We are not at war...
Since WWII we have been on war footing, allowing our government to have extraordinary powers which it does not deserve to have. Our efforts to combat terrorism is no more a 'real' war than is the 'war' on drugs.
We are not at war, there are no reasons that our government should be allowed 'war powers' to operate in secrecy, our rights should not be limited to protect our 'safety' and no government official (elected or otherwise) is above the law and they need to be held accountable if they violate the laws of our land.
Time to insist that our government become transparent, accountable and starts answering to 'we the people' again. Stop the domestic spying, prosecute torturers, put the constitutional safeguards back in place that protect our rights...and never allow them to be taken away again.
We are not at war, there are no reasons that our government should be allowed 'war powers' to operate in secrecy, our rights should not be limited to protect our 'safety' and no government official (elected or otherwise) is above the law and they need to be held accountable if they violate the laws of our land.
Time to insist that our government become transparent, accountable and starts answering to 'we the people' again. Stop the domestic spying, prosecute torturers, put the constitutional safeguards back in place that protect our rights...and never allow them to be taken away again.
Advertisement
An authorization to use military force is not a declaration of war and therefore war powers should not be granted to our Executive. There are no valid reasons that we should ever torture...war or no war. There are no valid reasons that the government should be allowed to spy on the American people en masse, even, and perhaps most importantly, to protect our physical well being.
Bush put these horrible policies in place and so far Obama and the D's controlling congress have not seen fit to undo them. Are they too afraid of the impotent bullying R's calling them mean names again? Are we too distracted by the economic troubles facing our country to be bothered to care about our freedoms? Or have we actually been frightened into becoming the docile sheep which need protection for any and all of even the smallest threat?
This isn't a partisan issue it is a core, bedrock issue about what America stands for. Don't allow yourself to be distracted from the big picture by the other 'crises' of the day. The only way we can ever make meaningful change (health care, the economy, etc.) is to reassert our control over our government. This might be our last best opportunity...
April 26, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, if I could give 100 rec's I would right now!
April 26, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
April 26, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I do think Obama is moving toward transparency, Libertine. For instance, the bank bail out stuff is online, he did release those memos and plans on releasing more.
That gives me some hope. One reason I felt good about Obama was his commitment to transparency. He started that ball rolling as a Senator.
I couldn't agree more. If we can't get this right, we won't get anything else right.
April 26, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am hoping you are right Bwak. But right now it appears to be window dressing. Sure there might be a modicum of additional transparency but very little has changed. We are treated like sheep, while the decisions that are being made we're told are too complex for us to firmly grasp, by the politicians that should be accountable to us and aren't. The reasons given are for our 'safety' and for partisan political ones...neither of which rise to the level to justify what is, or is not, being done.
Bottom line we are no more in control of our government than we were from 2000-2008. The government is still doing the bidding of powerful, wealthy people instead of all of us...and mainly in secret with very little input from us. If I was to grade the new administration I would give it a 'C-'...which is better than the 'F' grade I gave to Bush and the Junta, but still not acceptable.
April 26, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been 100 days. I was looking over some old blogs, and was shocked at how much has changed.
Can more be done? yes, but at least now, I think this government can be moved. I mean, Obama is saying he has lost control of this issue, and optimist that I am, I kind of think that was the plan.
April 26, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you Bwak. But my fear is as each and every day passes, and we get closer to the midterm elections, the political will to change the system will melt away as each side positions themselves to be the ones who can best protect our safety. For some reason the D's have not grasped a good counter message to the one of fear the R's trot out every election. I thought they had in '08 but many of their decisions since the election seem to be ones based on how the R's will try to 'spin' the issues and frighten the American people instead of doing the 'correct' thing.
April 26, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's because, as usual the Ds are divided. You've got some that just want to gloss over torture and "move on." That in turn is counterbalanced by those on the right that are aghast at torture.
To me, it will be interesting to see what happens. I think in this case the loudest will win, so lets make some NOISE!!!
I'm not entirely sure that this is going to prove to be a left/right issue. Who knows, it may be an issue that unites us.
=)
April 26, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Libertine, please don't let fear drive this debate.
We've had quite enough of that.
=D
April 26, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree Bwak, the D's are divided. And any of the D's who try to claim we shouldn't do anything about torture and just try to sweep it under the rug are wrong. I tend not to frighten easily but in this age of Amber Alerts, and DHS terror alert codes, and home invasions and the whole litany of issues that are being used to scare the American people into letting government be our protectors it isn't an easy task to convince the masses that we need less protection.
Here in CT there was a tragic home invasion where a mother and her 3 daughters were raped and killed while the husband was bound, beaten and left for dead. The media flogged the tragedy and tried to gin up public support to urge the CT legislature to pass more laws to protect us from these predators...people have a better chance of hitting Powerball than they have being a victim of a horrendous crime like that. But people can easily be swayed by irrational fear.
April 26, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, in Cheshire. It was scary for a chicken with a teenage daughter in Middletown, yes. Wasn't the result of that to tighten up the screening of prisoners pending release? I do remember the hysteria right after, though.
Actually that whole horror struck me as a sign that the prison system is waaay overloaded. Let the potheads go!!!! That's a whole 'nother discussion.
=D
I do see your point. I don't see folks being quite as scared as they used to be. Burned a few too many times, I'd think. I hope it's a trend.
April 26, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was one of those incidents that can bring tears to even the most jaded person's eyes Bwak. But I don't think we should pass bad laws to try to protect us at all times even in the face of a gut wrenching tragedy...just like we should not give up our rights to a war power seeking government because of a failure in our government. I really do think that the media (electronic and print) deserves part of the blame. Rather than looking at things rationally and having a sane discourse about what would be the most effective course of action our fears and emotions are played to by a sensationalist media trying to generate revenue and viewers/listeners/readers.
April 26, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum. Interesting.
I had occasion to look this up earlier. I must say, between Bush&Co. Murdoch and the 5 big companies that own 99% of our media, they really ruined the 4th estate in a short amount of time.
=(
My ex is from Cheshire. Most of his family still lives there.
April 26, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what happened to the media. My guess is that as media outlets were allowed to be consolidated in fewer and fewer hands the scope and diversity of coverage has become more limited. Add to the fact that in the electronic media it has been decided that profitability is the most important factor, the news we get now is less informative to the facts and is done for more entertainment value.
Murdoch is the worst offender but GE owns NBC and Disney owns ABC, etc. All I know is that the way the news is covered has changed for the worse since the days of Cronkite, Huntley et al. What would have happened if one of the national anchors came on the air and said 'the Iraq War is lost' like Cronkite did during Vietnam? There would have been protests, cries of 'traitor' and maybe even lynch mobs forming.
The 4th Estate is in disarray and is very lacking in its duty to keep America informed on the dealings of its government. And my blood boils every time I hear a reporter say 'it isn't my job to fact check everything that is said'.
And according to everything the press reported we are at war with terrorists. So that is what the people believe...I can't believe Byrd was praising the newspapers. There was very little discussion of the issues until long after they had been implemented. They did nothing in terms of questioning what was being done as it was being done.
April 26, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Byrd was pointing out that there was even less discussion in Congress. There was *none,* actually. That in itself was a crime against the citizens of this Country.
Also, I think that the newspapers up until 9/11 weren't too bad. We've merely gotten used to it, but I'd bet if we looked at the newspapers before Bush took office we would be shocked at how much better they were.
The worst thing Clinton ever signed was the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It paved the way for all of this. Early on in the Bush administration, they set out to limit information, (white House Press Releases printed verbatim) stifle reporting, (embedded journalists? Really?), and punish any who dared to question the "war" president. (Helen Thomas? Go to the back row...)
The FCC under Michael Powell, was all set to further decimate the media ownership regulations, but for two commissioners, Copps and Adelstein, who on their own dime toured the country and held town halls to alert the public to what was coming.
The response was incredible.
Groups as diverse as Code Pink and the NRA both extolled their members to write into Congress to stop the changes. I know that no matter who I talked to, conservative or liberal, all were alarmed at further consolidation, and guess what. We stopped it.
=D
I think that like Media consolidation, the issue of Basic Human Rights and Torture is an issue that spans ideologies. I am heartened so far by the public response. Remember they tried to bury this whole issue in a Friday news dump, and now here it is a week later, and the country is reacting.
So whereas I do understand you and Dons concerns, I remain hopeful that once again, we will prevail.
I already know it can be done. It's a great feeling, too.
April 26, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Libertine here. Michael Jackson is moving towards transparency. Obama is selectively revealing some of the inner workings of government online while arguing secrecy in some of the most important areas.
If they stop using states secrets privilege to stall inquiries and adjudications or insist on completely opening the (uncooked) books of the banks accepting bailouts, or all banks for that matter as required by law, I'll change my view. Incremental change is usually better than none, but sometimes it becomes window dressing allowing status quo defenders to regroup.
April 26, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the fact the government has never really operated on behalf of We The People, I totally agree. America has never really been the place we believed it was.
Between the Cold War, the Drug War and the Terror War, we have been in a perpetual 1984 state of nationalistic paranoia since the end of World War II, under both parties and under presidents both profane and profound. In fact, this basic disconnect between our founding ideals and our political realities has been dysfunctional and schizophrenic since before the ink dried on the Preamble.
It is way past time the average American citizen took responsibility for their place in the Constitutional compact by getting off their dead asses two or three to,e a year, every two years to vote for local, state and federal leaders.
April 26, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again I think we are in full agreement Jason. I am, at times, more critical of the R's, fairly or unfairly, but our problems are non-partisan and systemic in their nature.
April 26, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans are the latest "leaders" to take use down this jingoistic path, so I think it is fair that they bear the brunt of the criticism right now.
Both parties need to be changed from the ground up, though one more than other for sure, if we are going to finally make the Constitution the law of the land. It will be We The People who do it, too, or else it won't ever get done.
April 26, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah the republicans have raised it to an art form granted...but the democrats have raised being pliant to an art form too. I don't know which I am more critical of. There will always be bullies but that is no excuse for compromising or cowering to them.
It is up to us...and so far the screed from the far right, like Bachmann, has got no traction with the American people as a whole. Should we look at that as the cup being half filled? Constitutional issues don't seem to be a top priority of the Obama administration right now. Sure they declassified some of the torture memos but actually acting on what happened doesn't seem imminent.
April 26, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the underlying structural issues aren't top priority, but maybe the way Obama went about this was strategic as well. Perhaps the essential calculation he made was that Constitutional dilemmas are best debated in the Public Square? Hard to explain the timing and tactics otherwise.
April 26, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am, at times, more critical of the R's, fairly or unfairly, but our problems are non-partisan and systemic in their nature.
This is a ideological issue, not a party issue, but that doesn't make it non- or bi-partisan. It's partisan as hell -- with those who have lately called themselves conservatives on one side and our well-being on the other.
I disagree that this has been going on consistently since WWII, but there have been instances of suppression justified by unjustifiable fear-mongering that go back to FDR himself.
No, this season of Government by the Tyrannical really got going under Richard "Don't Switch Dicks in the Middle of a Screw" Nixon. It was interrupted briefly by the term of Jimmy Carter, but since then, only right-wingers have held the executive and they have built their power base by selling fear and loathing to the American people.
Certainly Harry Truman and Ike didn't base their campaigns or their policies on fear or hatred. Kennedy and Johnson, yes, somewhat, but not on the scale that has been in evidence since 1969.
April 26, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well from the end of WWII until the fall of the Berlin Wall we were engaged in a Cold War where the government operated as if we were at war. Every president from Truman until Reagan had based their foreign policy on the threat posed by the former USSR...and in some cases some shooting wars. We have become a very warlike and aggressive country. There has always been some grave threat to our safety which allowed the government to operate with extraordinary powers...and they want to continue doing that. Will Obama change that or not?
April 26, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with most of what you say in this comment, but I thought the issue was whether every president since WWII has attempted to play fast and loose with civil liberties. I stand by my analysis.
April 27, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall reading this NYtimes article during the transition. Former SoS Baker and Christopher meeting with Obama calling for new act to replace the ineffective War Powers act. Haven't heard anything since.. anyone?
I thought it was good first step towards revising the executive's ability to act militarily. However I agree with you that we really need a more fundamental transformation to check our imperial tendencies.
April 26, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The link is not working saladin...I would love to read it.
But based on what it said is any progress being made on the issue? The congress is the branch that has the right to declare war and that right should never be ceded to the Executive...which it has. And I think that goes as far back as the Truman Administration. I understand that from an 'Intelligence' point of view there will always need to be some 'state secrets' but the privileges those state secrets grant should never allow the government to act in total secrecy. That is where we are right now though...
April 26, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about that, must messed up the html. Here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/us/politics/11web-baker.html
April 26, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh...yeah I think I remember reading that at the time and was encouraged. Any further developments, that you know of, along those lines saladin?
Thanks for fixing the link...good to read that again and it is something I think the administration should be reminded of being on the record about.
April 26, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a peep yet. I am a bit worried about the 'power corrupts' angle, but time will tell.
April 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Nation: On March 27, President Obama announced a major escalation of the US war in Afghanistan and its further extension into Pakistan.
I slept through our Declaration of War with Pakistan (or even an AUMF), but then I’ve been very tired for seven or eight years now.
Our War on Global Terrorism in response to 9/11 morphed into the Global War on Terror, meaning the enemy were not just international terrorists but local freedom fighters anywhere or anyone we deemed extreme. Now it is the Overseas Contingency Operations, which I have to admit is a good one- it could mean anything.
April 26, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the new face of the D party: tough on defense issues, but chickenshit enough to be afraid of having something bad happen on their watch following the abandonment of their 'super powers'. It's a problem in any government that once a power has been granted, removing the privilege, leaves the gumint open to criticism should something go awry. I'm all about prevention/intelligence, but we as a nation need to learn to suck it up and take our lumps without going postal in an over reaching attempt at retribution when things do go awry. One of the things the terrorists probably had right was an assessment of us that we are soft and weak. Bush43s bully behaviour, contrary to the image he tried to project, likely reinforced that image. Novel concept for us given the past eight years.
April 26, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that is the rub Miguel. They have these powers, which they have accumulated over the years to fight our alleged numerous enemies, and they don't want to relinquish them. There is no reason right now for the government to be operating on a war footing. Since the Cold War ended we've had 2 minor wars which were militarily resolved very quickly.
Yeah, I agree, our overreaction to what happened has to be a source of pride for the people who orchestrated the attacks in the first place. It shows weakness and infers vulnerability.
April 26, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One of the things the terrorists probably had right was an assessment of us that we are soft and weak"
Yeah but we got Mad toys!
April 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ack!
April 26, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
to my porcine friend in the rocky mountain time zone.
April 26, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
linx isn't woiking sal...
April 26, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez.
April 26, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
mad toys?
Damn, kinda loses its effect. Really need to hone up on this html stuff.
anyway you know big bad scary looking military thing
April 26, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. You can buy a lot of mad toys with $700B per year, two 'outstanding' wars or not.
April 26, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find that one must ALWATS PREVIEW! because whenever I ferget, the link refuses to work.
=D
Also, watch out for the quote marks, they tend to act badly if there is a space between them and yer link.
Just sayin.
April 26, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah i preview but if its red I generally call it good. You nailed it with the quote marks, my second one often disappears...
April 26, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Capital idea Libertine!
April 26, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a very simple premise actually. It all started with 'we the people in order to...'
April 26, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes we are at war, Libertine! But with Ellsbury stealing home, we're definitely winning!
April 26, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well one battle down and it went very well. Bowden was VERY impressive also... 8-)
April 26, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if we "were" at war, it's no reason to give up our rights! Courts functioned during the Civil War. And that was war right at home.
April 27, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Lincoln did suspend Habeus Corpus during the Civil War...which is something that was used as a precedent by Bush supporters when his domestic spying program was put in place. While I am critical of Lincoln for doing this the big difference is that the Civil War was actually a war and our efforts to confront Islamic extremism isn't...so the Bush apologists efforts still fall far short.
April 27, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink