Skip to main content

View Diary: Civil Liberties under Obama (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think the big difference in regards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam AZ, JustJennifer

    to Guantanamo, that G. Greenwald is ignoring, is that the number of inmates in Guantanamo is going down and that no new inmates are being brought there.

    That doesn't seem like an escalation of Bush policies to me.

    Btw, did Greenwald ever answer the question as to wether he is a socialist or not?  It seems like he evaded that question....

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:59:48 PM PDT

    •  He did not evade the question (7+ / 0-)

      He answered it.  At the end of the tape he said as someone who writes in a public forum he doesn't like to accept labels since those can just be used to dismiss or attack you (which is true).   He explained his personal philosophy pretty well, which I tried to sum up but he said a lot more.  

      Personally I don't think he is a Socialist.  I think he is anti-authoritarian and against abuses of power.

      I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

      by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:17:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hm, still seems like an evade to me. :) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JustJennifer, Garrett

        I'm starting to think that he is some kind of dadaist Libertarian, tbh.

        But I know that you dig him, so I won't delve further into it.

        I appreciate your concern for civil liberties, even if I disagree on G. Greenwald.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:22:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lol (4+ / 0-)

          I don't dig him.  I think he is intelligent and I appreciate the fact that he is a Constitutional lawyer so he an offer some insight into things that are cold hard facts and not some pundit with a degree in journalism and no basis to make these observations.  And trust me I have no love for lawyers.   He no longer lives in the US although I assume he maintained his citizenship.   I wonder if he is going to vote in 2012?  :)

           And not only am I concerned for civil liberties but I am very concerned about  the culture of fear that has developed, mostly since 9/11.   It annoys me to no end that the very same people who were self aware enough to point out the things that Bush was doing that made them mad are now excusing it because it is Obama.   That just isn't right.

          I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

          by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:36:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't mean "dig him" in any way other than (0+ / 0-)

            that you think he is intelligent and appreciate his writing.

            I think he's mostly barking up the wrong tree in regards to Obama, though.

            The U.S. is a pretty conservative country by western standards and the culture of fear has been nurtured for a long, long time.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:35:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure what you meant by that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              but it certainly came off as seeming like you were saying I had some sort of girlish fascination with him, which is fairly dismissive when coming from a man to a woman about another man.  I don't operate that way when it comes to politics.  I save all of my "digging" for real people.

              I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

              by JustJennifer on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:14:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  What he says is directly on point (7+ / 0-)

          They are now rendered elsewhere than to Guantanamo.

          Bagram, or the recently disclosed prison in Somalia, being examples of where they end up.

          The July 2009 Judge Bates opinion (an Afghan at Bagram has no habeas rights), and the May 2010 D.C Circuit opinion (non-Afghans at Bagram have no habeas rights), are important in this policy of sending prisoners elsewhere than Guantanamo.

          The first opinion concerns Pacha Wazir. We now know, from Glenn Carle’s book The Interrogator, they had long known there was no reason to hold him.

          The Administration was making claims and justifications to a U.S. District Court judge, which they just plain knew to be untrue.

        •  "dig him"? What does that mean? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence, JustJennifer, Robobagpiper

          I don't declare an -ism either. I don't think I fit into any of the 'isms very neatly. Add to that that people like to use them to establish a tribal thing and treat you like an other and why would I declare one? I hate tribalism.

          Why do you need to slap a label on? Can't you just take each point he makes and determine whether it has validity or truth or not.

          I find it odd that people will decide they disagree with someone about one thing and then dismiss anything else the person has to say,  just because they disagree with that other thing.

          It's certainly no secret that Obama has pushed some of the anti-civil liberties doctrines that Bush started.

          •  That's a valid point. (0+ / 0-)

            Although I do think that the concept of a dadaist Libertarian is pretty interesting.  

            That eing said, when I see media figures writing stuff that is obviously false and manipulative, as G. Greenwald did on Libya, I tend question the veracity of their other claims, or at least be far more skeptical.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:40:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  he's spot on as a constitutional lawyer. I tend to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JustJennifer, Robobagpiper

              ignore other subjects, since constitutional law is his specialty. Though I may disagree with him on other things, I know that he's consistently shown that he knows constitutional law very well, so I always give him that credibility.

              •  He may know constitutional law, but he often (0+ / 0-)

                leaves out lots of information that is necessary to get a view of the full picture.  His comments on the U.S. supposedly being worse than Afghanistan in regards to human rights exemplify that, as do his comments in regards to Libya.

                I find it odd that Greenwald freaks out about civil rights and Guantanamo while the wingers freak out about Obama "sneaking" detainees into the U.S. for trial in civilian court, as can be seen here:

                http://infidelsarecool.com/...

                WARNING:  it's a paranoid winger site.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 08:23:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What is this supposed to mean? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, Robobagpiper

                  Are you implying that Greenwald is working in conjunction with ring wingers to promote the idea that Obama is doing something that is currently unknown but open to speculation (I can't for the life of me figure out what any right winger is ever trying to say)

                  I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

                  by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 10:43:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I'm saying that Obama gets hit from both sides (0+ / 0-)

                    and that - if the wingers are complaining about Obama bringing terrorists into the U.S. for trials in civilian courts - G. Greenwald may just be barking up the wrong tree.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:17:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He will always get hit from both sides (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JustJennifer, Robobagpiper

                      on just about every issue.

                      Might as well take the hit and do the RIGHT thing.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:35:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  So what does it mean (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, Robobagpiper

                      that the hawks and warmongers are praising him?

                      We can't view Obama's actions through the lens of anything other than the law on this issue.   Policy is open to debate from both sides, but damn the Constitution is the Constitution.  It's not supposed to be a list of suggestions that can be cherry picked for convenience.

                      I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

                      by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:42:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, it means that the wingers are ragging on (0+ / 0-)

                        Obama for bringing and trying to bring terrorism suspects to the U.S. for trial in a civilian court instead of just stuffing the into Guantanamo or Bagram, or wherever.  Ie., they are accusing him of being too lenient.

                        Meanwhile, Greenwald is telling us that Obama supposedly is worse than Bush on civil liberties.

                        Why is Greenwald doing this and not mentioning the fact that there has been a considerable, positive improvement over Bush in this regard?

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:54:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Lawrence (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, Garrett, Robobagpiper

              I have seen you say more than one time that you tend to just discount entire people for saying anything against Libya.   Are you that myopic on this issue?  Do you really think that if you disagree with someone on one single subject everything they say is suspect?   I find that very hard to fathom.  

              The other example I am thinking of was when a Socialist Worker article was posted elsewhere and it was very anti-Imperialism and you immediately said "see this is why I am starting to dislike Socialists" or something to that effect.  Anytime Glenn Greenwald is mentioned you immediately hone in on Libya.  Hello?  If you watch this speech you will see that it is about Constitutional law and civil liberties.  

              I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

              by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 10:33:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I watched the speech, and I saw multiple (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JustJennifer

                manipulative mechanisms employed, such as the bit about Afghanistan's govt. being more progressive than ours.

                I have also noticed that, in many cases, Greenwald does not strive for objectivity.

                The problem that I am increasingly having with some socialists(or some who call themselves socialists) is that they support regimes like the Gaddafi and Assad regimes, and - if I recall correctly - I made a reference to losing respect for people like Chavez, Ortega, Castro, who came out in open support for Gaddafi.  Chavez even favorably compared Gaddafi to Simon Bolivar, which is just plain nuts.

                Nobody in their right mind would make that comparison.

                 

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:37:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Robobagpiper

                  "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

                  When your enemy is the United States, don't you look for any other friend or ally, even those who are rather horrible?

                  Finland allied with Nazi Germany to fight the Soviet Union during the USSR's invasion during WWII, yet didn't partake in the racial genocide characteristics of the Nazi regime.

                  (Finnish Jews and the SS fighting side by side against the Soviets...)

                  I'm not saying that I support their decision to back or support Libya's Brother Leader. But I can understand it. If I'm up against the biggest/meanest bully in the school yard AND his friends, I want all the help I can get.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:50:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, I'm sure that there is some of that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JustJennifer

                    "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mechanism in place here.

                    But I think that much of it also just plain signifies adherance to an unhealthy level of dogmatic thought.

                    Evo Morales, whom I still like and respect alot, didn't join in with the others.  Possibly because he doesn't come from the era of Soviet-style "socialism" and his socialist roots have alot to do with the natural, holistic form of Native American social understanding and beliefs.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:03:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I think Greenwald makes it pretty clear (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, Robobagpiper

                  what his objections about Libya are all about here

                  There are some people in the world with the moral authority to accuse others of being too close to and supportive of brutal tyrants.  Hillary Clinton is most definitely not on that list; in fact, she is very near the top of those who have no authority whatsoever to spout that accusation.  Those questioning the war aren't declaring Gaddafi to be " friends of their family" or taking millions of dollars from his regime; they're simply questioning the legality, wisdom and morality of the war.  Doing that does not put one on Gaddafi's side any more than doing it in 2003 put one on Saddam's.

                  Plurality of Americans love Gadaffi

                  This is the territory we are starting to wade into over this situation in Libya.  And while I am certainly not going to lump you in with the likes of Bush or Clinton I have to say your continued insistence that anyone who dares question the wisdom of what we are doing in Libya as being the same as being "pro-Gaddafi" is wading dangerously close to "you are for us or you are against us".  

                  I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

                  by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:57:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hm, I have a problem with Clinton's framing there. (0+ / 0-)

                    I also, however, have a problem with Greenwald's framing, as he is falsely presenting it as Clinton saying that people are unpatriotic if they question the intervention.

                    Greenwald takes the quote out of context and spins the unfortunate framing into something that it is not by taking it to the extreme of what it could mean when read out of context.

                    Clinton is responding to a question on how she will be dealing with testifying in Congress and seems to be referring to the question that the Obama Administration asked themselves in regards to how they should deal with Libya. He makes it out to seem as if Clinton is telling everyone to just shut up, yet he chose to gloss over this part:

                    I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I’m sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

                    Greenwald makes a valid point by pointing out that the binary framing, in general, is worrisome, yet he takes it to the extreme with his comparisons.

                    And that is not the first time that he takes it to the extreme.  In march, he wrote two op-eds in quick succession that compared Libya to Iraq and tried to draw a correlative line between the two.

                    One does not need to think all too long and hard to understand that the differences between Iraq and Libya, and between the approaches of the respective administrations, are vast.  

                    Greenwald is highly intelligent and should know that.  

                    As for this, Jennifer:

                    I have to say your continued insistence that anyone who dares question the wisdom of what we are doing in Libya as being the same as being "pro-Gaddafi" is wading dangerously close to "you are for us or you are against us".  

                    I find that highly insulting.  Where have I said that "anyone who dares question the wisdom of what we are doing in Libya is the same as being pro-Gaddafi."?

                     

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:46:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  is the number going down because we're taking (4+ / 0-)

      people elsewhere to circumvent the ruling on habeas corpus?

      It's not the location which is the problem. It's the practices.

      •  There is nothing comparable to what was going (0+ / 0-)

        on during Bush's era going on right now, Una.

        Hell, there were rendition flights going through Europe non-stop during that time.

        In some case, the Obama Administration has even been enhancing habeus corpus by sending Guantanamo inmates to the European countries where they had originally resided, and would receive a civilian trial.

        And in the case of the innocent chinese Uighurs that were/are at Gunatanamo, the U.S. has been finding 3rd party countries for them to emigrate to so that they won't face the very scary fate that they were deported to China.

        I don't see G. Greenwald including that kind of information in his writing and/or T.V. appearances, and that's one of the beefs that I have with him.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:57:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the fact that he has done some right things (4+ / 0-)

          doesn't negate the issue of the illegal acts.

          If any rendition and holding of people who are not allowed representation and human rights protections is going on, it's a travesty. And there is still plenty going on.

          Not to mention that his DOJ fought for increasing the breaches of Miranda in wiretapping. And other things I can't recall now because I have a brain of mush after falling down the stairs and I think just broke my toe.  :-(  But, I do remember being very angry at what Obama's DOJ has been fighting for in the courts.

          •  I'm not happy about everything that this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Garrett, JustJennifer

            administration does in regards to civil rights, but I think that the attacks by G. Greenwald are often overblown and seeking to find fault at the expense of objectivity.

            This administration was left a huge pile of shit with all the people that the Bush Admin imprisoned.   See my link in other comment about the wingers freaking out because the Obama Administration is bringingterrorist suspects in for civilian trial in the U.S.

            Go see a doctor, please, and make sure that you did not hurt your head too bad and that that toe is ok.  Your health is more important than a discussion on DKos with me.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 08:29:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The interrogation standard, as another example (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JustJennifer, Robobagpiper

            The interrogation standard we have is a Bush-era one, drawn up explicitly for use outside the Geneva Conventions. It has, in its title, "Restricted Techniques."

            Because we understand that DOD will not allow use of these techniques on any detainee entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, we need not access whether the techniques comport with the substantive standards that the Conventions impose

            Steven Bradbury, 2006

            So, we now admit that the Conventions apply, but are using techniques that the Conventions disallow. They are hoping that no court will ever call them on it.

            This is very risky, in a very bad way. The political implications of the Administration being called, by an official court ruling, on the fact that it claims to apply the Geneva Conventions, but does not, should be clear.

            They have got the use of obstacles -- State Secrets, habeas restrictions, a practice of judicial deference to the Executive on national security, and the like -- to try to prevent it. But their attitude must be just like the early Bush-era one:  We will probably get away with it.

            And all to keep the use of isolation/breakdown methods that are known not to work.

          •  And conditions of confinement, as another (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JustJennifer, Robobagpiper

            The administration uses POW-like justifications at the base of the justification for the indefinite detention power. Courts have sometimes telegraphed nearly a desire, to be allowed to use straight out Prisoner of War frameworks in their decisions.  

            Well, if a court should ever decide to take the Administration's logic to its natural conclusion, and apply a Prisoner of War framework, our 10 years use of very very clearly outlawed conditions of confinement, suddenly crashes. With, again, very bad political implications. And, again, with no good reason for our practices.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site