SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79166)5/21/2009 10:30:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Real Path to Security

nytimes.com

We listened to President Obama’s speech on terrorism and detention policy with relief and optimism.

For seven years, President George W. Bush tried to frighten the American public — and successfully cowed Congress — with bullying and disinformation. On Thursday, President Obama told the truth. It was a moment of political courage that will make this country safer.

Mr. Obama was exactly right when he said Americans do not have to choose between security and their democratic values. By denying those values, the Bush team fed the furies of anti-Americanism, strengthened our enemies and made the nation more vulnerable.

Such clarity of thought is unlikely to end the partisan posturing. It certainly didn’t quiet former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was fear-mongering in full force on Thursday. But we hope that lawmakers who voted this week against closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — starting with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid — were listening closely.

We do not agree with every aspect of Mr. Obama’s solutions, especially his opposition to the court-ordered release of photographs of prisoner abuse and the positions he has taken on state secrets. But the course he outlined was generally based on due process and democratic governance.

Mr. Obama flatly rejected Mr. Cheney’s claims that torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives and reminded Americans that those abuses were ineffective, recruited more terrorists than they brought to justice, destroyed the nation’s image and will make it much harder to try some of the most dangerous terrorists.

Affirming that a detention policy has to be based on law and subject to Congressional and judicial scrutiny, Mr. Obama voiced the profound truth that eluded Mr. Bush, “In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

Mr. Obama said he had no intention of releasing any dangerous terrorist but added that some detainees must be tried and jailed in this country — a message to Democratic lawmakers who first demanded the closing of Guantánamo and now take the ludicrous position that no inmate can set foot in the continental United States, even in irons and headed for a maximum-security prison.

Mr. Obama sensibly grouped the prisoners into five categories, starting with those who can and should be tried in civilian criminal courts on terrorism charges.

There are Guantánamo prisoners who violated the laws of war and should be tried in military tribunals, but not the existing ones created by Congress in 2006. That law should not be tinkered with. It should be scrapped and those prisoners should tried under military law.

Some prisoners can be transferred to other governments’ custody and some, who committed no crimes, should be released. And, yes, some should be allowed to live in the United States.

The most troubling category is prisoners like Abu Zubaydah, an alleged top member of Al Qaeda, who seem to be highly dangerous terrorists but were tortured. It’s hard to imagine how they can be tried on that evidence. Some can be tried on other terrorism charges, like Ahmed Ghailani, whom the administration is properly moving to a civilian federal court to face charges related to the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998.

Mr. Obama vowed to deal with the rest of the prisoners under the law and the Constitution, but forthrightly admitted he wasn’t sure how. There are proposals to create a new “preventive detention” regime that we are not convinced is needed.

As he moves forward, we hope Mr. Obama bears in mind a point he made on Thursday. The problem is not the crime of terrorism, which the judicial system can normally handle. It is the way Mr. Bush undermined that system — and this country’s reputation and security —with his policies of arbitrary detention and abuse.



To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79166)5/21/2009 10:46:30 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Another round for democracy

salon.com

Cheney's hostile speech only highlighted President Obama's commitment to American standards of liberty

By Joe Conason

May. 22, 2009 |

In his landmark speech on terrorism and the Constitution, President Barack Obama sought to draw the sharpest contrast possible between his policies and those of his predecessor on the critical issues of secrecy, torture and the rule of law -- perhaps in response to critics who see an unflattering resemblance. By choosing to deliver his address at the National Archive, in the presence of the original founding documents, the president stressed his own determination to bring America back to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Penetrating and direct as Obama's words were, his message was amplified by Dick Cheney's latest attempt to justify and even glorify the lawlessness that the new president has vowed to eradicate. The former vice president's choice of forum was likewise telling, for he chose the Washington redoubt of neoconservatism, the perverse authoritarian ideology that guided (and misguided) the national security decisions of the previous administration.

Whatever the shortcomings of the present administration in restoring civil liberties and openness to government -- there are and will be many -- the commitment delivered again today by the president at the very least provides a benchmark for evaluating his performance and a restoration of the idea that Americans stand for fairness and decency. Methodically but eloquently, he described the dilemma that he confronts as a commander in chief who must protect the nation and its people against extremely malevolent enemies while respecting the democratic institutions that balance his power as well as the human rights of those same enemies. Not only is that approach the only way to remain true to his oath of office, the president said, but it is also the only way to effectively defend ourselves and our allies against those who would do us harm.

The decisions that were made over the last eight years," he said, "established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass." The "mess" created by those errors can be expunged only by returning to core values.

"To protect the American people and our values, we've banned enhanced interrogation techniques," Obama pledged. "We are closing the prison at Guantánamo. We are reforming military commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and we're narrowing our use of the state secrets privilege."

With a touch of acid sarcasm, Obama explained that irresponsible politicians who exploited fear made the wrong decisions over the past eight years -- and said that they are repeating those mistakes now with their demagogic campaign against closing the Guantánamo prison camp. He set his own choices in context, from the Supreme Court decisions that struck down the unconstitutional actions of the Bush-Cheney administration to the protests by John McCain, his erstwhile Republican opponent, against torturing prisoners and the continued operation of Gitmo. Rather than pretend that whatever he might do as president would be lawful per se, he promised to find lawful ways to protect necessary secrets and detain dangerous prisoners.

Cheney's attempt to lampoon this sober and thoughtful leader as yet another loony leftist simply fell flat, even as he exposed once more his own innate hostility to American standards of liberty and democratic discourse. By inventing an Obama who doesn't exist he returned to the same dishonest style of argument that became so drearily familiar during his years in power.

He complained bitterly about the "emergence of euphemisms" in the national security debate, which he attributed to the president. "Apparently using the term 'war' where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated ... And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are -- or what they would do if we let them loose." (As for euphemism, that is an accurate way to describe the Cheney term for waterboarding, which he called "tough questioning.")

In fact, Obama has never tried to redefine terrorists or terrorism into something less threatening, in this speech or any other. (At the National Archive he referred to "terrorists" and "terrorism" more than 25 times.) As for the nature of the conflict with those who attacked the United States on 9/11, he was blunt. "Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates."

Aside from distorting Obama's rhetoric to fit a false liberal stereotype, the former vice president simply lied about the aims and conduct of the abusive interrogations he approved. "From the beginning of the program," he claimed, "there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans." But we now know that there was certainly at least one other purpose that was of great importance to Cheney: namely, the effort to find (or coerce confessions about) the mythical connection between al-Qaida and the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Mindful of that damning fact, he barely dared to mention the war in Iraq.

Beyond the distortions and the lies, there was one passage in Cheney's speech that underlined the authoritarian character of the former vice president and his hosts. Not only must we not reverse the policies of the previous administration, but according to him, we should not even debate them -- because the merest discussion of the troubling issues raised by the war on terrorism only encourages the enemy.

When the leaders of al-Qaida "see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along," he sneered. "Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for -- our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

That contempt for democracy as "weakness" should be familiar to anyone who has studied authoritarian regimes in history and around the world today. It was one of the hallmarks of an American regime that is at long last gone, but inflicted damage that will require years to repair.



To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (79166)6/14/2009 8:18:38 PM
From: LTK0073 Recommendations  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 89467
 
Fear Rules
By Paul Craig Roberts
13 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org
The power of irrational fear in the US is extraordinary. It ranks up there with the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, and the financial gangsters. Indeed, fear might be the most powerful force in America.
Americans are at ease with their country’s aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which has resulted in a million dead Muslim civilians and several million refugees, because the US government has filled Americans with fear of terrorists. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.”
Fearful of American citizens, the US government is building concentration camps apparently all over the country. According to news reports, a $385 million US government contract was given by the Bush/Cheney Regime to Cheney’s company, Halliburton, to build “detention centers” in the US. The corporate media never explained for whom the detention centers are intended.
Most Americans dismiss such reports. “It can’t happen here.” However, In northeastern Florida not far from Tallahassee, I have seen what might be one of these camps. There is a building inside a huge open area fenced with razor wire. There is no one there and no signs. The facility appears new and unused and does not look like an abandoned prisoner work camp.
What is it for?
Who spent all that money for what?
There are Americans who are so terrified of their lives being taken by terrorists that they are hoping the US government will use nuclear weapons to destroy “the Muslim enemy.” The justifications concocted for the use of nuclear bombs against Japanese civilian populations have had their effect. There are millions of Americans who wish “their” government would kill everyone that “their” government has demonized.
When I tell these people that they will die of old age without ever seeing a terrorist, they think I am insane. Don’t I know that terrorists are everywhere in America? That’s why we have airport security and homeland security. That’s why the government is justified in breaking the law to spy on citizens without warrants. That’s why the government is justified to torture people in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions. If we don’t torture them, American cities will go up in mushroom clouds. Dick Cheney tells us this every week.
Terrorists are everywhere. “They hate us for our freedom and democracy.” When I tell America’s alarmed citizens that the US has as many stolen elections as any country and that our civil liberties have been eroded by “the war on terror” they lump me into the terrorist category. They automatically conflate factual truth with anti-Americanism.
The same mentality prevails with regard to domestic crime.

Most Americans, including, unfortunately, juries, assume that if the police make a case against a person and a prosecutor prosecutes it, the defendant is guilty. Most Americans are incapable of believing that police or a prosecutor would frame an innocent person for career or bureaucratic reasons or out of pure meanness.

Yet, it happens all the time. Indeed, it is routine.

Frame-ups are so routine that 96% of the criminally accused will not risk a “jury of their peers,” preferring to negotiate a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor. The jury of their peers are a brainwashed lot, fearful of crime, which they have never experienced but hear about all the time. Criminals are everywhere, doing their evil deeds.
The US has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than “authoritarian” countries, such as China, a one-party state. An intelligent population might wonder how a “freedom and democracy” country could have incarceration rates far higher than a dictatorship, but Americans fail this test. The more people that are put in prison, the safer Americans feel.
Lawrence Stratton and I describe frame-up techniques in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Police and prosecutors even frame the guilty, as it is easier than convicting them on the evidence.
One case that has been before us for years, but is resolutely neglected by the corporate media, whose function is to scare the people, is that of Troy Davis.
Troy Davis was convicted of killing a police officer. The only evidence connecting him to the crime is the testimony of “witnesses,” the vast majority of whom have withdrawn their testimony. The witnesses say they testified falsely against Troy Davis because of police intimidation and coercion.
One would think that this would lead to a new hearing and trial. But not in America. The Republican judicial nazis have created the concept of “finality.” Even if the evidence shows that a wrongfully convicted person is innocent, finality requires that we execute him. If the convicted person is executed, we can assume he was guilty, because America has a pure justice system and never punishes the innocent. Everyone in prison and everyone executed is guilty. Otherwise, they they wouldn’t be in prison or executed.

It is all very simple if you are an American. America is pure, but other countries, except for our allies, are barbaric.
The same goes for our wars. Everyone we kill, whether they are passengers on Serbian commuter trains or attending weddings, funerals, or children playing soccer in Iraq, is a terrorist, or we would not have killed them.
So was the little girl who was raped by our terrorist-fighting troops and then murdered, brutally, along with her family.

America only kills terrorists. If we kill you, you are a terrorist.
Americans are the salt of the earth. They never do any wrong. Only those other people do. Not the Israelis, of course.
And police, prosecutors, and juries never make mistakes. Everyone accused is guilty.
Fear has made every American a suspect, eroded our rights, and compromised our humanity.