Much has been made of President Barack Obama's closing of the Guanatanamo Bay detention facility as well as discontinuing the use of torture, rendition flights, and CIA-run secret jails in his days in office, much to the delight of his liberal supporters.
But what has fallen udnerneath radar with all thediscussion about the stimulus package and the ever worsening economy, is the Obama Administrations reaction to court cases regarding to controversial tactics used by the Bush Administration.
The first case involved a subsidiary of Boeing, Jeppesen Dataplan,accuses the flight planning company of assisting the CIA of the "extraordinary rendition" of five men-- the process where suspected terrorists are flown tk another country to be interogated or tortured to reveal information.The Obama Administration upheld the Bush Administrations' stance that the entire subject is a state secret.
The second involves the legal status of detainees in Afghanistan.The Obama sustained a Bush Administration opinion that detainees at the Bagram Air Force detention facility in Afghanistan can not have access to US courts to challenge their detention because they do not have constitutional rights.
These two decisions have elicited shock and isdismay from human rights lawyers and advocates who expected the Obama Administration to undo all that the Bush Administration enacted.
The Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romano, was quoted in reaction to the Obama Administration decision on the extraordinary rendition case by ABC News: "Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”
One of the lawyers for one of the Bagram detainees was similiarly dismayed, if not as dramatic in her reaction: "The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, "We all expected better."
The decision by the Obama Administration in both cases are machiavellian. They for the first time, showed a willingness to eschew the fantasy island mentality that permeates western liberals and acted in a ruthless manner that is necessary in a time of war.
"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." -William Tecumseh Sherman
That statement above by one of America's most famous and ruthless generals, captures in raw form the brutal reality of making. You cannot make it "kinder and gentler";you cannot eliminate the savagery of it;you cannot expect to win a war with a hand tied behind your back. You must be willing to fight tooth and nail to defend what you love.
This isn't a war about economic gain--no matter what the far left says--it is about defending ones country and family fro those who mean it harm. To that end, the President is obligated to use any tool that is proven to be effective to combat those malevolent forces that want to kill and injure Americans.
Some will say that torture violates morality. That maybe so, but morality will not keep my loved ones alive. Ethics are an abstraction. Nothing more. They cannot feed your child nor protect it from the dangers of the world. All it does is provide us with a guideline on how to act.
Human rights groups are myopic, useless, groups. The only way they can impact something is through courts, but as proven over and over again, any nation or group of people can easily ignore them and they cannot do a darn thing about it. They also are not concerned with the well being of citizens of a country, only about the abstraction we call "rights".
Where were they when Tutis' were literially being butchered by Hutus' in Rwanda? Cambodia? Bosnia? Sudan? Congo? Where were these same people then?
The only people who can truly preserve "rights" are those willing to kill to protect those rights. Writing polemics ",holding sit-ins or large march's can only work in a society in which those involved are protected by overwhelming force.That is the fact that western liberals do not seem to grasp. Brute force still rules the world no matter how much they hate it.
Ethics and morality take a backseat when it comes to protecting the lives of themselves and of their loved ones. If Mr. Romano is willing to sacrifice his family in the name of morality, than more power to him. But not I.
All that being said we should wage war in a manner that attempts to protect innocents and minimizes the opportunity for abuses. The United States should try to stay within the boundaries of the Geneva Convention if it is feasible to do so. We should conduct a war that eliminates the enemy, but sincerely tries to prevent collateral damage.
War must be fought with determination, ruthlessness, and intelligence. Hopefully, the new administration will prove to be better at the art of war than their predecessor.
Comments
It's amazing--to me--to see how people can defend the defenseless. Wars of aggression, sold to the public with lies, are inexcusable. I see these people twist and bend and attempt to rationalize death and brutality with a total lack of conscience and compassion, and it's sickening.
Our pathetic "leaders" and the spineless, complicit media wave these lame excuses of fear and terror at us, and think it amounts to a blank check and the authorization to do anything they want.
Enough is enough. Keep pushing and they will see a sleeping giant awaken.
I feel soiled after
reading halfway through
the repetition of these
US-Iraeli lies. I don't know
why whatreallyhappned.com posted
a link to this official liar
site.
All the evidence points to 9/11
being a Mossad-Neocon psyop.
That is what Obama and Bush
are protecting with their
secrecy.
And you won't let anyone
post links which prove it.
You disgust me.
You damn liars.
i think he's a good president........
"it is about defending ones country and family fro those who mean it harm. To that end, the President is obligated to use any tool that is proven to be effective"
That's right. The president swears an oath to protect us from scary things, using any means that might work. It's right there in Article II, where it says "If I am not able to uphold the law while keeping us safe from scary things I will break it." Now, it goes without saying that a president who obeys the law will get us all killed, and we must be ruthless to win wars.
So, when we invade somewhere, we could cut off the hands of all the children. Use gas, use germs, poison the water supply. Because the only way to win a war is to become what you are fighting, then do it one better. They fly planes into buildings, we should fly planes into buildings. Now that I think it over, we just retired a daring fighter pilot who specialized in intercepting hostile and hijacked planes over Texas.
Maybe he could volunteer.
Rape might make people talk. Maybe we should try it. If it works, why stop with suspected terrorists? Drunk drivers and speeders kill more people every year. Hell, people who cheat on taxes shortchange our military. Jaywalkers cause accidents. Respect for the state is everything, so presidents should order war crimes.
Dusty,in order to attack someone else's intelligence, you must be first exhibit some yourself.
Sour dove,
The Law? Are you serious? The law also used to say that black people were not people either. Law is a subjective matter. It can be whatever you want it to be.The Nazis had "laws" too. Guess their actions were "okay" then because they were "legal".
I am not advocating germ warfare or unnecessary atrocities. , I never wrote such a thing.
What I did say is that a President has an obligation to the people to wage war in a manner that is msot effective in eliminating the threat.
That is a big difference from advocating mass murder.
Kevin,
I am sick and tired opf people limer you who simply do not understand the reality oif the world we live. It is a brutal, hars, unforgiving place. History and current events tell us that.
You seem to think that Afghanistan is a "war of agrression". Please explain how an country that sheltered people who attacked us is innocent?
A war of aggression is not such a bad thing either under the appropriate circumstance. For exanple, if France had gone into Germany during Hitler's remilitarization fo the Rhineland, WWII would have been avoided.
Your simplistic world view lacks a true understanding of how humans act and what the world is like. I suggest you read up on current events and the history of mankind.
WarmyAss,
Afghanistan sheltered tAl Queda, therefore they were a "threat". WHy else would the US invade a financially destitute nation that infrastructure to speak of and which brought only headache's to two empires that tried to conquer it? Your supposition is lacking logically in this regard.
Iraq was an egregious decision. that I agree with.
"It can be whatever you want it to be."
Tell it to the judge. Good luck.
'Guess their actions were "okay" then because they were "legal".'
No. Breaking the law is a crime. We hanged Nazis for the supreme crime, preventative war. You are free to break any law you don't like, and you are free to take the consequences. This country is more than just another place to live.
"I am not advocating germ warfare"
Who said you were? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm asking you why you don't advocate those measures, given your claim that "the president is obligated to use any tool that is proven to be effective."
Are you familiar with the oath of office? Why, in your opinion, did the Framers see fit to spell it out?
"a manner that is msot effective in eliminating the threat. That is a big difference from advocating mass murder."
War is mass murder, big guy, and that's precisely because it is effective in eliminating a perceived threat.
Now, can you explain why you support torture but not rape? You know already that you can't rely on the veracity of a tortured prisoner, because you can't distinguish between their lies and a truthful confession without chasing down each and every claim, like the one KSM made about plotting to attack the Plaza Bank. Chasing chimeras wastes valuable time and resources, time that could have been spent protecting your fearful existence.
Have you ever tortured a suspect? Why not put your money where your mouth is? Are you as brave as you wish to sound, or are you a barely-literate coward?
If you are sincere when you say the president is obligated to order war crimes, then why do you draw the line at torture? Is it because rape, germs, and poison are immoral? Or do you imagine that they don't work? Stalin talked like you, but at least he was consistent. Every tyrant justifies atrocities by citing national security. You need more than that if you wish to persuade.
Again, law is just words. They mean whatever you want them to mean.WHo is the judge? The Nazis had judges too. You act like every law is the same. Islam has law to. It calls for gays to be executed. Guess you should obey that law.
"Who said you were? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm asking you why you don't advocate those measures, given your claim that "the president is obligated to use any tool that is proven to be effective."
Are you familiar with the oath of office? Why, in your opinion, did the Framers see fit to spell it out?"
I am only advocating those measures that would end the war as quickly as possible within guidelines without needlessly killing innocents.
And it is very much debatable whether germ warfare is really all that effective. Neither The Germans nor the Japanese used it despite having spent years developing it.
"War is mass murder, big guy, and that's precisely because it is effective in eliminating a perceived threat.
---It is mass murder, but it also prevents a side from being extinguished. War is an necessary evil at times.
"Now, can you explain why you support torture but not rape? You know already that you can't rely on the veracity of a tortured prisoner, because you can't distinguish between their lies and a truthful confession without chasing down each and every claim, like the one KSM made about plotting to attack the Plaza Bank. Chasing chimeras wastes valuable time and resources, time that could have been spent protecting your fearful existence. "
--Is torture really ineffective? Explain then how the Gestapo was able to use it so effectively to destroy partisan movements in Europe? Explain how the KGB, CIA and other spy agencies used to gain informtion from suspects?
Its effectiveness is very much in doubt and you raise a good point about the veracity of the claims. But it has been proven to be effective in the past. I am not advocating wide spread torture, but only in specific cases properly supervised. But if the FBI or someone else has a better idea, I am all for it. Torture should be a last resort.
"Have you ever tortured a suspect? Why not put your money where your mouth is? Are you as brave as you wish to sound, or are you a barely-literate coward?"
Have you ever had your family held at gun point? Are you some barely educated head-in-the-clouds idealist who thinks he can reason with everyone? I suggest you open a history book as well as read a paper sometime. The world is not a nice place. No amount of philosophizing by you is going to change that.
Besides, your "challenge" is irrelevant because very few of us have been in a position to even think about torture or seeing our families in danger.
"If you are sincere when you say the president is obligated to order war crimes, then why do you draw the line at torture? Is it because rape, germs, and poison are immoral? Or do you imagine that they don't work? Stalin talked like you, but at least he was consistent. Every tyrant justifies atrocities by citing national security. You need more than that if you wish to persuade."
You can name call all you want, but I'll accept being compared to Stalin if that means my family stays alive.My family means everything to me. You nor anyone outside my circle of family and friends mean next to nothing.
What you seem to be unable to grasp is that unlike Stalin I am not advocating the physical elimination of tens of millions out of paranoia. How you got what I wrote to the megalomanical delusions of Stalin is beyond me.
What I am advocating is the application of brute force to those who have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, a desire to do physical harm to us.
If in the future they are willing to forsake their attacks upon us, than I will gladly accept the olive branch. I in no way would seek their extermination. If they stop, I would stop.
I do not justify killing just for the sake of killing. What I do justify is killing to defend oneself. The extent to which I'll go depends on the threat.
In sum, if you want to sacrifice your family for the "law" or ethics, go ahead. But if someone is openly attempting to harm what I love, I am going to use whatever means necessary to prevent that.
You deleted my reply, didn't you?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!