The Fatal Link Between Indefinite Detainment & Obama's DNA
Les AuCoin
When Obama caved in on regulating “too-big-to-fail” banks, health care insurance reform, Guantanamo, the debt ceiling fiasco, Bush-Cheney tax cuts, et. al., he did it thinking he could be sporadically engaged, let the rabid Right slap him around like a piece of cheap meat, settling for limp half measures–while life-long Democrats like me hang with him, holding our nose, because Republican alternatives are worse.
But if Obama loses a second term, his modus operani will have been the existential reason for his defeat, for nothing is worse than having your political dreams shafted by your own man. Obama’s odd passive-destructive impulse reached its apogee last weekend, when the president signed into law the 2011 defense bill, containing a rider that authorizes soldiers–soldiers!–to knock on our door at night and jail us without a trial, indefinitely, if the government “thinks” we are loyal to a terror organization or its sympathizers.
This, from a former professor of Constitutional law, over the objections of his own Secretary of Defense and directors of national security and the FBI.
What the hell is this–Pyongyang?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:31 a.m.
Dec 22, '11
You can read the rest at my blog:
The Les AuCoin Blog
11:51 a.m.
Dec 22, '11
I couldn't agree more Les. I even think the neocons got even more of what they wanted because having "our" guy cave all the time or advocate for their causes cut the legs out from under the left and our ability to fight back...so I won't be voting for Obama again ("fool me once", you know).
1:03 p.m.
Dec 22, '11
I can agree with you on the specific complaint with the current defense bill and some of the other complaints on your list, but not your overall tone and rhetoric. It’s way too whiny, and overlooks President Obama’s many positive accomplishments: health care reform (with its expansion of people covered), killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership, withdrawing most US troops from Iraq, substantial economic stimulus, and a deficit cutting agreement which by default will include substantial Defense Department cuts, for examples.
2:14 p.m.
Dec 23, '11
Whiny? Try angry.
11:20 p.m.
Dec 26, '11
No, I'll go with whiny.
8:56 p.m.
Dec 28, '11
One doesn't "whine" about the taking of civil liberties, sonny. S/he roars.
3:01 p.m.
Dec 22, '11
Where, exactly, did Obama "cave" on Gitmo? He signed an executive order to have it shut down. An order that was effectively neutered when Congress (including most Democrats) voted to deauthorize any funding for that shutdown.
I'm not going to defend Obama on all charges, but if you are going to hit him with a list of particulars it is up to you to make sure that all the charges fit. Because if one of them does not, then we would be justified in assuming that the rest of the charges are equally baseless.
6:28 p.m.
Dec 22, '11
Chris, it seems fairly clear that Les was referring to the fact that President Obama reversed his order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantanamo Bay and, perhaps, that he has never put a halt to indefinite detentions without trial for prisoners held overseas. And he is clearly spot on in his civil libertarian concern that the US military can now seize people in their homes, extradite them to foreign countries, thus depriving them of their constitutionally-protected rights.
I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the letter signed by 26 retired generals and admirals asking Harry Reid to oppose the legislation that our president signed into law with the defense reauthorization bill:
6:39 p.m.
Dec 22, '11
Thanks, Sal. You answered, correctly, before I tuned back in.
Les
10:08 a.m.
Dec 23, '11
Although I have stated my opinions on President Obama's performance on this site previously which are in accord with Les AuCoin, I would add that in Montana the benefits of the oil boom are being thwarted by the GOP's defunding of regulatory agencies. The Bakken benefits to eastern Montana are important.
Which way will President Obama flip-flop on the Keystone XL pipeline? The pressure to export the glut of oil backing up on rail sidings thus impacting stockholders dividends will likely out weigh the environment. And it will all be on President Obama. Next, defunding Social Security.
Hope this is not too off topic.
12:47 p.m.
Dec 23, '11
Nothing from Obama has been more disappointing than the disrespect for civil liberties and due process from, as Les Aucoin notes, a president who taught Constitutional law. I may vote to re-elect him, given the paucity of choice, but I cannot generate enthusiasm for his re-election campaign.
9:00 p.m.
Dec 23, '11
Do the right thing: www.jillstein.org/
We need to build a progressive party in the US!
11:02 a.m.
Dec 26, '11
Why? Like it or not the number of Americans who identify as solidly liberal or progressive is in the low 20%. And the number of those folks who'd be willing to support a marginal candidate for president based on their ideology is about 1%, if Nader and Kucinich are indicative. Which sort of throws the whole "we are the 99%" argument on its head, don't you think?
11:18 p.m.
Dec 26, '11
What a tiring polemic from Les AuCoin.
6:04 p.m.
Dec 28, '11
I read this blog piece elsewhere and posted it on FB. There will be no end to the same argument for the foreseeable future: Obama is better than the next guy versus Obama has espoused some very dangerous and regressive policies, and this indefinite detention being Exhibit A. He has not actually signed it to my knowledge as of this writing, so there is time to voice your concerns. As one writer phrased it, we either take back our country or go into neofeudalism. Obama heads the Democratic party and he and it must now own the results of this law: they espouse totalitarianism if and when it suits them. There is no fluffy, furry way to otherwise describe the consequences of this law, and especially, ESPECIALLY in the hands of another administration.
8:59 p.m.
Dec 28, '11
Geez, protecting our civil liberties "bores" you. The SS thrill you?
4:10 p.m.
Dec 27, '11
Dr. Jill Stein's first campaign message: http://www.jillstein.org/message_of_change
This is what people had hoped Obama would be!