"A Republic, If You Can Keep it"
It is troubling to see many among us who are willing to cut President Obama too much slack on the issue of human rights violations and his responsibility to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oath sworn by the President at his inauguration is extremely simple and unambiguous. The Founders recognized that there is simply no greater charge given to our President than the preservation of our Constitution. Without that, after all, we have nothing as a Republic. And any President who might choose to ignore or act in violation of our Constitution takes a very large step toward making of himself a king or a tyrant.
Like many Obama supporters, I too was somewhat willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he claimed his inaction in pursuit of possible crimes was predicated upon a wish to "look forward." I did not agree with this approach. It angered me. But I could nevertheless find room in that for these crimes to be addressed in other ways, perhaps through Congressional action.
But then, Obama decided to uphold the "right" of the Executive to clearly violate the 4th Amendment (secret domestic wiretapping) and to support extreme rendition of foreigners at the will of the President.
In this, Obama moved from a position of being "too busy" or "disinclined" to personally pursue past violations of the Constitution to instead express his own willingness to assume extra-Constitutional powers in an effort to combat terrorism. This represents a willingness to violate his oath in pursuit of some "larger and much more important" objective.
My first objection here is that such a response to terrorism indicates a full capitulation to terrorism by becoming terrorists ourselves.
But my main objection here, of course, is that the Founders did not grant the President the authority to determine what extra-constitutional powers he might assume under certain circumstance. Instead, they very specifically required the President to swear an oath to honor the Constitution above all else in performance of his duties.
It was Benjamin Franklin who was asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention "Well, Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or a Monarchy?"
His response? "A Republic, if you can keep it."
In the last eight years, we have suffered perhaps the greatest challenge to this Republic in my lifetime. Cheney and Bush displayed an almost contemptuous disregard for our protections laid out in this document.
Yet, it is not Bush or Cheney (and certainly not Obama) who represent the greatest threat to the Republic. Instead, it is those among us who will acknowledge that these violations have occurred and who choose to overlook them in a misguided desire to "move forward." Without first restoring our footing on solid ground, we will move forward at risk of finding ourselves swallowed in quicksand.
Yeah, this protection of our Constitution is a big deal. And we best get that entered firmly into our collective consciousness and assume this duty as our number one priority if we choose to keep our Republic.
Advertisement
I guess maybe it isn't very pleasant to be reading the horrors Bush&Co. tried to legally excuse. Most people would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars then bother their purdy lil heads over something so ugly, and so unAmerican.
I can't get this picture out of my head. A man tortured to death by my country.
If we can't stand up against this, then what makes anyone think we can fix anything in this country. We have lost our souls.
April 19, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
And he's the one we KNOW of! Sickening....
April 19, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney and Bush displayed an almost contemptuous disregard for our protections
Almost???!!!???
April 19, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right to call me on this one, Tankard. I don't know what I was thinking when I chose to use a qualifier here.
April 19, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were thinking like Obama?
Seriously, whinging doesn't even meet the criterion of the squeaky wheel which seeks grease. The President in not a monarch, but rather the fulcrum of decision making at the top of government. He even told you that you'd have to move him.
While some hot air can lift a balloon, venting into the blogosphere causes marginal global warming thus sinking all balloons.
April 19, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You very conveniently ignore Obama's expressed acceptance of secret domestic wiretapping and extraordinary renditions as rightful tools for the Executive to use as he sees fit. This ain't just Obama's cute strategic plan to get us to "make him do it" in terms of enforcong the Constitution. Instead, he chooses to keep for himself the "rights" stolen by Bush & Cheney.
And so this ain't whining, as you call it. No, I would instead say this is a calling to account a President who chooses to violate his oath of office. The fact that you and so many others don't see it for the glare from Obama's halo is perhaps the most troubling development of all.
It was also the main theme for this essay. Wake up, eds, and smell the coffee.
April 19, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so this ain't whining, as you call it.
Actually, he didn't call it whining. He called it "whinging," which I thought made a bit more sense.
April 19, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saving me from having to say that.
As for our friend SJ and his rabid extremism, I can say that I think that blurring distinctions is fine when you want to ignore real details of differences which might make a difference. -- aka "beware of painting with broad brush"
April 19, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for our friend SJ and his rabid extremism...
Aww, c'mon. SleepinJeezus is more a centrist than a right-winger,really.
April 19, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not mean to imply that SJ occupies ALL extremes, only that his position as stated appears strongly to be extreme in a crucial single point (and not particularly right wing, so I hope you're just teasing there...).
A bird with one wing ... or two in the bush?
April 19, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not. You can't have warrantless wiretapping only for the "good" presidents--the same way that you can't have torture for the "good" administrations. Period. Either the president has such power to disregard acts of congress and international treaties or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he violates his oath of office when he does it.
Not all sins will rise to the level of impeachment. Sometimes the courts will step in and prevent it. This Court, however, is very fond of the President's prerogatives, and impeachment for Bush's sins is not going to happen. So if investigation and prosecution is going to occur, it must occur via public opinion. And it will only occur if the expression of that opinion is strident, principled and unyielding.
April 19, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"opinion is strident, principled and unyielding"
Yup, "extreme" fits pretty well. Don't let my opinion rain on your parade, but it's clear to me that your notion misses the larger picture.
April 20, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you rumpole! You spared me having to write the rebuttal. If this is what it is to be "extreme," than I welcome the charge. Far better to be declared extreme than to join with the sheep who cannot be bothered with defending basic rights and principles.
April 20, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is of course an alternative you conveniently ignore, SJ.
April 20, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, if you are extreme, then I am maniacal.
April 20, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And sometimes you and I are on the same page.
April 20, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do we know that illegal spying has continued. that illegal spying has continued.
And I posted this recent Obama comment on another thread:
People are free to draw their own conclusions but given Obama's tendency to sometimes hide ugly details, I read this as keeping the door wide open. I’m not saying this is concrete evidence of Obama’s plans to continue the secret unitary executive abuses, but it isn’t hopeful for ending them.
April 20, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's tendency to sometimes hide ugly details"
Oh?
I don't see how a cite about Gitmo pertains to unitary executive issues in the way you'd have it. Are you letting your suspicious nature run a bit too free here?
April 20, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If standing up against torture is "extreme" eds, then what isn't extreme?
Frankly, I think those of you that want to sweep this under the rug are the extremists. I'm sure the German people said the same thing to those that complained about the smell coming from the ovens. Settle down, you radicals. Uncle Adolf sez it will be OK.
April 20, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bwak, practically speaking one must choose one's battles and also choose *how* one fights them. Strident isn't "squeaky wheel" in general, for example. But further, standing up against extreme torture doesn't require an extreme stance in general. As far as torture goes, I don't see "extreme", but I do see strong suggestions that laws were violated. I also see strong suggestions of partisan (anti-Bush) desires for revenge and other problems in those who seek to make this discourse into an anti-pragmatic crusade. You want to be king (or queen), I get that, but I don't get that as an American ideal.
"I think those of you that want to sweep this under the rug are the extremists"
You meant "those of us" or are you simply being extremely divisive here?
In your closing remark I think you just confirmed Godwin' Law. :(
April 20, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think Goodwin's Law applies to discussions about torture, eds. It was perfectly fine to bring up in indifference of the German people in response to yours.
I want to be queen? Hardly, I want to see conformity to the rule of law for all. Not just the little people but for our elected "queens" and "kings," too. I suppose that's extreme, but it didn't used to be.
I am being devisive? Fine. I do want to separate myself as far as possible from those who are not outraged at torture done in their names by their government. You betcha. Let's divide the country. You can have torture in your half, and when they knock on YOUR door over some perceived infraction, maybe you can come over to my half for a cup of tea, so you don't have to face what innocent people have endured due to the pathetic torture-apologists inability to empathize with their fellow humans.
That is not a failing I tolerate very well.
'kay?
April 20, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Godwin, and "Uncle Adolf sez it will be OK." that remark of yours. Since you don't seem to understand it, try looking it up to see its applicability.
Referencing history or other exemplary times/places is fine with me in general. Cheap errant shots aren't.
Personally I prefer conformance than conformity, but maybe that's just nit-picking to you.
Obama wants to try to do what can work. You are free to be anti-Obama but I'd rather see your efforts, including those aimed at Comedy, align with pragmatic advancements, 'k?
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do. I was comparing your lack of empathy with theirs. Whatever, calling my outrage "Godwin's Law" was a "cheap shot."
Both of the issues are about turning your back on man's inhumanity to man, which to me is no different then what the Germans did. No differnt at all. I could never understand their apathy and I do not understand yours.
What you fail to understand here eds, is that to many of your fellow citizens this is intolerable. I suppose any uncomfortable associations would seem somewhat like a "cheap shot."
It was an accurate shot that sure seems to have found it's mark.
April 20, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're stuffed so full of bolgna you reek, Bwak!
"calling my outrage "Godwin's Law" was a "cheap shot." "
Since I didn't do that, you're attacking an imaginary windmill and projecting that at me.
"to me is no different th[a]n"
I realize you are not comfortable with fine but valid/real distinctions which are the basis of modern politics.
"their apathy and I do not understand yours"
You mean my non-existent apathy?? Or is that a joke about a-pathetic, that you cannot understand how I manage to not be entirely pathetic in the face of your silliness which you seem to hold so seriously??
"I suppose any uncomfortable associations "
I suppose in return that you're delusional or joking!
"It was an accurate shot that sure seems to have found it's mark."
One chicken's opinion noted for its raw and vibrant errancy.
April 20, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chickens aren't stuffed with baloney, eds. Goodwins Law does not apply to conversation about torture, and it upset me when you said that, because I've hardly lost the argument here.
I don't have the words to enable you to absorb the above words. That is my failing.
April 20, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they are stuffed with wise old apples.
April 20, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Godwin, not Goodwin. I'm perfectly happy agreeing that some fictional Goodwin's Law doesn't apply here if you insist, silly bologna-eater!
April 20, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. It's the law I am thinking of.
from your link
It was an appropriate comparison. As I said, it does not apply. That you invoked it was an attempt to slam down my concerns. I didn't much appreciate it.
April 20, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you truly want to paint Obama as Hitler??
There are so many problems in your situation here, and so little space on the page..
April 20, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point out where I mentioned Obama. You're out of yer tree here eds.
Now, you might be able to argue that I sorta, kinda, in a twisted up oddball way compared Hitler to Bush. After all, Obama has stopped torture. Bush is the one that did the actual torture. In that case, I have to say that comparison was also made by people a lot sharper than you or I.
But Obama?
I'm not the one with a baloney stuffing here, dude.
=D
Just. Weird.
April 20, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The context was Obama talking about closing Gitmo, if you review the thread. And the larger context is about trusting (or not) Obama to do the right thing re NSA, torture, unitary executive, etc. You brought Bush in just now. You're really stuck in the past??
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/jpieterick/2009/04/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it.php#comment-3442913
I wonder if that will work as a link this close to the edge...
April 21, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I just believe in giving credit where it's due, eds. You're getting confused as to the point of the comments.
Pity.
April 21, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is one way to alienate me, Bwak.
April 21, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I am letting my suspicious nature wander, hence: "people can draw own conclusions" and "I read this as".
But the reference to Gitmo being closed has to do with the fact that Obama is still claiming Bush powers at Bagram to avoid giving detainees habeas rights and their day in court (as the SC ordered for Gitmo detainees in Boumediene).
Obama has decided to continue this policy based on unitary executive powers. Bagram is being expanded to hold five times the number of detainees as Gitmo. If they close Gitmo and some of the black sites but keep or transfer detainees "not captured on the battlefield" to Bagram (some have been in limbo six or seven years now) and then claim the same "wartime" powers to hold people indefinitely with no due process, where is the change?
And previously from ACLU: "Despite President Obama proclaiming an end to ‘false promises’ and a return to the rule of law, it is alleged that abuse and torture at Guantanamo Bay has continued." Those are the kind of ugly details I was referring to.
April 20, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for substituting Bagram for Gitmo.
Allegations are like hot air -- unless contained in a structure of facts they sink all balloons.
April 20, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds,
My point was that the President is substituting Bagram for Gitmo. Again, I bolded “Guantanamo” in his statement because he seemed to imply that he was overturning Bush's policies regarding detainee rihgts, but it is only at Gitmo, which he is closing.
In the trial concerning habeas for Bagram detainees, the judge asked, point blank, if the admin intended to continue Bush admin enemy combatant claims and they answered yes. He overruled them and they’re appealing.
Some of my links were misplaced or didn’t work above, but see here and here. If Boumediene applies to Gitmo, why not elsewhere?
April 20, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I await the outcome of the appeal(s).
I basically trust Obama to do the right thing, while not giving him 'carte blanche' or closing my eyes. So far my main concern is with Geithner's PPIP and badly done "stimulus" deals. This doesn't mean I have zero other concerns.
April 20, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It added that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. went to the national security court to seek a renewal of the surveillance program only after new safeguards were put in place."
How does that fit your notion, Don?
And allegations are not evidence, much less are they proof. I don't see Obama in open court saying it will use Bagram as hiding from anything.
Really, your outrage seems fabricated, Don.
April 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. The "new safeguards" are from the FISA Amendment that Obama helped pass before (remember, the one with telecom immunity). The orgs. that have been fighting the warrantless spying and other infringements, like EFF and the ACLU, have said that the FA actually expands the power to spy on Americans without warrant. I've been arguing for rolling back the Bush abuses for years now because I won't acquiesce to illegal actions by our government whoever is in charge. These are constitutional abuses (see: Fourth Amendment). Please provide quotes or examples of "fabricated outrage" in my comments.
April 20, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My main concern re the NSA and data collection:
While the data collection is harmless in principle (as long as nobody looks at individual data sets, there's no spying going on) the vast reservoir of potential spying it creates is subject to equally (or even greater) vast potential abuse.
If your beef is the old telecom immunity, I get that to some extent, but isn't that now a thing of the past?
Again: "How does that fit your notion, Don?"
Apparently it doesn't fit, since your reply was evasive on this. In fact, it seems to directly contradict your concern earlier in the thread. I suggest you renormalize your fabricated outrage.
April 20, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For someone so smug about the need for less passion on this issue, I cannot help but wonder how dispassionate you would remain, eds, were you or a family member disappeared under an extraordinary rendition. Held without arraignment or charge for six plus years. Tortured, but only a "little bit." Or even just simply discover that big brother has been listening in on all your phone calls without any judicial oversight whatsoever.
You latest assertion that POTUS can do anything absent Impeachment and SCOTUS is assinine in so many ways, and is a dishonest effort to sidetrack the discussion. There are moral and Constitutional rights and wrongs, eds. And a President who violates them needs to be held accountable. And that accountability usually begins with the alarm being raised as loudly and as consistently as needed to get the required action. Even you can understand the simplicity of petitioning the government for action. Or have I overestimated your talents once again?
April 20, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For someone so smug about the need for less passion on this issue, I cannot help but wonder"
Smug? Are you talking about yourself?
I'm pointing out misdirected passion, if passion is the issue.
"were you or a family member disappeared under an extraordinary rendition..."
I would hope I wouldn't misdirect my passion as so many seem wont to do. Besides press reports, my only contact with such is the movie, Rendition. Having empathy for a fictional character should last about as long as one suspends disbelief to "live in" the fiction.
SJ, you seem pretty touchy about the truth, that your position here is that of a radical anti-pragmatic idealist. Why not embrace it instead of lying about me or mine?
April 20, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again: Read my reply to that question.
I can’t be any clearer, eds. I’m not putting forth a notion but laying out what the administration is doing. I pointed out that the Holder quote you asked about was a dodge; they’re not “new safeguards.” The NSA was caught going even beyond the barely limited powers given to them in the FA, so they’re “correcting the problems” and going back to abiding by the expansive law passed (I only mentioned telecom immunity to remind of that law and the fight around it, but I’ll quit using bold as it seems to have a hypnotic effect).
From the article:
Notified of the problems by the N.S.A., officials with both the House and Senate intelligence committees said they had concerns that the agency had ignored civil liberties safeguards built into last year’s wiretapping law. “We have received notice of a serious issue involving the N.S.A., and we’ve begun inquiries into it,” a Congressional staff member said. Holder is going to renew those safegaurds.
I’m not being evasive or inconsistent on anything here. I’ve stated the situation- Obama continuing Bush unitary executive wartime methods that contravene constitutional protections. I’ve backed up those statements with reports and facts, linking to sources for those facts. I’ve linked to seven or eight sources in fewer comments than that. You have more comments here than anyone else, but other than a wiki to "Godwin," I don’t see one quote, source, link or even paraphrase, just notions.
Well you’ve got me here. No offense, but I failed bullshit class. You’ll have to explain what that means.
April 20, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, meant as reply to previous eds comment.
April 20, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"they’re not “new safeguards."
How would you know that NO new safeguards were put in place?
"I can’t be any clearer, eds. I’m not putting forth a notion but laying out what the administration is doing."
Your failure noted. I don't know why you need to obfuscate but I can leave it at that. You're putting forth a theory which pretends to see behind the curtain.
Really, your whole theme here is a fantasy with cherry-picked almost-factual references. Did you attend the GWB School for Dissemblers? The bullshit here is on your side and it's unpleasant at this point.
April 20, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I wasn’t slurring you personally, but seriously, what kind of question was that? Second, unless they’ve gone through Congress and rewritten FISA again, they cannot put in new safeguards. They can change their procedures or even end the warrantless spying program altogether, but that doesn’t change the law and doesn’t appear to be on the table.
A close reading of the story linked and related reports show that the safeguards were instituted at NSA at the direction of Justice acting at the direction of the Security Court. The NSA had basically ignored the F.A. safeguards, so they are being investigated for warrantless spying on individual and groups of Americans.
But, during the campaign, Obama spoke about ending the whole vacuuming up of data and warrantlesss surveillance. Instead he helped pass broader and more ambiguous restrictions that led as predicted to “significant and systemic” violations “involving significant amounts of American traffic.” Judging by the statements, they’re correcting those problems but will continue pushing the envelope on surveillance while staying within the broad guidelines. FISA was pretty much a rubber stamp court in the first place, and the P.A.A. and F.A created loopholes where even the rubber stamp isn’t needed. It has been abused for months now even under this administration, and I have no doubt that as long as oversight is not strict abuses will occur again at some point. That’s the nature of the beast.
April 20, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were two questions from me in that comment. Which one interests you? The first one was serious, the second one was playful while reminding you that you seem to be trying to be Mr. Pot in re "bullshit".
April 21, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither.
April 21, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's our duty as well. And the duty of all our elected reps. Congress can be an effective check on Obama. We must insist on that.
April 19, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to see you posting again, Jeezus. You really ought to do it more often.
April 19, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, LisB! I hope to gain more time to do so. Meanwhile, I enjoy reading tyhe posts from you and others here.
April 19, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama was running for president his detractors said that he wasn't tough enough for the office. What matters now is what he does with his powers not what the others did. Do you really think Obama would support torture under his administration?
April 19, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would he support it? I'd ask would he stop it? Since everyone knows that they won't be held accountable for torture or other violations of human rights, why assume they've stopped it.
April 19, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. We need to know that Obama would stop it. Has anyone ever asked him directly?
April 19, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with Doomer. I'd say releasing the memos was a pretty strong statement of intention.
April 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what he does with his powers os protect war criminals it matters little if he is continuing the practice since he is obstructing justice which is also a crime.
April 19, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Center for Constitutional Rights is an organization with a notable and unimpeachable reputation.
This is their report on current conditions at Guantanamo (2/23): Solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, environmental manipulation, and sleep deprivation are daily realities for these men and have led to the steady deterioration of their physical and psychological health. In addition, detainees are subjected to brutal physical assaults by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), a team of military guards comparable to a riot squad, who are trained to respond to alleged "disciplinary infractions" with overwhelming force.
April 21, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
We the People, Self-Evident
after Abu Ghraib
We are the instruments of torture
We are the whipping sting
We are the dogs of war
We are the hell they bring
We are the ones who know
We are the peasant kings
We are the instruments of torture
We are the instruments of torture
We are the final say
We knew what photos told
We saw the hooded fray
We are responsible
We turned and looked away
We are the instruments of torture
April 19, 2009
April 19, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome work.
April 19, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much Lis.
April 19, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject your use of the word "we". The international community rejected collective guilt after WWII and chose to attempt to hold individuals responsible for the horrific crimes committed during the war. I didn't vote for George Bush. My senator and both congressman voted against the Iraq War. I and the people who voted as I did attempted to prevent the war and the atrocities that are inevitable in war. Unless individuals feel empowered to stop these crimes, what's the point?
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist..."
It begins with I.
April 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you bluebell. I was speaking of how the collective is used and manipulated. I did all those things you refer to also and I continue to. Hell, we had 40,000 people here in Portland marching against the invasion of Iraq. Of course it wasn’t reported much. I worked for Obama for 2 years and I know others here have done so too. I didn’t mean to imply that individuals are not resisting what has happened to our country. I was just trying to say that as a nation we are judged. And I was speaking up, trying to wake some up.
April 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I know what you meant and don't mean to fault you but I also think that the right loves to blame our side for "blaming America first". The only way we get away from that charge is to focus the blame on the individuals who deserve the blame. I think the Obama administration is horrifically wrong on this. They've affirmed everything the Bush administration has done by refusing to hold anyone in that administration accountable for anything. I don't blame all conservatives or all Republicans for what that administration did. I know too many good hearted Republicans.
So what's the real deal here? If they are too cowardly to hold the Republicans who did these things accountable maybe it's because the Democrats are just as guilty.
Rahm today has essentially told us that torture is swell and no one who tortures and no one who orders torture should ever be held accountable. The broader point being that no administration and no official in any administration and no one executing the policy of any administration should ever be held accountable.
So what crimes are you ordering peope to commit, Rahm? I guess you and Obama figure it's most important to guarantee that you will never be held accountable for anything you do either.
April 19, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've put your finger on something which really irked me last week. So many, many more of us demonstrated against the Iraq War. But it was never televised! Never advertised, for sure! And yet a measly quarter million go to these so-called tea parties and it's all over cable! At least those who were against the war had cogent reasons and could explain them. Whereas the tea party folks seems to be "know-nothings" who were just angry.
I liked your poem. Thanks!
April 19, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I'm sure you know, I seldom disagree with you Bell. But I must respectfully do so now. As Americans, you and I are responsible for what was done under the Bush kleptocracy whether we supported it or not, whether we protested it or not. These people, despicable as they were, were our leaders and were acting on our behalf. Just as Pres. Obama and his minions are our leaders now.
April 19, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree. I did everything I could do to stop it short of armed rebellion. If that makes no difference, why bother voting or participating at all? I'm collectively guilty by virture of being American by birth? No. They don't become "my leader" simply by being elected by others. If you are a member of the military you may have to sign an oath to follow the Commander in Chief or something but I took no such oath. I'd happily swear an oath to defend the Constitution but to be bound to follow any politician? No way.
Now -- I AM responsible for helping to elect Obama. But I don't have to do it twice.
April 19, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point.
April 19, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put it this way. Some of us "feel" collective guilt and shame. While also knowing that we are not at fault here and did all we could to stop or protest what was done.
No one can lay collective guilt on you. But if I happen to feel it or Tankard does, I'm sure you would understand that's where we happen to be - but I for one would never say you should feel that way.
We're all different in how we respond to these things. I wasn't even born till after Germany surrendered. But my dad was of all German descent. That affected me in terms of how I felt about what happened. Even though I was never there. We're all different in terms of how we react.
What's important is you know how you feel and you can explain that. I respect that - tremendously!
April 19, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, it is not Bush or Cheney (and certainly not Obama) who represent the greatest threat to the Republic. Instead, it is those among us who will acknowledge that these violations have occurred and who choose to overlook them in a misguided desire to "move forward." Without first restoring our footing on solid ground, we will move forward at risk of finding ourselves swallowed in quicksand.
The risk of SleepinJeezus? I think it is a foregone conclusion. We just went through 8 years of a semi-tyrannical government which exhibited fascist tendencies. Then we get a new administration, one that had promised change in the way our government did the people's business, and not only are the not undoing the damage of the previous administration they seem to be building on it. And all the while some of the people who were criticizing the previous administration for what they did are now apologists for the same abuses.
I don't know what to think anymore...
April 19, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I am an equal opportunity criticizer.
April 20, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that makes two of us...something to be said for being consistent, huh?
April 21, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am about as confused as anyone. I am trying to avoid falling into the trap of expecting too much too soon, but when is it time to say , "enough already!"
I am still glad I worked for Obama, still glad I voted for him. The very thought of McCain/Palin in office right now is enough to send shivers down my spine. I still think President Obama is an amazing leader, and I think he has the potential to be one of our great Presidents. But I have to admit that I am concerned about his decisions in regards to the torture issue and wiretapping...
At the very least, I think we deserve an explanation.
April 19, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well written, SJ. As you say, our, (and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, et al), responsibility is simple. If there have been suspected illegalities, such as the contravention of the Geneva Accords, to which the US is a signatory, it is not the place of a sitting president to remove or to attempt to remove investigation and subsequent prosecution of such violations of international law from the subset of possible outcomes. Conversely, it is a signatory's, (our), responsibility to fully investigate and pursue prosecutions of potential treaty violations. Rec'd.
April 20, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although troublesome and distracting, if we allow persons in our national leadership to go astray we subvert the nation in a very harmful way. Just as we as individuals are held accountable for our actions so must we hold our elected officials accountable. Social justice and equality demand it. Obama may have a lot on his plate but his abandonment of justice for reason of expedience can only be destructive. The message being sent is that under the authority of the president the government can do anything. Whether we acknowledge it or not every citizen of this country intuitively knows that is wrong. If that's the policy, we may as well tear up the constitution and all our laws and start over.
April 20, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
W
Well said, TPC!
April 20, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The message being sent is that under the authority of the president the government can do anything."
That's not the message, unless you're an extremist anti-American.
There remain Impeachment and SCOTUS. If Congress and SCOTUS don't object, yes, POTUS can do almost anything including fomenting violent revolution at home or abroad.
April 20, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
simply assinine. See response upthread.
April 20, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"assinine"?
I don't see how POTUS having executive authority and power is asinine.
April 20, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Executive authority? Fine. Power? Not so fast. I want a President, not a tyrant.
April 20, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Executive Branch has no power, what is the Constitution and Bill of Rights about? Of course POTUS has powers. That doesn't make it an autocracy.
Really, please stop to think when being serious, folks.
April 20, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, Eds, why don't you go ask Cheney?
April 20, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not returning phone calls on such matters.
Do you seriously think the executive should have basically no powers?
April 20, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And from where doe all this "POWER" originate, eds?
April 20, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
From will and the Constitution, silly Bwak! And of course there's shadow power, like money to buy votes etc., but I assume we're aiming at First Principles here, not First Pathologies!
:-)
April 21, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No eds. From the consent of the governed.
You need to review a couple documents.
April 21, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, we elected Obama. If you withdraw consent now, it's too late. Sedition and treason are currently criminal offenses even if Bush has not yet been indicted. "America, Love It Or Leave It"
If you want to wait until 2012 to withdraw your consent, good luck with that. This is not a consensual system where your lone dissent stops the wheels or power of and Executive Branch.
April 21, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sound a leetle familiar, eds?
No?
April 21, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, non-sequitur sounds all too familiar, Bwak.
Citing the DOI with highlights make be fun for you but it's just more trash to me in this context.
:(
April 21, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In theory this works, but then we have Bush (and a hog tied congress) as the exception. The line between working perfectly and being perfectly screwed up is a fine one.
April 21, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's we the people that elect our President and we are part of the check and balance system that keeps his power in check, and keep it balanced. Yes, no?
April 20, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This last comment was in reply to Eds.
April 20, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but only on a 4-year cycle at that level.
Of course we can yak (as we do), and organize into grass roots or astroturf groups. But that doesn't mean that Congress and SCOTUS are irrelevant!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/jpieterick/2009/04/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it.php#comment-3443396
In a republic we delegate our governing power to representatives, and we elect a President to run the Executive Branch. A powerless President would be weird.
April 21, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but so much in life is weird.....
April 21, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink