Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Are We?
Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the early months of the Obama administration has been its unwillingness to end many of the mind-numbing abuses linked to the so-called war on terror and to establish a legal and moral framework designed to prevent those abuses from ever occurring again.
The president deserves credit for unequivocally banning torture and some of the other brutal interrogation techniques that spread like a plague in the Bush administration’s lawless response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But other policies that offend the conscience continue.
Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.
And yet we’ve embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we’ve tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it “prolonged detention”), but he wants to make sure it is carried out — here comes the oxymoron — fairly and nonabusively.
Proof of guilt? In 21st-century America, there is no longer any need for such annoyances.
Human rights? Ha-ha. That’s a good one.
Also distressing is the curtain of secrecy the Obama administration has kept drawn over shameful abuses that should be brought into the light of day. Back in April, the administration rightly released the “torture memos” detailing the gruesome interrogation techniques unleashed by the Bush crowd. But last month, Mr. Obama apparently tripped over his own instincts and reversed his initial decision to release photos of American soldiers engaged in the brutal abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We saw the profound effect of the disclosure of the photos from Abu Ghraib in 2004. Imagine if they had never been released. Now, in an affront to a society that is supposed to be intelligent and free, the Obama administration is trying to sit on photos that are just as important for Americans to see. The president’s argument for trying to block the court-ordered release of the photos is a demoralizing echo of the embarrassingly empty rhetoric of the Bush years:
“The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.”
The Obama administration is also continuing the Bush administration’s abuse of the state-secrets privilege. Lawyers from the Obama Justice Department have argued, as did lawyers from the Bush administration before them, that a lawsuit involving extraordinary rendition and allegations of extreme torture should be dismissed outright because discussions of such matters in court would harm national security.
In other words, the victims, no matter how strong their case might be, no matter how badly they might have been abused, could never have their day in court. Jane Mayer, writing in the June 22 New Yorker, said of the rendition program, in which suspects were swept up by Americans and spirited off to foreign countries for imprisonment and interrogation: “As many as seven detainees were misidentified and abducted by mistake.”
The Bush and Obama view of the state-secrets privilege effectively bars any real examination of such egregious mistakes.
It was thought by many that a President Obama would put a stop to the madness, put an end to the Bush administration’s nightmarish approach to national security. But Mr. Obama has shown no inclination to bring even the worst offenders of the Bush years to account, and seems perfectly willing to move ahead in lockstep with the excessive secrecy and some of the most egregious activities of the Bush era.
The new president’s excessively cautious approach to the national security and civil liberties outrages of the Bush administration are unacceptable, and the organizations and individuals committed to fairness, justice and the rule of law — the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many others — should intensify their efforts to get the new administration to do the right thing.
More than 500 of the detainees incarcerated at one time or another at Guantánamo Bay have been released, and, except for a handful, no charges were filed against them. The idea that everyone held at Guantánamo was a terrorist — the worst of the worst — was always absurd.
Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, noted that Mr. Obama had promised to bring both transparency and accountability to matters of national security. It’s the only way to get our moral compass back.- Posted in
Comments
The Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines.
131 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems to me American presidents are far more dangerous to the world than any of these men held without trial.
American presidents are tools of the CIA. The CIA will kill them poliyically or physically if they stop pushing war profiteering. We are a plutocratic kleptocracy. The demos plays no part in governing.
Did not get a chance to say anything when you posted on the 22nd;to do no harm even in extreme danger is a tough place to be and should be the wave of the future.My own story of this is when in Vietnam during TET 68 at the airbase outside of Saigon,I was AF,the Vietcong were on the base and we could get a weapon for defense,a rifle,but I told my friend who was walking with me on the way to work fixing machines used to service planes while they were on the ground including bombloaders.Anyway when I told my friend that I would die first before I would shoot anyone and as soon as the words were spoken there was a feelig of total peace within me that had never happened before or since I knew that my life would not be taken there and my friend was and is a friend because he said he would watch over me.Strange and to show how dumb I was;it could have been a defining moment for me but it turned into just another day in this life.Keep your conscience because that is the only thing keeping body and soul together on this planet.Tony
Sioux Rose
TONY: Poetic, you met the Light and it became you. Bravo!
Thank you Sioux Rose.Tony
How about intercepting our emails, phone calls overseas; how about spying on Americans?
Does that go on as before? Nobody talks about that from either side of the divide.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH: True.
The CEO of brand America obviously gets his orders to protect former persons who held that office. If the lawless behavior of one is held against a solidly legal framework to render an accounting, like a house of cards, the behaviors of others would also stand "trial." Instead a climate of trespass is what's being protected, and the president gets to act like a king. Without congress holding tight on the reins that loosen to make war, the anointed "sovereign" can declare war "at his pleasure."
Many have noted that the torture campaign, while egregious, takes the focus off the greater crime which is THE supreme crime, a war of aggression launched on false pretenses, with a purported MILLION now dead, a nation left in abject ruin. Had this outrage been thwarted, had the "leaders" been made to account for the lies and deceptions that "brought it on," then perhaps we would not see the same choreography of destruction being waged slowly, but surely, against Afghanistan.
Amen!
Alas, we have two identical political parties, both controlled by AIPAC.
The parties are not identical. The Democrats are a lawless gang of thieves, but we are safer with them than with the Republicans who are completely insane and probably would push the button.
The people have no voice at all. We cower in a corner hoping each morning that the mafia in charge won't wake up in a bad mood.
It was the race baiting Republicans who got us here. Other countries must wonder how we could have been---and still are---so stupid.
It works every time. Just start to talk about unions or open borders or prison reform and you will hear it: "They are going to get your job". It even works best on people who have no job.
If we only had a brain.
-"If only we had a brain"
But even if you/we did, it would not do us much good in and of itself, because (a) the sociopaths always make it to the top of the pile and (b) it's the fanatics who have the staying power and the bloody mindedness to see their projects through to the end while humanists stop to help others, feel pity and smell the roses.
Which of these do you want to be? Or should I ask which one does your make-up allow you to be?
"The Democrats are a lawless gang of thieves, but we are safer with them than with the Republicans who are completely insane and probably would push the button."
Nietzsche, based on your entirely accurate characterization of the Democrats and the Republicans I'm sure you can understand why Nader has always, and just as accurately, said, "it's insane to vote for the least worst".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"The Democrats are a lawless gang of thieves."
CREW's annual list of the 20 most corrupt Congresspeople suggests you're wrong:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/
The list is always dominated by Republicans. If Democrats were a "gang of thieves," this would not be so. There ya go.
Seriously. As long as neoimperialism and capitalism drive US politics and economics, I doubt there can ever be any real change in Washington.
Alas, we have two identical political parties, both controlled by AIPAC.
From the article:
"The idea that everyone held at Guantanamo was a terrorist â€---the worst of the worst---†was always absurd."
NOW you tell us!
Is this the NYT's idea of contrition for the sins of Judith Miller?
Agreed, Sioux Rose -
Had this outrage been thwarted, had the "leaders" been made to account for the lies and deceptions that "brought it on," then perhaps we would not see the same choreography of destruction being waged slowly, but surely, against Afghanistan.
But WE ARE Afghanistan- just another front in the steam roller of global supremacy! Why can't Americans realize that war is being waged against us??
“The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.” obama says.
the consequence of NOT releasing them is the continued enabled denial of their EXISTENCE and the FACTS of actions taken unbecoming of a nation (because such actions were supposedly taken by those representing the nation's best interests) that likes to posture as 'leader of the free world'. NOT releasing them feeds into the smug impunity of the previous administration's executors of very real crimes and a further (justified) erosion of trust in the government's ability, or even willingness to DO ITS JOB and see that constitutional rights have protection and real meaning. how long until the grip of washington psychopathology loosens enough to allow sanity to breathe? healing from an illness (and i don't know how else to describe the bush years) can't take place until it is SEEN for what it is.... 'moving on' before that takes place just allows what's hidden to fester.
the most direct consequence of releasing the dreaded photos would not be to 'further inflame' anti-american opinion.... world opinion couldn't sink much lower regarding our so-called 'democracy'.... but releasing them could certainly EXPOSE the inconvenient TRUTHS of just how far into the netherworlds of corruption and cruelty certain people were ALLOWED to plunge in the name of 'national security' and open public discourse to a point where we could actually come up with a more transparent and accountable government, and, who knows? maybe even more transparent and accountable corporations so that they couldn't get away with OWNING the government. hopefully those with strong lights to shine will do us all a favor and not hesitate to do so just because of those too caught up in the webs of deceit and secrecy to see their way out. what reality do we want to live in? transparency and accountability are good words for what's needed. releasing the photos would be a good start .
Who are we? The vast "we" of America are in denial. Pride in ones group only goes so far and as the saying goes comes before a fall. Rome is falling because of mass denial of our transgressions. I thought we had some hope with Obama, but seems like he is quite willing to hide those filthy secrets which will only putrefy and stink 'til the soul rots entirely.
What to do?
Who are we, indeed? We are the ones who have agreed to let 550 questionable individuals completely run our lives...we've even supplied them weapons to use against us...
What to do? Abandon participation with this bloated, toxic form of government and this bloated, toxic description of economy...the ultimate question we will face will be the ownership of property, which affects one's ability to procure water, food and shelter, and forces employment...the ultimate challenge will be the resistance to this change, both personal resistance and systemic resistance...leaving behind the moneyed and powered world can be frightening, but would be much less so with some basic information, community support, and lots of growing food around you...legal jurisdiction, and accompanying judgement and enforcement, must return to local citizenry...
The fascinating tidbit? Change will come, regardless, thanks to our destruction of the living world...might as well take our lives back, and see if we can do some good before we die...better than shopping yourself to death...might get some great sex in, too! I mean, as long as we're remodeling our philosophies, maybe we could add some variety to the menu? I love lasagna, but a good chowder now and then...
Who are we? I do not know who Bob Herbert thinks he is or who most Americans are but I believe I am the subject of a corporatist dictatorship who is trying to find allies over in the "free speech zone" left open in the hinterlands of the Internet, left open in accordance with the corporatists' belief that as long as they control the mainstream media, directly through ownership or editorial control or indirectly through flood speech, they have nothing to worry about. They may allow the occasional article by someone like Herbert that only assaults the program at the edges and that is based on the assumption that aggressive war and torture are aberrations, just as they allow what they believe to be innocuous websites like CD to remain open. Such magnanimity apparently does little to thwart the oligarchs in pursuing their grand schemes and can even be useful in demonstrating their "commitment to free speech," provided that such "free speech" can be appropriately and inevitably overwhelmed through flood speech by corporate "persons."
Unfortunately, "the hinterlands of the internet" will not last long, most likely. As more and more people get their news and views from the internet and start questioning the mainstream take on things, watch how net neutrality begins to wane and the powers that be start cracking down on "free speech" here.
I have to agree with that. It goes without saying that the corporatist oligarchs own more than two-thirds of the congressvermin and can get such legislation passed if they need to, regardless of how the electorate feels. It is no surprise that the growing disconnect between the desires and needs of the people and their congressvermin "representatives" is rarely remarked on by the corporatist media. So the corporatists understand that even if most of the people do at some point manage to see through the fog, with the help of those in the hinterlands of the Internet, and recognize what is going on they still will not be able to get their congressvermin to act. And when they try to elect replacements, which would have to be third party, the corporate media will make sure such alternatives are thoroughly discredited, either by making mountains out of molehills in the candidates' personal or professional lives or by simply fabricating stories. And if that does not work, there are always the electronic voting machines.
It is easy to get frustrated and tempting to reach for extreme solutions such as trying to blow a hole through this maze they have created for us, but there may be a better way out and I hope that progressives keep on searching for it.
Even if one was an Obama supporter during the election process, the moment he crapped all over his pastor of 20 years should have given a person fair warning that all we had was a smooth talking politician. I suppose for many after GWB, the fact that Obama could put together a coherent sentence was enough reason to vote for him.
Who are we? Citizens of a cheesy casino who know we are citizens of a cheesy casino. There are no clocks. The lights are always on. It's noisy. Party on!
More than 500 Guantanamo detainees have been released. Good. 99% should be released or charged. The 1% or so, who are deemed too knowledgeable in mass destruction or charismatically pathological should be reviewed by a truly independent body or at least a Senate panel. Then if deemed unreleasable, too bad for them.
"by a truly independent body"
Yes. A court of law.
Unfortunately there are a few individuals that I would guess, pose a real danger, but for various reasons are unconvictable. I realize it's a slippery slope to allow some to exist outside normal lawful bounds. To me, the greatest danger is to allow scores of individuals to become part of what would then be rightfully called a nightmare situation, which is about what we currently have.
Anyone who is "unconvictable" must be released, period. The "nightmare situation" you should fear is exactly what we have now, where we have so abandoned our own ideals that we are willing to lock up people for the rest of their lives without giving them fair, open trials where they have access to all the evidence against them and can defend themselves.
The world is FULL of individuals who "pose a real danger" to the U.S. Our strategy of trying to kill or imprison as many of them as we can is only creating more and more people with good cause to hate us and want to strike at the U.S.
We might want to consider changing our behavior, worldwide. It is the "nightmare" situations we have created in so many countries that will lead to our next 9/11, which will be celebrated by millions and millions of our victims.
"The world is FULL of individuals who "pose a real danger" to the U.S. Our strategy of trying to kill or imprison as many of them as we can is only creating more and more people with good cause to hate us and want to strike at the U.S." Yes, I totally agree. Still, I think there are on occasion an individual or 2 who for one reason or another is viewed as both extremely dangerous and unlikely to be found guilty in court. A future bin Laden, Hitler, or AQ Khan is better locked up in my opinion.
" A future bin Laden, Hitler, or AQ Khan is better locked up in my opinion."
So you are advocating for a legal system in which there are special laws for "special" people? Or "special" people to whom the legal system does not apply? Then in addition to pretending we can predict who will be a future bin Laden or Hitler, we must also predict who might be a future Tony Blair or George Bush (consider all their victims in Iraq, alone), or a future Harry Truman (someone who could order nuclear bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), or Rush LImbaugh (skilled and dangerous propagandist), and then lock them up for life, too, to prevent the damage they MIGHT do? Many innocent people in Afganistan and Pakistan might be alive today if Barak Obama had been locked up for everyone's safety, years ago.
Or are you saying that all that matters is possible danger to Americans? Then shouldn't we be considering "prolonged detention" for, say, members of the Young Republicans, since they may be likely to become corporate executives who will continue to destroy American lives by denying them healthcare, poisoning the environment, selling unsafe products, and corrupting the government through bribery and extortion?
If we have a system where people in high positions can decide to lock up other people because they THINK they might pose a danger, but can't prove anything against them in a fair court of law, then we have a system of complete and utter tyranny.
I hate arguing for the position I take on this. It feels wrong and evil, but there are times when it would be the wise thing to do. Perhaps everything would work out well in most cases, using "a fair court of law." If the government hired the best lawyers and they made it totally clear to the jury that anything less than a guilty verdict could easily mean the death of good red-blooded Americans and that their fellow Americans would remember an innocent verdict and any repercussions to the jurors or their families would be truly unfortunate...yeah, it does seem possible that a fair court of law could render a proper verdict.
It is wrong and evil.
Preventively locking up someone, because he MIGHT commit some horrible crime in the future, is really no different from torturing someone, because he MIGHT know information that MIGHT prevent the death of poor little children.
In a perfect world, in a world where you can look in the future and know for a certainty that that person will indeed commit those crimes, then you have an argument for preventive detention.
Furthermore, Adolph Hitler's crimes were not inevitable. Nor did he commit them on his own. Are you also going to lock up every German who went along with those crimes?
Courts of law have evolved to deal with such questions.
I tire of the hyperbole of locking up every German and petrkrop's Young Republicans and I accede to the argument that a US jury is the way to go. Our good citizens are unlikely to release someone who even looks like a Mideasterner. Justice is truly blind, I'm sure, o yeah..
"I tire of the hyperbole of locking up every German"
I said every German who went along with Hitler's crimes. Not every single German. If you don't like the comparison, then don't bring up Hitler. A future Hitler cannot kill millions on his own.
Furthermore, that was one minor point. My main point is your desire for preventive detention. Unless you can look into the future, you have no guarantee of the effects of your preventive detention. What if preventively detaining someone leads to his supporters, his family, his whatever, to commit even more atrocious acts? What if preventively detaining someone only adds more fuel to the fire? And what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty?
Your last sentence is a strawman. I never made the argument that the courts are perfect, or even close to perfect. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in modern society who believes that the legal system is perfect, or anywhere close to being so. My argument is that the legal system is what society has created to deal with crimes. You appear to want to only use the legal system when it suits you. When it convicts the people you want convicted. When it doesn't, preventive detention and "independent" panels.
tell me - what's it like wearing a necklace of haemorrhoids?
It feels wrong and evil because what you espouse is wrong and evil, as I believe you well know.
"... and that their fellow Americans would remember an innocent verdict and any repercussions to the jurors or their families would be truly unfortunate ..."
Your ideas are truly repugnant.
Repugnant? Yes, very. But, stated or unstated, this thought would likely be in the heads of most jurors in the event of the trial of someone considered to be highly dangerous. In this scenario I'm sure the government would also enlist the aid of a 'hanging judge.'
tell me - what's it like wearing a necklace of haemorrhoids?
I continue to receive these nice little emails from President Moral Failure and his lovely wife. Each time I get one I think of how all fascist governments attempt to control the message, assauge the masses, put the sweet and honey on each and every dripping syllable - AND THEN LIE, MISLEAD, OBSFUCATE AND CONCEAL WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING.
Obama is to true progressives what Bush was to true conservatives - a moral, ethical and intellectual failure. Bush was obviously stupid or simply suffered brain damage from years of alcoholism (and maybe more), and Obama is obviously intellectually gifted - AND THEY ARE BOTH MORAL COWARDS, AND YES - NOW BOTH WAR CRIMINALS. Once again I say, if obama covers Bush's crimes - Obama becomes an accomplice. He earns no respect from anyone who believes in the rule of law, the sanctity of other nations' sovereignty, or human rights.
The more I read books on spirituality and happiness, the more I wonder "Why can't America just learn to find its inner strengths and use it towards peaceful and loving solutions and ideas?" From borrowing Saudi Arabia's religious tyrannical ideas to copy the bad aspects of the French version of justice where your presumed guilty until proven innocent, I suspect that our failure to find our country's inner strength is the reason we elect all the wrong pols to misrepresent and fail us completely. I had a lovely discussion yesterday with Moondoggy on this matter when I posted under that Iran topic and yes, I came to his defense because I truly believed that our meddling with other nations while allowing our own to rot from within is a strong reason that we must unite to find our country's inner strength for love and peace. In time, other nations will follow.
Jennifer-if this nation is to find its inner-spirituality it will have to forego its fascination with material objects, and then turn on the capitalistic piranhas that demand our time, energy, and focus in order to maintain their anti-spriritual hold on society.
Attach to that many Christians' beliefs that God wants them to be 'prosperous' in the materialistic sense, and you have a frightful, quasi-religious support system that will eventually rob us all of life, both material and spiritual.
I just finished Gandhi's autobiography and he constantly spoke of the necessity of complete, unadulterated truth as the basis for civil society. When one thinks of that creed, then contemplates what this country has become, the future indeed seems dim.
Odoco, you are so correct on how messed up Christianity has become. I doubt that Jesus would choose to be a Christian today. My parents, especially my father, used to be so much into religion and bug the lights out of me and my two brothers to attend church and keep thinking of religion. Up until the incidents in the past few months, my father used to keep acting so overprotective about me thinking differently and even insisted that God would punish me for thinking like a nonconformist. The economic crunch, my date hell on Valentine's Day, and my nearly losing my life due to health problems and later a car breakdown has lessoned his overprotective nature. I still don't feel like asking my parents why they keep thinking God will take care of ... all the time. I was never much of a dedicated Christian myself but wanted to do basic good. I would never use religion to justify any of my actions in life and I intend to keep it that way.
I have studied Gandhi and he is in fact one of my favorite historical figures for that inner strength and courage he put to great use even as he was forced to sacrifice so much against his own family. However, an Indian woman once told me that Gandhi is getting as much respect back in India as MLK is getting here in America and Jesus is getting in the Christian fundie circles. IOW, it's just a matter of uttering a famous name and yet quietly backstabbing their ideas while embracing the wrong ideologies that these same famous ones strongly opposed and for good reason.
> I still don't feel like asking my parents why they keep thinking God will take care of ... all the time. I was never much of a dedicated Christian myself but wanted to do basic good. I would never use religion to justify any of my actions in life and I intend to keep it that way."
Ever notice how "we" (meaning presumably our troops/nation in general) are always asking God to bless the U.S.A. Well...perhaps he has "blessed us" for all of the "wonderful" things we have done for humanity?
Nawww, just a fleeting thought.
Because as long as people who are hateful, racist, anti-intellectual, and lack compassion are bankrolled with their own media outlets without any forceful checks to their claims, millions of Americans will agree with these ideas and viciously oppose any attempts to create a peaceful and loving nation. They will claim it's un-American, it's amnesty to the illegals, it's welfare to the blacks, etc., and they will, and do, stop at nothing to stop it, including murder.
I read about that when I came across George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" 2nd edition. Reframing the issues and getting these same people off the insane "Strict Father Morality" thinking even when it doesn't benefit them is no easy task.
That's why I love my job so much, it's important to counter these people. But the other side has way more funding and much better publicity...I wonder what it'll take to get them to stop.
I once read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and according to Frank, dedicated economic populism can defeat money and that is what he said overcame the monied interests back then. However, taking the power of framing into account, the conservatives, well the radical rightwing really, learned from those lessons and figured out how to manipulate followed by the money. If the recent elections were any indication, it's going to take more than just populism and yet progressives and liberals will have to take some pages from the rightwing strategy book. I once got a hold of my father's notes while my brother was sleeping and discovered how conservatives unite and manipulate people. Lakoff was right that conservatives don't worry about the money because they have confidence that the money will pour in on top of their success. They tell their peers "Don't worry about the money. It'll come. Just get out there and do the job together." I can't really call them conservative when they're really political conservatives. Reading through on books on happiness, spiritual thinking, and even the basics of astrology in addition to my life's experiences, it is my guess that we cannot allow money to control our thinking. We must continue to take chances and not fall into concessions. The less we concede the more we succeed.
Jennifer, Lakoff's latest, "The Political Mind" will blow your mind.
Alan MacDonald
I have heard of that book although I hear that if I read "Moral Politics" and "Don't Think of an Elephant" that a lot of what's in that book isn't new. Still, I'm willing to give it a read somewhere down the road. First, I think I still have a long ways to go with understanding Lakoff's earlier works such as those two books I mentioned. Thanks.