Obama Watch: Traitor

Traitor to what? Not just those who elected him, not just those overseas who believed in him, not just the Guantanamo prisoners. He has betrayed the Constitution. Just as President Bush authorized indefinite imprisonment without charge (like the Soviet Union's gulags) so President Obama has decided to continue the practice, as he eluded to in his May "civil liberties speech." Here's Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the announcement.

I conducted my protest with the assumption that President Obama was going to fulfill his executive order (happy anniversary) to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. I was worried about Bagram. But now, he's keeping 50 people there because they're too dangerous to release, based off of confessions obtained via torture.

In addition, Scott Horton's piece in Harper's Weekly exposes the supposed suicide deaths of three prisoners in Guantanamo as murders. Murders, that is, by their American jailers/torturers/interrogators.

Of course, given Obama's suspension of the Constitution in setting up a gulag, the Justice Dept will take no interest in investigating these claims, much less prosecuting someone who was actually responsible.

We live in an increasingly lawless state.

What Just Happened?

This is a response to a query submitted below regarding my intentions in dressing up as a prisoner of the American War on Terror.

I really appreciate what you said and the feelings you're experiencing. I understand them, I think, because they are the same things that I experienced prior to doing what I did. It's a sense, really, of a "quiet desperation," as Thoreau said. What can a single person do gazing into the gut of a monstrous machine that devours and turns what is good into utter carnage?

What a lot of people did was walk away. The problem is too big, too complex, too far away to actually engage and deal with. On the opposite side of the spectrum is attack. One can attempt to shut down the machine, to throw a Molotov cocktail in its gut. Both of these are unsatisfactory. The first step to dealing with IT, is to repent. To stand in the witness of what we as a society have done--what you as a member of that society have done--and to weep for the evil which we are capable of doing.

The issue of the American gulag system has been on my radar for almost a year, if not more. For months, I have read and read and read about it, becoming more and more outraged. Earlier this school year, I reached a point of despair wherein I realized that if I did not stand up and say or do something, then all my education on the issue would be worthless.

The journey from there on out was deeply spiritual for me, which is why I earlier used the term "repentance." Neither secular nor religious people could give me answers about what I ought to do. The idea of my protest merely crystallized one night. After that, I knew that it was my proper response.

And so just before protesting I prayed about what I was doing. And the end goal, I realized, was not that Guantanamo is shut down. Or even that Dick Cheney is sentenced to life imprisonment. The end goal was repentance leading to love, which is salvation. The demonstration was not an apology, or an attempt at atonement. Rather, it was recognition of my evil and an act of turning away from that evil. The evil, in this case was antipathy, lack of love for the men imprisoned and tortured, the families wrenched apart by this process, and the communities terrorized by my government. It was a small act of repentance, fitting a small person.

And by doing it publicly, I wanted to offer all of you an opportunity for repentance. We cannot turn away from our evil without knowing it. But once knowing, we must either reject or accept that evil. And so you are asking, I think, how may I repent?

And my answer is the same as that of the people I asked before I asked God.

I don't know.

There is no set way, there is no litmus test for whether your response is enough. In a sense, this is because there is no enough. Had I knelt in the quad for the entire school day, it would not have been enough. Had I knelt there for the entire school year, it would not have been enough. Not even a lifetime of vigil could atone for the actions of my government. Nothing I could have done would have sufficed. So I did something.

The typical responses: donate money to the ACLU, write letters to people in authority, etc, seem so empty. And they are if done without a spirit of humility, of request for forgiveness. But they are things that can be done, and things that I will, hopefully, be organizing in the upcoming weeks.

Thanks for sharing.

Tell Me These Headlines Don't Make You Think About LBJ

No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan

By MARK MAZZETTI20 minutes ago

The Obama administration sent a message that U.S. troops could remain in Afghanistan for a long time, seeking to blunt criticism of Mr. Obama’s war-strategy speech.

• Video: Meet the Press

Obama Pushes Senate Democrats on Health Care Bill

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR 6:44 PM ET

President Obama exhorted Senate Democrats to put aside their fierce policy differences and to make history by passing landmark health care legislation.

I Want a Draft

Dear President Obama:

I am a student, and I support the draft. As an eighteen year old male, I remembered only a few days ago my obligation to sign up for the Selective Service, the institution tasked with maintaining the lists and mechanisms in the case of a draft. Pressing the "Submit" button provoked my musings about the potential consequences of reauthorizing this institution. Such an event would require approval by Congress and yourself, an unfortunately unlikely circumstance. Nevertheless, I would support fully an attempt to reinstate it, as Rep. Charles Rangel, a veteran and the Democrat from New York has done twice in the past decade.

First of all, I adamantly oppose a "surge" in Afghanistan, and actually support complete withdrawal. I understand however, the point that my government teacher makes when he says that if you were to announce withdrawal, the United States would not see the end of the recession until President Palin's second term. Since it appears almost (but not completely) politically impossible to withdraw, I request that the United States restart the draft. This would "bring the war home," in a much more constructive (and morally permissible) way than the Weather Underground's bombings in the 1970's.

The history of the draft, given that it is now disbanded, is filled with controversy. The first national draft occurred during the Civil War and provoked riots in NYC in 1863. The draft instituted for WWI led to harsh imprisonments and vigilante attacks on evaders, resisters, and conscientious objectors (CO's). WWII saw the birth of the modern draft mechanism (heralding a more harmonious draft), and the Korean War saw the end of the paternity deferment. In terms of the draft (and, of course, many other things), the Vietnam War was the great cataclysm.

The experience of the police action in Vietnam and the accompanying draft, however, is part of the reason that I support conscription. The Vietnam War was a major player in the generational crisis of the '60s and '70s. This crisis was nevertheless demographically inevitable, given the affluence of the Baby Boomer generation compared to the oppression of blacks, women, and other groups at the time. But in a war of incomparable imbecility, the draft galvanized millions of students to stop talking and begin acting for peace. Their self-interest was at stake which pushed them to eventually take selfless action--witness the Kent State shootings, for example.

Beyond building a student movement for peace, reauthorization of the draft would dampen the aggression of the American electorate. My father, a small business owner, abortion opponent, and staunch Republican, acknowledges that he would not have voted for President Bush a second time had I been liable to be sent to the Middle East to search for weapons of mass destruction. He was however, willing to support President Bush's attempt at nation-building because his upper middle class son had a bright, collegiate future ahead of him. The draft would build not only a student peace movement, but a desire to resolve issues without war in the greater body politic.

This mention of class segues perfectly to my third, final point. In 1968 during the Democratic primary, Senator Robert Kennedy, running on a social justice and antiwar platform, denounced draft evaders and resisters. He said that when a rich boy receives a deferment, a poor boy dies in a Vietnamese foxhole in his stead. While you denounced the idea of two Americas in your campaign, President Obama, you are surely not blind to the reality that the American military is not at all representative of the nation's socioeconomic situation. Our all-volunteer military relies disproportionately on the working and lower classes to secure our freedoms. This is a tragic irony because in the end, it is not the poor who need the military. They do not have real estate that rival nations wish to capture, they do not have positions of authority that rival countries desire to seize, nor do they hold bank accounts that rival states want to empty. The rich profit from the military, yet they do not serve in its ranks.

President Obama, if you decide in the upcoming days to maintain or expand the American occupation of Afghanistan, please tie such an action to reauthorizing the draft. Such a draft of course, would need to avoid the faults of the one from which Dick Cheney and Tom Tancredo received deferments. Sit down and listen to Congressman Rangel's ideas. While we often associate solely the ability to choose with freedom and democracy, the social and racial makeup of the army does not reflect democratic or egalitarian values.

The Binyam Mohamed Papers

Torture papers surrounding the treatment of British citizen Binyam Mohamed are the subject of acute controversy in both the United Kingdom and the United States. In February, the Obama administration released Mr Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay and threatened the British government with a reduction in intelligence sharing if the details of his internment are released. While the British High Court has ordered the surrender of said documents, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, David Milliband, is appealing the decision because of the American threat, something that is widely construed to be a weakness on Britain's part and illegal on the United States' part, not to mention immoral.

Truthout's Andy Worthington, Guardian's Clive Stafford Smith, and Salon's Glenn Greenwald all report and commentate on the information-control struggle between the United States, the British Department of Foreign Affairs, the British High Court, and Binyam Mohamed. Worthington provides a detailed history of the ordeal. Because of "national security concerns," the British High Court initially ruled that the documents ought not to be released, but have now reversed themselves and are emphasizing "democratic accountability and the rule of law." He writes primarily from the point of view of the two judges on the court and the bind that they have found themselves in, however he does not excuse them for their poor decisions of the past. Analogous to his judge-centric point of view, Worthington cites numerous statements made by the judges regarding the legal intricacies of the case. Mr Smith, however, provides a typically British scathing news article that roundly criticizes his government. He brings in another player, Karen Steyn, the barrister (lawyer) representing Mr Milliband and the dialogue between her and the judges. In this article, Ms Steyn emerges as the pathetic tool of an unscrupulous politician (Milliband) fighting against two honourable justices, one of whom, Lord Justice Thomas calls the American threat, "an exercise of naked political power," and remarks that it has no legal foundation whatsoever. If the British government is going to act legitimately and in line with the laws by which it is bound, the High Court, Smith argues, must stand up to the American threat and to Mr. Milliband's ugly opportunism. Glenn Greenwald, representing the perspective from across the Atlantic, accordingly makes frequent mention of President Obama in order to express his disdain for his government's perceived anti-human rights stance. He notes that the High Court made its initial ruling in favor of Mr. Milliband while the Bush administration still occupied the White House. When the Obama government assumed the mantle of power, Mr. Mohamed's lawyers reintroduced the case with the argument that President Obama would not interfere with intelligence sharing in the manner that President Bush had threatened to do. Mr. Mohamed's lawyers were wrong, but did manage to convince the High Court to reverse their ruling. Greenwald provides extensive quotations from the justices' opinions, but also quotes the CIA, the American government, Mr. Milliband, and Mr. Mohamed's lawyers.

This legal ordeal precedes a looming election in Britain in which the ruling Labour government is widely expected to lose its majority in Parliament. While the British and the Americans have historically cooperated on numerous issues (e.g. the Iraq War), British voters could easily perceive this event to be bullying coming from Washington. Indeed, threatening an ally to subvert the rule of law seems to ride roughshod over the concept of the sovereignty, and thus the legitimacy of the British state. The Mohamed trial also is a chief line in the narrative accompanying the figurative can of worms that Mr Obama opened upon his election and policy promises in which he promised transparency. He even made a speech in which he stated, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Mr. Milliband, the Lord Justice Thomas, and Mr. Justice Lloyd George have that very choice before them, and have not, as of now, completely rejected it as false.

Public Enemy

I try to not make this blog about me, but I couldn't resist when I got "investigated" by a right wing blog called RBO (Real Barack Obama). Check this article out attacking me.

Vietnow

We wallowed in the muck of Vietnam for roughly sixteen years with no real purpose. We shake our heads at the domino theory, at preventing Sino-Soviet encroachment. LBJ passed Medicare but is a villain.

We've been wallowing in the muck of Afghanistan for just over eight years with, at first a purpose, and now, no real purpose. We should be shaking our heads at the Global War on Terror, at preventing another 9/11 by paying off and supporting a corrupt, election-stealing, women's rights-destroying dictator. Obama is near to passing healthcare reform. He could become a villain.

If you want an in-depth look at why we can't follow Gen. McChrystal's plan to ship the equivalent of all of Danville to Afghanistan, I suggest you read Andrew Bacevich, Glenn Greenwald, and Ariana Huffington. Above all things though, beyond the strategic mistakes of fighting a war that's not helping, of stealing butter for guns, and of killing others and being killed, I fear the most that Americans are becoming comfortable.

We have been at war perpetually since the beginning of the Cold War. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the obvious ones. And that's too many obvious ones in 6o years. But how about the less obvious ones? I'll list some: Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Kosovo, Somalia, and the Sahara (yes, we are fighting a war in the Sahara desert and it's still going on).

And America doesn't care. America doesn't give a damn, most likely because they don't know. Or maybe it's the other way around. Even if I, or you, or Obama told them, they wouldn't give a damn about the rampant intimidation, law-breaking, and killing in which America is engaging. It is called war. It is called America.