It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.I could take the time to dissect what this politic-talk means, but legal analyst Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com would certainly do a better job:
What [Obama's] saying is quite clear. There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it's a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway -- even though we can't convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created -- presumably by an act of Congress -- where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone's detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That's what he means when he refers to "creating a process."Further in the interview Obama makes a statement that he has recognized that "Dick Cheney's advice was good". The Campaign For Liberty does a good job further dissecting this here.
This essentially means Obama's policies towards Guantanamo will remain in line with the Neo-Conservatives and that he truly is providing no new change, no new hope. The fight between the left and the right in the US continues to become more and more obsolete as the fight between the people and the government becomes ever-so more important.
9 comments:
All depends what happens after January 20th. Everything else is just political rhetoric until that date. I would suggest reading The Audacity of Hope to get a feel for him.
I'm going to pay more attention to what he does than what he writes. I barely have enough time to read what I want to read let alone a politician's dribble.
State and national offices are different, Josh. What he does as president is all that is important. All will be revealed very soon. Obama has made some strong statements and promises in order to guarantee support of the left. If he backs out now, the party might split.
Suggesting the party might split is like suggesting there's a large portion of the party that actually has principles they stand up for. Very few exist. Kucinich is the one that comes to mind, but he's the Paul of the Republican party, he doesn't agree with what they do but he's there trying to change the party. He's not going to leave it.
And to suggest what Obama does as a person doesn't matter until he's president is foolish. Every action he takes represents who he is, regardless of his title. Could he change? Maybe, that was his slogan after all.
"Suggesting the party might split is like suggesting there's a large portion of the party that actually has principles they stand up for. Very few exist. Kucinich is the one that comes to mind, but he's the Paul of the Republican party, he doesn't agree with what they do but he's there trying to change the party. He's not going to leave it. "
The left has been standing up for those principles for decades. They're the ones who VOTED AGAINST THE WAR, remember?
"And to suggest what Obama does as a person doesn't matter until he's president is foolish. Every action he takes represents who he is, regardless of his title. Could he change? Maybe, that was his slogan after all."
I'm waiting for actions. All politicians negotiate. Its part of the job. Hence, Ron Paul pandering.
"The left has been standing up for those principles for decades. They're the ones who VOTED AGAINST THE WAR, remember?"
Which one, the VP or the Secretary of State, or the fella that wasn't there to vote against the war but voted for all of the appropriations for it once he got it to the Senate?
"I'm waiting for actions. All politicians negotiate. Its part of the job. Hence, Ron Paul pandering."
You've only ever been able to bring to my attention 1 obscure possibility of Paul pandering, and Bill Moyers speaks to Paul's point in the video I posted. So, no, it was not pandering.
"Which one, the VP or the Secretary of State, or the fella that wasn't there to vote against the war but voted for all of the appropriations for it once he got it to the Senate?"
The ones who opposed it all the way through.
"You've only ever been able to bring to my attention 1 obscure possibility of Paul pandering, and Bill Moyers speaks to Paul's point in the video I posted. So, no, it was not pandering."
Sometimes it is what you don't say that is important. Ron Paul is not calling for a repeal of the definition of marriage in the law, which is just more pandering.
"The ones who opposed it all the way through. "
Right, the ones that actually have no real power and provide an excuse to vote democrat.
"Ron Paul is not calling for a repeal of the definition of marriage in the law, which is just more pandering."
When asked on this topic during different occasions of the presidential campaign he said that the state has no place in marriage. He doesn't campaign on it because the Fed is more important. Priorities, right?
No, not priorities. Ron Paul doesn't campaign on this issue, because he knows it would alienate conservatives.
Post a Comment