Continuing the end of America.
The list of Obama flip flops on crucial policy issues is unfortunately growing into a considerable heap of no change is coming to Washington.
The now "OK" use of the MCA is particularly disturbing; Senator Obama voted against this legislation in 2006, but now he suddenly thinks it's appropriate??! What a Load.
Keith Olberman's devastating "Beginning of the End of America" take (one of his best) on the passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (video):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Fast forward to 2009 and the flip flop:
The White House said Friday that the administration would prosecute some detainees being held at the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a military commission system, a much-criticized centerpiece of the Bush administration’s strategy for fighting terror.
Administration officials said they were making changes in the system to grant detainees expanded legal rights, but critics said the move was a sharp departure from the direction President Obama had suggested during the campaign, when he characterized the commissions as an unnecessary compromise of American values.
In a statement, Mr. Obama noted that the country had a long tradition of using military commissions, and said the changes would make the tribunals, to be used along with federal courts, a fairer avenue for prosecution. "This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," Mr. Obama said.
The commissions are run by the Pentagon under a 2006 law passed specifically for terrorism suspects, in part to make it easier to win convictions than in federal courts. The Obama administration suspended the military commission system in its first week in office.
"The Obama administration suspended the military commission system in its first week in office"... but NOW it's all OK??? How pathetic is this?
Please spare me the baloney, i.e. "the administration will tweak the system to assure the rights of the detainees". The MCA is law and you don't tweak the law. you pass another law.. which in fact some in congress tried to do in 2007 which would have restored habeus corpus to its proper place.
Let's cut to the chase and draw the obvious conclusions: Obama the candidate did very well appealing to our sense of values and justice, which most Americans have a lot of and which were totally stomped on the entire eight years of the bush disaster.
So we voted for Obama, happily so. The more politically realistic of us knowing we were not going to get progress on every single progressive issue, but at least I thought we'd get progress on some of the major issues/needs. Instead what I am seeing is a disturbing trend to ZERO progress on several major issues/needs.
Obama's totally weak flip flop on use of the Military Commissions is unacceptable, and it is VERY instructive regarding just who is running the United States (see if you can figure it out).
"US Senate votes to rollback habeas corpus, use torture, and provide immunity for US officials from torture prosecution".
September 29, 2006, the US Senate agreed to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which gives US President George Bush unprecedented power to detain and try people as part of their "War on Terror." President Bush is then expected to sign the Act into law. Broadly, the new Act does 3 things:
1. Strips the right of detainees to habeas corpus (the traditional right of detainees to challenge their detention);
2. Gives the US President the power to detain indefinitely anyone US or foreign nationals, from within the US, and from abroad it deems to have provided material support to anti-US hostilities, and even use secret and coerced evidence (i.e. through use of torture) to try detainees who will be held in secret US military prisons;
3. Gives US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of 2005 by US military and CIA.
The bill was passed by the Senate sixty five votes in favor, thirty four against. Twelve Democrats joined the Republican majority. The House passed virtually the same legislation a few days earlier on Wednesday, 27 September.
The New York Times noted the far-reaching powers the Act will give the president, and other top officials observing that, "Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers ... asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners." Furthermore, not only does the Act allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions, "it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation."
This can have far-reaching consequences. For example, Amnesty International says the legislation will lead to violations of international law and standards and accuses the US Congress of "failing human rights" by voting for this Act and says it "deeply regrets that Congress failed to resist this executive pressure and instead has given a green light for violations of the USA's international obligations."
Note Point 3 above:
"Gives US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of 2005 by US military and CIA".
I assume the more astute readers here knows what this means regarding all of the tough talk about "investigations" and "prosecutions" of those who made the decision to use torture and those who carried it out.
Here's what Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, had to say about the MCA:
He "called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 'a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn’t rely on their good motivations. Now we must.'"
I'm not sure just how I, or anyone can buy into the "storied, traditional use of military commissions" spin Obama is now lamely attempting to do-- in fact, I DON'T BUY IT. The U.S. military also has a rather long tradition, a record of really, really stupid mistakes which have cost tens of thousands of lives. So the notion by Obama that the military somehow deserves my respect, the benefit of the doubt-- particularly regarding any "trial" of the Guantanamo detainees, is nonsensical beyond words.
TURN THE GITMO DETAINEES over to The Hague, or the ICC. THAT would be a welcome change to the sideshow circus, dog and pony show this whole mess has degenerated into.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://www.zmag.org/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...