Tweet
Maui Time Weekly
May 27, 2009
Mr. Obama: Resign Now
With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?
by Ted Rall
http://www.altweeklies.com/politics/mr_obama _resign_now/Story?oid=1152284
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring
expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his
wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical
memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity
and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on
pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles
in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama
has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy
the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he
has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat
through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and
corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now-before he drags us
further into the abyss.
I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or
other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime
someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in
U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy
would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe
Islamic terrorists, and also
kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it
OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and
anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a
military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather
than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than
improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one
thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime"-contempt
for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.
Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than
un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of
Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of
human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive
detention" is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a
man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and
political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea
offends the idea of civilization itself.
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside
him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won't follow a terrible
leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is
a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
"Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted
upon=3D2 0"terrorism suspects who cannot be tried."
"Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words.
Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been
charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for
anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in
New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has
no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.
What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys
languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama
Administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be
convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on
trial isn't enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a
foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"?
The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter
in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the
jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another
question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo
detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be
prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is
tainted."
In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that
people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They
walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places
blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in
power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove
that a defendant committed a crime=80'an actual crime, not a
thoughtcrime-in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the
judge and jury for wasting their time.
It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless
behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that
reason alone, Obama should resign.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
May 27, 2009
Mr. Obama: Resign Now
With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?
by Ted Rall
http://www.altweeklies.com/politics/mr_obama _resign_now/Story?oid=1152284
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring
expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his
wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical
memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity
and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on
pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles
in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama
has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy
the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he
has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat
through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and
corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now-before he drags us
further into the abyss.
I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or
other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime
someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in
U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy
would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe
Islamic terrorists, and also
kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it
OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and
anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a
military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather
than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than
improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one
thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime"-contempt
for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.
Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than
un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of
Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of
human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive
detention" is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a
man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and
political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea
offends the idea of civilization itself.
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside
him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won't follow a terrible
leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is
a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
"Prolonged detention," reported The New York Times, would be inflicted
upon=3D2 0"terrorism suspects who cannot be tried."
"Cannot be tried." Interesting choice of words.
Any "terrorism suspect" (can you be a suspect if you haven't been
charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for
anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in
New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has
no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.
What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys
languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of "detainees" the Obama
Administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be
convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on
trial isn't enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a
foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners "cannot be tried"?
The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this "entirely new chapter
in American law" in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the
jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: "Yet another
question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo
detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be
prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is
tainted."
In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that
people against whom there is a "lack of evidence" are innocent. They
walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places
blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in
power, "tainted evidence" is no evidence at all. If you can't prove
that a defendant committed a crime=80'an actual crime, not a
thoughtcrime-in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the
judge and jury for wasting their time.
It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush's lawless
behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that
reason alone, Obama should resign.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL