Obama endorses "preventative detention"

[bascule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

 

So yeah, Obama is now a fan of tossing habeas corpus out the window and detaining some suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial.

 

I can't help but think "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Seriously. This is another WTF Obama. These seem to be happening with decent regularity too. Ugh.

 

So basically, we're holding people without trial, because of tainted evidence blah blah blah.

 

So in other words, our legal system is so f-ed up that the only solution is to hold people without trial? Zuh? It's so broken we need to break it even more?

[Pangloss]

Do you support impeachment of this president?

[bascule]

Do you support impeachment of this president?

 

Certainly not over this. Congress does have the Constitutionally enumerated power to suspend habeas corpus. And it's not like he's actually taken action on this proposal. I'm just saying it's morally wrong.

 

I'm not happy about the warrantless wiretapping program either, however at this point in time Congress has created laws which, while I think they are unconstitutional, certainly put Obama in a different camp than Bush signing off on the program personally dozens of times in direct violation of FISA. Oh, and Obama doesn't torture people, at least to my knowledge.

[Pangloss]

That's a logical enough demarcation, and I found myself nodding with it. It may be a different picture in a few years, but there's no sense begging trouble. It's actually a foregone conclusion that if Republicans regain control of congress and Obama's approval ratings drop below 50% there will be impeachment hearings. That's what our tit-for-tat politics have produced.

 

But I didn't mean to derail. I'll just say that seeing Obama's speech yesterday (the one in front of the constitution) gave me a lot of food for thought (he is SO good at that, isn't he?). In particular the phrase about how there are going to be detainees who fall into different categories and some of them may end up needing to be permanently detained, and that they would seek a properly legal framework to detain them. It's honest and forthright, and there's a lot of integrity in that.

 

I think in the end I will just have to keep an open mind and wait and see how this goes. It feels like a weak response, and it's the kind of response from the citizenry that got us into trouble with the Bush administration, but in the end we trust these people to do the right thing, and judge them after the fact. What else can we do?

[The Bear's Key]

I can't help but think "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Do you support impeachment of this president?

You're joking, of course. As if Bush's qualifications for impeachments were simply bungling Iraq, holding suspects without trial, and illegal spying. None of those even begin to scratch the surface.

 

I'd agree with a motion for censure, though.

 

However....

 

• if Obama continually maneuvered secretively in a harmful way yet ideal for cementing the Democrats' majority
  
• if Biden granted huge contracts with no bidding to a number of politically allied businesses
  
• if Obama had admitted spying only after being exposed
  
• if the '08 - '12 White House paid journalists in tax money ($240,000) to promote Dems' ideologies (and to urge other like-skinned journalists to do the same)
  
• if Obama was found to have demanded connections to alQaida be found of a nation he wished to invade
  
• if the White House sent propaganda to be falsely aired as news to school kids
  -- or likewise deceived old people of a law change by using a fake reporter
  
• if Obama had contracted with a public relations firm to broadcast his agenda disguised as their own video news release
  -- or had a prepackaged "news" segment widely broadcast in rural areas*
  
• if White House memos secretly OK'd torture
  
• if they had unlawfully deleted a ton of White House emails
  
• if administration officials continually played strategic amnesia when questioned in criminal investigations
  
• if the Defense Secretary hellbent on toppling a regime had once been chummy with its tyrant leader
  
• if the Obama adminsitration were the most secretive in history and its officials regularly defied/ignored congressional subpoenas for legal testimony
  
• if the nation were attacked, then the President didn't really bother the nation from where all the hijackers originated, possibly because he's still chummy with that nation's leaders
  
• if the White House officials made every attempt to tie Iraq to 9/11, and kept changing the premise for the Iraq war...after each failure
  
• if Biden had colluded in an energy task force of suspicious/illegal nature and fought release of its documents all the way to Supreme Court
  
• etc (ad infinitum?)
  

....then I'd certainly move for impeachment proceedings against the entire Obama cabinet.

 

But that isn't so, and hopefully (plus likely, for now) will not be.

 

 

Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 73

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-05-21/html/CREC-2004-05-21-pt1-PgS6088.htm

 

...the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political

propaganda in violation of two laws.

To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust

Fund.

In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was

illegally used for political activity.

........

The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over

200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds?

 

With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called

"video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new

Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country.

This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the

administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real

news and....viewers had no idea it was produced by the government.

 

 

 

No Dollar Left Behind

http://web.archive.org/web/20050113100325/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251

Tribune Media Services (TMS) tonight terminated its contract with columnist Armstrong Williams, effective immediately. But Williams told E&P that he plans to continue his feature via self-syndication.

 

TMS' action came after USA Today reported this morning that Williams had accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind education-reform law on his TV and radio shows. E&P subsequently reported that Williams had also written about NCLB in his newspaper column at least four times last year.

........

"I understand the decision," Williams said when reached by E&P. He also said he would not be returning the $240,000.

 

Williams said the $240,000 in payments were made to promote NCLB as part of an advertising campaign on his syndicated "The Right Side" TV show and that this ad campaign was disclosed to the show's viewers. But he acknowledged that the payments weren't disclosed to other audiences, including readers of his newspaper column.

 

 

 

My response is meant to cover your question and bascule's statement, mixed together. Just a healthy dose of perspective in case we've forgotten the many questionable (and commonly unbelievable) wrongs/illegalities that oozed daily from the Bush Administration.

 

What else can we do?

Judge during the fact -- if their blatancy is slapping our face day in and out for a sufficiently prolonged time.

 

And I must ask: which is more damaging to us, to fear setting investigatory precedents, or to allow the repeat possibility of an eight-year (2,920 days, pre-outlined in systematic Rove fashion) rampant quest at dismantling our protections against tyranny? -- who've have been given all the time in the world if no one's going to bother investigate until after the fact.

 

 

 

 

*This one did include a snippet with USDA listed as the source, though usually at the end.

On Tuesday, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), whose states produce sugar, sent a letter to Johanns objecting to pro-CAFTA news reports produced by the government.

 

"These releases, which are produced and distributed with taxpayer dollars, are provided to 675 rural radio stations and numerous televisions stations where they are run, without disclosure of their source, as news reports," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that many listeners in rural America may believe these releases are objective news reports, rather than political statements from the USDA which are intended to advance a specific trade agenda."

Edited May 23, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[GutZ]

It's sad that his intelligence goes to waste on fancy speeches.

 

God I could see that beung used as a republican ad with they way they are going

 

"Obama uses his intelligence to deceive you, we republician promise never to use intelligence, ever...vote Sarah Palin"

 

*GutZ is stuck in a political nighmare*

 

I feel there is no point in parties really...They don't really stand for them anyways...modern politics has essential destroy the system.

 

I really feel for you guys....really if Obama doesn't change things around soon...who are you going to vote for next....The next "Change?"

 

I don't know...

[iNow]

It's sad that his intelligence goes to waste on fancy speeches.

 

I'm rather struggling to understand your comment. You are presenting it in such a way that it implies Obama can EITHER use his intelligence to write a well articulated speech OR use his intelligence to better our country, our policies, and our people... as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

They're not, so what's the deal? Amazingly, he can do more than one thing at a time... Like walking and chewing gum. Please tell me this isn't just some regurgitation of comments you heard from his political enemies in the US, and expand on why you suggest that he is using speeches to fool people instead of to connect with them to find support among the populace for all of his other activities and initiatives.

 

 

As for the OP... I'm trying to refrain from judgment until something actually happens with this. I want to see what he actually does, not argue about our speculations regarding what that may or may not be.

[GutZ]

Of course i am not saying they are mutually exclusive, but he doesn't seem to be using it for other purposes. I am just saying he not using his full potential. The guy is smart, but he not given the landscape to use it fully. He has to cater to a crowd.

 

Look that the discussions here. You guys have rather good points, but the majority of people wouldn't be able to see your points.

 

Either he not given the chance to display it, or he chooses not to display it, still it seems that his intelligence is only being used for speeches.

 

I am sure Obama has a personal belief or even a better way to handle most cases...It's ****ing theatre and he has to amuse the crowd.

 

What is he doing that's so different and innovating, because that's what America needs right now, a different direction..."Change". He knew that and ran his campaign around it.

 

Is it happening?

 

So how else do you think i am suppose to examine it? If there is relevant information being present otherwise I'll take it back.

Edited May 23, 2009 by GutZ

[bascule]

But I didn't mean to derail. I'll just say that seeing Obama's speech yesterday (the one in front of the constitution) gave me a lot of food for thought (he is SO good at that, isn't he?). In particular the phrase about how there are going to be detainees who fall into different categories and some of them may end up needing to be permanently detained

 

...permanently detained because things like evidence tampering mean we expect they'd be acquitted at trial. In other words, we think they're guilty terrorists who want to kill Americans, but if they went to trial we're afraid they'd be set free.

 

and that they would seek a properly legal framework to detain them. It's honest and forthright, and there's a lot of integrity in that.

 

He wants to create a new legal framework for doing something unprecedented in either United States or world history. This after railing on the Bush administration for having no such framework whatsoever and instead an ad hoc legal strategy.

 

I still consider it immoral to hold people indefinitely without trial, "legal framework" or not.

[Pangloss]

Part of the problem here is that nobody else wants them either. Saudi Arabia's "retraining" program is an international joke, so we'd end up sending them some place like Pakistan.

 

I'm sure it also hasn't escaped the White House's attention that timing is important here. The President has to get re-elected, and if one of those detainees participated in another 9/11 it would be the ultimate, grand-scale Willie Horton scenario. So for now the safety issue trumps the letter of the law, I'm afraid.

[bascule]

So for now the safety issue trumps the letter of the law, I'm afraid.

 

It's not even the letter of the law. Legally they can do this with Congressional approval, which is one of the things Obama said he would seek.

 

That said, the only other country with a preventative detention policy like the United States is Israel, and Israel's program has a substantially higher level of oversight than the United States. In Britain, 28 days is the maximum amount of time someone can be held without charges.

[Pangloss]

You're right; poor choice of words on my part.

[The Bear's Key]

The guy is smart, but he not given the landscape to use it fully. He has to cater to a crowd.

Well first, he's got even less time to participate in or read the kinds of discussions we're having than is available to us. If the crew surrounding him isn't bringing that discussion to him, it's unlikely he'll know about the key relevant parts from just the mainstream news -- if he's even got time for it. Likely, aides bring him the "short version" as they did with Bush.

 

I'm just glad Obama had the presence of mind to keep his Blackberry to stay connected to the real world beyond the tidbits his "subordinates" decide to share.

 

And yes, he must cater to a crowd -- in a manner of speaking. One particular reason for his speeches (that I'm abe to gather) is partly as direct opposition to the neoconic storm of falsehoods being aired to the population. In Canada you probably don't get to hear from a number of your citizens repeating in wide-eyed fashion the garbage "analysis" of the situation as fed to (an unsettling percentage of) us by right-winged "news".

 

But the other side of his catering to the population is a more open way of running government than the Bush and many other administrations did.

 

You can glean who is historically against open government by studying the guys most likely to fight it -- on events like our making Freedom of Information even stronger.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm

Veto Battle 30 Years Ago Set Freedom of Information Norms

 

Scalia, Rumsfeld, Cheney Opposed Open Government Bill

........

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald

Rumsfeld

and deputy Richard

Cheney

) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin

Scalia

, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

 

As is clear, it's the usual players, and the ones who have much they'd like to keep secret from us. And they've been infecting the White House even more than 30 years ago (as a duo).

 

 

What is he doing that's so different and innovating, because that's what America needs right now, a different direction..."Change". He knew that and ran his campaign around it.

 

Is it happening?

Well in comparison to the list of Bush abuses I presented earlier, what do you think? Maybe the Dems are far more crafty, and have their own (even more sneaky) versions of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, though -- for all we know.

 

...permanently detained because things like evidence tampering mean we expect they'd be acquitted at trial. In other words, we think they're guilty terrorists who want to kill Americans, but if they went to trial we're afraid they'd be set free.

In a way, might not that outcome bear the imprint of Rove strategy?

 

He wants to create a new legal framework for doing something unprecedented in either United States or world history.

That can be said of the Bush Administration -- except (in their case) it'd have been an "illegal" framework.

 

I still consider it immoral to hold people indefinitely without trial, "legal framework" or not.

Definitely, and it's essential we let the current administration know our feelings on this.

[GutZ]

I understand Obama is in a bad environment for change. It's not a job I want nor do I even think I could last a day in his shoes. I am just hoping one day SOMEONE breaks that cycle. I think he has the intelligence to do it. The positon he is in....horrible place to be in. You have the crisis, wars, etc.

 

He has the choice right now to do the right thing. The US needs that. Every country needs that.

 

So I am going to be on his ass because I can't seem to bear seeing my brother to the south take road. Who cares about ficitious border...we are all the same species right....I just want what's best for you guys.

[bascule]

Feingold has written to Obama suggesting preventative detention is unconstitutional

 

While I appreciate your good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system which permits the government to indefinitely detain an individual without a charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional. [...'] Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world.

[Pangloss]

Which just goes to show you how difficult Obama's choice of moderate paths is going to be. Feingold is as far to the left as the senate presently gets (noting that Al Franken has still not been seated). It's unfortunate that Rush Limbaugh's listeners won't even be exposed to this information, thus seeing how moderate Obama really is.

[bascule]

What exactly is "liberal" about Feingold's statements? The sentiment is libertarian and he's advocating nothing more radical than habeas corpus... that the government should not have the power to detain people without charges.

[Pangloss]

That doesn't mean the issue isn't politicized, bascule.

[bascule]

That doesn't mean the issue isn't politicized, bascule.

 

It sure is! And "moderate" is an interesting way to spin "willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety"

[SH3RL0CK]

Bascule,

 

I think Obama is keeping his options open. Also, from a practical perspective, we may have no choice. The other options available in a given circumstance may be highly undesirable...and this is permitted by the US Constitution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

 

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:

 

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 

Now I'll grant that some of these detainees have been detained for a considerable period of time, which I believe is unwarranted. Hopefully this will be worked out in the next year after Gitmo closes (although I foresee what will actually happen is these people will simply be moved to a different detention facility; perhaps in Afghanistan or Iraq).

[Pangloss]

It sure is! And "moderate" is an interesting way to spin "willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety"

 

It was posed as a reflection on the current political landscape, not a value judgment. Though quite frankly I'm not sure that moderate isn't exactly the right way to describe it. I don't know that this is a black and white issue.

[bascule]

It was posed as a reflection on the current political landscape, not a value judgment. Though quite frankly I'm not sure that moderate isn't exactly the right way to describe it. I don't know that this is a black and white issue.

 

I think a failure to reinstate habeas corpus means that Obama is far more of a totalitarian than I ever realized. It was something I hoped he would do, based on his previous criticisms of the Bush Administration, the same criticisms he leveled in the speech where he proposed that we continue to suspend habeas corpus.

 

I can't help but feel that this speech was rife with hypocrisy.

[Pangloss]

It's interesting that you see totalitarianism as something with degrees of severity (if I read that right). I would not have guessed that about you. Do you still feel some degree of wanting to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, or a chance to move to the right place over time? Not that I'm faulting your opinion, I'm just curious what your thinking is. It reminds me a bit of my slow journey of gradually increasing disappointment in the Bush administration after voting for it in 2000. (I'm not assuming you'll go the same route with Obama; I'm just wondering if we're seeing any insight here as to what can happen sometimes when politicians have to make decisions in the real world.)

 

On a related note, Jon Meacham of Newsweek made a point about this issue on Bill Maher's show last week that I thought was interestingly flawed. He said that people will see this decision in the same light as the internment of Japanese-American citizens in WW2 and Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. I think that's a very flawed analogy because I don't think people see those two events in the same light. I think people by and large tend to see the first one as severe and serious, and the second one as not very serious at all. Whether that's because it's further back in history or because it's Lincoln doesn't really matter (after all, FDR was popular too, and it's been over 60 years since the end of WW2). The difference is probably more on a level of how personal and direct the resulting victimization is. People don't know about people who were hurt by Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. But it doesn't take much to empathize with Japanese-American families affected by the WW2 event.

 

The same rule of thumb can be applied here, and when politicians do that emotional scale-balancing, the answer that seems to come up is that fear of danger trumps fear of putting the innocent in jail. My point being not that that's the right answer (it's actually a really bad way to run a railroad), but rather that we still live in a society that it's heavily influenced by emotional decision-making (in this case fear).

 

I guess the only real way to stop that from happening is to either pass more laws (or constitutional amendments or whatever it takes), or try to build society's intelligence and maturity up to a level where it no longer makes these flawed choices.

[bascule]

It's interesting that you see totalitarianism as something with degrees of severity (if I read that right). I would not have guessed that about you.

 

Yes, totalitarianism is a sliding scale. Clearly we have it much better in the US than, say, China. However I believe the US is compromising essential liberties it has long held dear for the sake of safety from yet another nebulous enemy, much as it did during the McCarthy era.

 

Do you still feel some degree of wanting to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, or a chance to move to the right place over time?

 

I'll certainly give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He knows things I never will and has advisors chattering in his ear with privileged information. I don't know what he does and certainly can't claim if I were put in his position I wouldn't make the same choices. However, he has not made his case for preventative detention and until he does I can only be skeptical.

 

That said, at this point there's not a whole lot I can do. I was certainly passionate about getting the guy elected and he's doing the best job that he can. I'm certainly not happy about this particular decision, and it seems there's been quite a backlash, by the public, the media, and politicians like Russ Feingold. I really can't see his reasoning for this and hopefully he realizes the error of his ways.

 

It reminds me a bit of my slow journey of gradually increasing disappointment in the Bush administration after voting for it in 2000.

 

Overall I still rate Obama highly, and think he's doing a good job. However, he's certainly been doing things I disagree with fairly consistently.

 

The difference is probably more on a level of how personal and direct the resulting victimization is. People don't know about people who were hurt by Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. But it doesn't take much to empathize with Japanese-American families affected by the WW2 event.

 

The same rule of thumb can be applied here, and when politicians do that emotional scale-balancing, the answer that seems to come up is that fear of danger trumps fear of putting the innocent in jail. My point being not that that's the right answer (it's actually a really bad way to run a railroad), but rather that we still live in a society that it's heavily influenced by emotional decision-making (in this case fear).

 

I guess the only real way to stop that from happening is to either pass more laws (or constitutional amendments or whatever it takes), or try to build society's intelligence and maturity up to a level where it no longer makes these flawed choices.

 

I don't think more laws are the solution. I think the Constitution has it right: habeas corpus should be in place unless Congress deems the circumstances so drastic as to revoke it. My difference of opinion lies in that I do not believe we're in a situation where habeas corpus needs to be revoked.

 

All else aside:

 

We're detaining these people because they have threatened America. What makes them different from anyone else who threatened America? The fact we have them in custody? Why don't we just go out and forcibly detain anyone in any country anywhere who threatens America? There are people everywhere who are threatening America. Unless they've done something wrong that can be demonstrated in a court of law, why do the people we already have in custody deserve to remain imprisoned simply for saying they want to hurt Americans? By keeping people detained who haven't done anything demonstrably wrong we are only feeding into their preconceptions. Aren't we better than that?

 

I wish we were, but apparently not. We're willing to throw away our principles whenever we're scared. Screw that. I'd rather we remain a principled nation as opposed to a nation of cowards.

 

I consider preventative detention a cowardly act.