama the dickhead:
Fending off criticism from human rights and civil rights groups at a private White House meeting Wednesday, a frustrated President Obama complained about the "mess" he'd been left by his predecessor.
The exchange came during an hour and fifteen minute "off the record" session in the White House cabinet room that highlighted growing tensions between the president and his liberal base. While the White House session was billed as an effort by the president to listen to his critics on the left, some of them left disappointed.
According to three sources who attended the meeting, Obama reiterated his intention to retain a version of the military tribunal system established to try terror detainees and said his administration will likely end up adopting some form of 'indefinite detention' policy to justify holding some selected suspects without trial. Still, Obama brusquely rejected suggestions by some of those present that, in doing so, he was adopting key tenets of Bush era policies considered unacceptable by his liberal supporters.
...
The sources, all of whom asked not to be identified because of the White House insistence that the meeting was private, also said Attorney General Eric Holder sat by silently while the president curtly dismissed the idea that his Justice Department should criminally prosecute at least one Bush administration official for torture, if only as a symbolic move to demonstrate that actions such as waterboarding will never be tolerated again.
While declining to talk about any of the specific back and forth, American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero told Newsweek he was not happy by much of what he heard during the meeting. Obama showed a "remarkable command" of the issues, Romero said. But, he added, "it is disappointing that he appears poised to continue with many of the Bush policies that have ended in failure. If he goes down that track, President Obama will find himself in the same legal morass that swallowed up George Bush."
Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/198706
Oh look, he gave them 15 more minutes than he gave the progressive caucus and whined about the "mess" he inherited. Hey--he knew what he was walking into. How's those corporate centrist appointees sitting at the right hand?
Off the record and not even a crumb.
Why do I feel like Obama will end up being extremely divisive of the left and the neo-cons will come charging back into power (though some may say with this administration they never left) starting with next year's congressional elections?
Oregoncharles
"Why do I feel like Obama will end up being extremely divisive of the left and the neo-cons will come charging back into power (though some may say with this administration they never left) starting with next year's congressional elections?"
Answer: Because it's how the scam works - all by brilliant design.
-Attorney General Eric Holder sat by silently while the president curtly dismissed the idea that his Justice Department should criminally prosecute at least one Bush administration official for torture, if only as a symbolic move to demonstrate that actions such as waterboarding will never be tolerated again.
Yes I heard about that, so much for letting the attorney general apply the criminal law where the facts lead him.
Again, expecting the party that jointly ruled America, along with the Republicans to investigate themselves, are you suprised?
In contrast to your system, in democracies, what we do, is vote out the politicians who have screwed up, and give a chance to the best alternatives to see if they can do better.
Having no conflict of interest, and genuinely motivated to keep their jobs, the fresh team tends to work harder at doing what's demanded of them.
Where does it say we have to depend on Eric Holder to lead the way? Even with new leaders, the same institutions that presided over the Bush debacles can't really be expected to robustly pursue justice related to those debacles. We do have others working, starting with Kevin Zeese and his organizations, VotersForPeace.US and the Velvet Revolution. Days ago, they filed complaints about the various Bush legal enablers with their respective state or federal licensing agencies. If a few hits result from those efforts, prosecutions -- including prosecutions of non-lawyers -- might stand a chance, although again I wouldn't expect the Justice Department to be in the forefront.
Shorter Obama:
Heh, heh. Thanks for electing me, but now I'm hanging out with the cool kids. We have a pick-up game at 2:00. Any more questions or concerns go to my website, or call Rahm. Heh, heh.
"That's all the more reason to be vigilant about judging him by his actions."
There's nothing new under the sun, so to speak. Lofty rhetoric vs. abominable (or maybe in this case Obamanable) actions. The dichotomy is older than history. I'm beginning to think we all engage in that at some level, though when most of us do it doesn't affect the lives of billions.
I don't think his speeches are that great.
They are boring, hollow & canned, but then after Bush anyone would seem impressive. He ain't no MLK,Jr..but then, he ain't no Rev Wright even either.
Can we see if Rev. Wright will run for POTUS?
I agree. He doesn't seem at all passionate about what he's saying, even when he's pretending to be a populist. "Canned" is a good word for this guy.
Yeah, I've never felt that certain electrifying something when Obama speaks, either. Here's part of a comment related to that I posted elsewhere earlier today:
In case you're unfamiliar with "Lord of the Rings", Saruman is one of a small group of Wizards sent to Middle-earth to counter the evil Enemies dominating it. But Saruman himself has become corrupt and self-serving. Still, he retains great powers-- including a Voice described in the following quote.
Last year I scandalized a family member who warmed up to Obama (and who knows "Lord of the Rings" well) by remarking that Obama's vaunted gift of oratory didn't resonate with me-- like The Voice of Saruman, I noted impulsively. My relative was shocked that I would equate Obama with one of the villains of LOTR!
It was a spontaneous observation, but prophetic. Tolkien's work may have been popularized to his detriment, but the man had a keen insight into human behavior:
_______________________________________
"Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell."
_______________________________________
Gee whiz, for 60 year old "escapist" fiction, that's a pretty accurate representation of Obama, his sycophantic supporters, and the dependent news media devoted to manufacturing Received Wisdom.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
OBEDIENT: There is no question the voice holds power. A few "stream of consciousness" thoughts on that:
1. The throat area is the 5th chakra and said to relate to power
2. Years ago there was a great little vegetarian restaurant on 6th St in "The Village" of NYC and when I would visit my college roommate, we'd go, sit at the same table and get the same waiter. He had dreams of becoming an actor, and while not handsome, his voice we both said was "one we'd like to wake up from surgery to." Or if a movie was done where the voice of the deity had to utter some message, this guy was the ONE for the part.
3. A voice can be seductive, and from a woman's point of view "it's the first THING that gets inside of her."
Now about those voice lessons, gentlemen of the forum...
Can you imagine if you could use Skype on Commondreams...?
Get to see what everybody really looks and sounds like...?
I'd rather not know...
I have been disillusioned by too many heroes after meeting them in person...
Thank you for the mellifluous resonance of the map being far different than the actual territory.
Perhaps the ◎ voice is a wisp of an echo of a far away goat path past a fresh stream, while we dodge frwy traffic inundated by screeching tires and burnt throbbing crashes ?
So Obama favours preventive detention for accused terrorists.
Does this signal that he intends to appoint a conservative justice to the Supreme Court so that the right of habeas corpus, that the court upheld in Boumediene vs. Bush in a challenge of the Military Commissions Act by 5-4, will be overturned in a test of the Preventative Detentions Act?
-Does this signal that he intends to appoint a conservative justice to the Supreme Court so that the right of habeas corpus, that the court upheld in Boumediene vs. Bush in a challenge of the Military Commissions Act by 5-4, will be overturned in a test of the Preventative Detentions Act?
It stands to reason that Obama will appoint someone that will affirm his stand that the US constitution, treaties, habeus corpus, etc. are quaint. Why would he do otherwise?
Oh...but isn't it exciting, waiting to find out if that follower of the Yoo school of law is black, hispanic or a woman!
I think Rush Limbaugh was on to something when he hoped Obama's presidency would be a failure. It's perhaps the only time I've ever agreed with something he said.
The first black president futher sold the populace into slavery as he continues the objectives of the neoliberalcons who want to destroy our rights and what little vestige of democracy that remains.
"So Obama favours preventive detention for accused terrorists."
The Senate doesn't want them here. What else can he do? A signing statement?
And this is all the more reason that we MUST have a restoration of our constitutional rights. We worried what would happen when NEW presidents took over the expanded powers that George W assumed. NOW we KNOW.
"The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution." Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Retribution this way comes ... because that's the way it works.
/cm
RE: "...arguments and rhetoric that were once confined to Fox News/Bush-following precincts will now become mainstream Democratic argumentation..."
SEE: "The Authoritarians" (261 pages), by Bob Altemeyer, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba
Chapter 1 Who Are the Authoritarian Followers?
Chapter 2 The Roots of Authoritarian Aggression, and Authoritarianism Itself
Chapter 3 How Authoritarian Followers Think
Chapter 4 Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism
Chapter 5 Authoritarian Leaders
Chapter 6 Authoritarianism and Politics
Chapter 7 What's To Be Done?
FREE PDF DOWNLOAD - http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
ALTERNATE SITE - http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Sioux Rose
DICKERSON: I thought John Dean did a powerful job on this topic in his book, "Conservatives without Conscience." He definitely nails the authoritarian personality type, links the understanding of this characteristic with research done in Nazi Germany, and articulates why this mindset is a danger to any semblance of a democracy.
Greenwald sez: "That's the most harmful part of this -- it trains the other half of the citizenry to now become fervent admirers and defenders of some rather extreme presidential 'war powers.'"
***
Bingo.
Cult of Personality defeats Rule of Law in a third-round TKO. Mission accomplished!
Obama said that "he will work to create a system of preventive detention for accused Terrorists without a trial, in order to keep locked up indefinitely people who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."
He learned that this is acceptable where? In Harvard Law School's course on the quaintness of habeas corpus?
This is completely illogical and unworthy of a legal argument. If they pose a "clear danger" then how come we cannot charge them with anything? Shouldn't it be clear what they - did do - are doing - are planning to do? If it is so clear, wouldn't a jury be able to see it? Or are we too stupid? Are these matters the providence of the elite?
This type of reasoning was called out in the 12th century because it gives the elite a carte blanche to throw anyone in jail forever based on secret evidence, which may or may not exist.
Law requires that we give everyone the rights we want. Wouldn't you be annoyed if someone threw you in jail forever based on something they won't tell you or let your lawyer contest?
Joe
Sioux
JCLIENTELLE: As per your 12th century comment, imagine how convenient this new flexible law can be when it comes to taking care of any who dissent against you, or your policies.
It reminds me of a skit I adored on Saturday Night Live where Jon Lovitz sits at his office desk and in come two impossible people. Why argue with them when a strategically-placed "trap door" can take the problem away instantly? (And the skit was based on not finding yourself embarassed if the thing didn't operate properly, i.e. to make sure you utilized a specific company to install it for security purposes.)
U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
American presidents take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States
but why. oh why, do they act to protect the Corporation of the United States?
Humbaba, of course Constitutional law professors know all that stuff by heart.They use it to win hearts and minds. peace
The constitution is just a god damned piece of paper. Seriously. Burn it. Its useless.
So what's the plan for the next election? If you guys vote green, will we end up with Gingrich?
Surely our goal should be fill congress with progressives-we could have Nader, McKinney, Kucinich etc
Why does it matter if they're dems? I also propose abolishing the senate.
I heard Daphne Eviatar on antiwar.com radio today explaining this concern with "people who are dangerous but cannot be prosecuted." They can't be prosecuted because they've been tortured, or because they may reveal "state secrets" (read, embarrassing info). http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/05/20/daphne-eviatar-2/
She said, well, that's why habeas corpus was instituted, so you couldn't lock people up to keep them from embarrassing you. This is very chilling to hear Obama use this phrase.
"The central Cheneyite claim -- they were right because they prevented another Terrorist attack on the Homeland -- is so patently ludicrous..."
Hold on - they may or may not have prevented another terrorist attack on the "homeland," but, in fact, since we're fighting a "war on terror," and are at "war" with "terrorists," then, on the Bush/Cheney Watch, tens of thousands of Americans have been killed and/or maimed by "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only thing Bush/Cheney did to prevent "terror" attacks on the "homeland" was to make it way easier for "terrorists" to kill Americans without having to hassle with fake passports and disguises and all that "24" stuff - all "terrorists" have had to do for the past 7 years is open their front door and squeeze off a few rounds...
So right, frank1569. Note also with respect to "maimed" survivors that there were very few in 9/11, but tens of thousands due to terrorism (IED's, snipers, etc.) overseas after 9/11. And our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan turned world opinion against us -- the opposite of the effect of 9/11. As a footnote, the financial cost of the wars has exceeded what 9/11 cost us.
Obama will become known not as the Burger King but as the Reversal King. How many decisions has he made and reversed thus far?
He not only has a forked tongue but his ducking and weaving is reaching Gold Medal standard.
He'd make a great used-car salesman!
www.dangerouscreation.com
No one would support habeas corpus and engages in the violent, abusive incarceration that the Obama administration already has, as exposed in Jeremy Scahill's recent CD posts.
"She dealt her pretty words like knives . . . "
I have before me the original of an order of the police of Breslau, dated May 18, 1933 for the arrest of my father on the grounds of Hitler’s ‘law for the protection of the people and the state’ of February 28, 1933. The order did not state which real law my father had broken nor did it specify the length of his arrest, which eventually lasted until April 1945. This type of incarceration became known as ‘Schutzhaft’ meaning ‘Protective Incarceration’. It was assumed without any proof that my father was a danger to the people and state of Germany, hence had to be locked up indefinitely.
‘Schutzhaft’ existed in Germany before Hitler became its chancellor. It existed during the Weimar Republic and was probably enacted soon after Germany became an empire in 1870. What was new is that Hitler filled his prisons and concentration camps with millions of ‘dangerous’ people based on his version of ‘Schutzhaft’.
Have tens of thousands of American soldiers died or become wounded in the defeat of the Hitler regime and to end this abomination in Germany only to have President Obama institute an analogous regime here?