[CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive detention proposal

[Hal Snyder]

I spent decades in academia, medicine, and industry solving hard  
problems. They were all abstract and technical. The way to solve hard  
technical problems (for me at least) is to shut out all distractions  
and interactions and take whatever time is needed to study the whole  
problem. A solution eventually arrives if you can take all the facts  
and conceptual models into a higher level of consciousness. A few  
problems took years but eventually were solved.

Around 2003 something woke me up to what was going on outside the  
laboratory and every day for about 6 months, reading about the world -  
from as many sources as I could find - was like being punched in the  
stomach.

I saw multiple looming existential threats
war
mass extinction
ecosystem collapse
ineffective/corrupt government
etc. probably everyone on this list has their top 3 out of 20 or so.

And society was split into about 3 camps on most matters of importance

1) oblivious - tomorrow will be pretty much like today, let's go  
shopping
2) reformer - iceberg ahead, ring the alarms, change course or at  
least prepare lifeboats
3) reactionary - neutralize all reformer efforts and full ahead engines

A huge shift was the lesson, endlessly repeated, of how powerless I  
was alone, 180 degrees from prior life of problem-solving. Next steps  
were to join up with others, taking the lead when indicated. Some  
improvement and sense of leverage but society still clearly headed for  
disaster. Working as a field organizer for 5 months last year, I  
discovered the power of organizing and see that as the next level in  
working for social change.

Additional observations, YMMV:

1. People are more likely to move if I meet them where they are.

2. Nobody likes me when I am cranky all the time. Find joy in an  
action or stay home.

3. Denouncing others for not being in the same place as me is a waste  
of everybody's time.

Hal (in Palatine Township)

On May 27, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Janice Matthews wrote:


> Excellent, compelling post.

> I remember hearing an incredible talk on the radio once, by  

> Arundhati Roy, that's always stuck with me clearly. In brief, she  

> said (summarizing) that in general, people don't want to know about  

> things because once we know something, we are unable to un-know it.  

> And because we know it, we are compelled to do something about it.

>

> Oh, how I want to un-know so many things. And, how I wish (once in  

> awhile) I lived near a place where others were also taking action,  

> so I could join with them instead of being alone. There's such  

> energy in coming together in resistance--I'm a little envious of you  

> all near Chicago (though I wouldn't trade my hermit country life for  

> anything now).

>

> So knowing what's being done in our name is a terrible, heavy  

> burden. And I know, of course, it's nothing compared to those who  

> are surviving these bombings, while their loved ones are being  

> killed and tortured. I understand why the mothers are asking to just  

> be killed rather than have to live with the memory of watching their  

> children raped by "US." And to be honest, I don't WANT to see the  

> pictures! I'm already so upset by it (particularly as someone who  

> has been raped, I think) that the thought of seeing what we've done  

> is unbearable; moreso even than reading Seymour Hersch say that what  

> will always stay with him from Abu Ghraib was the shrieks of the  

> boys as they were being raped... But I guess that's the reason the  

> photos have to be released. Apparently many Americans have to be so  

> shocked with reality that they can't "not know" it, so that they'll  

> then be compelled to DO something!

>

> I think the heaviest part of the burden is knowing that, for some of  

> us, we've fought so hard, tried so hard, pleaded and reasoned and  

> begged and boycotted and been conscious in our choices to try to  

> oppose, weaken, change, make SOME kind of change at least to this  

> dirty, rotten system. And we keep trying, and everyday it seems less  

> and less possible to create any kind of change (so long as we stay  

> stuck in this same paradigm, at least).

>

> On the other hand, what did Dorothy Day say? Being tired is not an  

> option; there's work to be done.

> Ahhhh...

>

> Thanks for allowing me to share in this community.

> Janice

> (in Kansas)

>

> Jay Becker wrote:

>>

>> Yes, as individuals, there is little we can do, but we aren't just  

>> individuals, we're also part of communities and a society, the US,  

>> that is raining this terror down on other people and threatening  

>> more, not only 'over there' either.

>>

>> I think this is a very good time to act. Obama refuses to release  

>> 2000 torture photos (think about that number!) from at least half a  

>> dozen US facilities (think about how widespread that means this is)  

>> because seeing what has been done will shatter illusions that this  

>> was done "by a few individuals," as Obama alleged again last week,  

>> and increase exponentially the demand that those responsible for  

>> ordering all this be prosecuted. This is a very sticky situation  

>> for Obama and our determined actions now could (no guaranties in  

>> this world) make a difference, crack open the debate, dis-illusion  

>> people in a good way.

>>

>> It won't happen without that, and we're here where we can make a  

>> difference. I wonder what people being hit by drones in Pakistan  

>> and bombs in Afghanistan would think about us protesting? What  

>> difference would it make in the world if there was a loud voice of  

>> protest here in the US that wasn't loyal to the government doing  

>> this to them AND wasn't supporting the fundamentalist opposition,  

>> the only two choices they see in front of them.

>>

>> Here's a thoughtful piece from a young writer on Revolution that I  

>> recommend:

>> Silence Plus Torture Equals Complicity

>>

>> It’s spring 2009, students were finishing final exams and  

>> graduating, looking at the life ahead of them. Young people are  

>> filling their summers with activities and friends.

>>

>> At around the same time on May 4, U.S. airstrikes massacred 147  

>> people in Afghanistan, including teenagers. What were their hopes  

>> and dreams, what do their lives count for? Do WE have a  

>> responsibility to THEM? And if so, what is it?

>>

>>

>> At the same time we have now read memos that show that this  

>> government, from its very highest levels, held detainees and  

>> legally justified their torture; that they were, and some are  

>> still,  being held indefinitely not knowing why, or when, or if,  

>> they will be tried, kept in solitary confinement, interrogated for  

>> up to 20 hours a day, brutally tortured or even killed. And now, we  

>> have also been told by Barack Obama that extensive photographs  

>> documenting this torture are going to be suppressed because if  

>> people saw them it might “inflame” the opinion of Americans, and  

>> people around the world, and endanger the troops in Iraq. Do WE  

>> have a responsibility to society, to humanity, to oppose this?

>>

>>

>> Read on at

>> http://revcom.us/a/166/torture-editorial-en.html

>>

>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

>> Jay

>>

>> Stop thinking like an American,

>> Start thinking about humanity!

>>

>>

>> --- On Wed, 5/27/09, Robin Migalla <rmigalla at earthlink.net> wrote:

>>

>> From: Robin Migalla <rmigalla at earthlink.net>

>> Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive  

>> detention proposal

>> To: "truth seekers" <citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net>

>> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 2:49 PM

>>

>> Hi Jay, Andrew, and the rest of our Truth seeking community,

>>

>> I agree with you, Andrew.  Yes, Jay, thanks for your post.  I  

>> always enjoy

>> analysis based on facts rather than emotional reactions.  It was a  

>> truly

>> refreshing piece.  Andrew, I believe your question gets to the  

>> heart of

>> what we as a group are trying to do.  I wish I had the answer.  For  

>> me,

>> I've come to realize I'm unable to stop anyone from doing  

>> anything.  The

>> best I action I can take (interesting word here, take) is offer  

>> peace where

>> I am right now.

>>

>> Cheers,

>> Robin

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From:    andrew ritter [SMTP:aroyboy44 at hotmail.com]

>> Sent:    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:58

>> To:    futurenotwritten at yahoo.com; truth seekers

>> Subject:    Re: [CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive  

>> detention

>> proposal

>>

>>

>> Thanks for this Jay,

>>

>> What an important topic that is getting very little play in the msm

>>

>> "Preventative Detention" is clearly a dark awful piece of fascist  

>> nonsense

>> that violates the constitution and opens the door for creepy things  

>> like

>> thought crimes and being detained indefintely for your beliefs.

>>

>> People continue to defend the Obama administration and I would  

>> argue they

>> are stuck in an unhealthy mind pattern where they allow their  

>> fantasy of

>> who he is to be overshadowed by the reality of the actions the

>> administration continues to take.

>>

>> The question then becomes what real action can we citizens take  

>> that would

>> help to stop this proposal from going through?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 07:59:59 -0700

>> From: futurenotwritten at yahoo.com

>> To: citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net

>> Subject: [CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive detention  

>> proposal

>>

>> This is the best 'dispassionate' dissection of the Obama  

>> administration's

>> sweeping proposals that I have read yet. I urge everyone to  

>> consider this,

>> and the questions he poses, seriously, and share your thoughts,  

>> please!

>>

>> Jay

>>

>>

>> http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2009/05/22/ preventive_

>> detention/ print.html

>>

>>

>>

>> Facts and myths about Obama's preventive detention proposal

>>

>> Is a system of indefinite detention with no charges a standard or  

>> radical

>> idea?

>>

>>

>>

>> Salon.com

>>

>> Glenn Greenwald

>>

>>

>>

>> May. 22, 2009

>>

>>

>>

>> [Updated below - Update II (Interview with ACLU) - Update III -  

>> Update IV -

>> Update V - Update VI]

>>

>>

>>

>> In the wake of Obama's speech yesterday, there are vast numbers of  

>> new

>> converts who now support indefinite "preventive detention." It thus

>> seems constructive to have as dispassionate and fact-based discussion

>> as possible of the implications of "preventive detention" and Obama's

>> related detention proposals (military commissions) . I'll have a

>> podcast discussion on this topic a little bit later today with the

>> ACLU's Ben Wizner, which I'll add below, but until then, here are  

>> some

>> facts and other points worth noting:

>>

>>

>>

>> (1) What does "preventive detention" allow?

>>

>>

>>

>> It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention"

>> authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison

>> people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to

>> be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a

>> subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far

>> more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite  

>> imprisonment

>> not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those

>> deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons

>> (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance

>> to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to  

>> kill

>> Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people  

>> because

>> the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in  

>> the

>> future because they are alleged to be "combatants. "

>>

>>

>>

>> Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will --

>> make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention"

>> power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in

>> the world, alleged to be a "combatant." After all, once you accept  

>> the

>> rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S.

>> Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain

>> "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any  

>> laws --

>> there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people

>> already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no

>> trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in

>> Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.

>>

>>

>>

>> (2)  Are defenders of Obama's proposals being consistent?

>>

>>

>>

>> During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince

>> conservatives to oppose Bush's executive power expansions by asking

>> them: "Do you really want these powers to be exercised by Hillary

>> Clinton or some liberal President?"

>>

>>

>>

>> Following that logic, for any Democrat/progressiv e/liberal/ Obama

>> supporter who wants to defend Obama's proposal of "preventive

>> detention," shouldn't you first ask yourself three simple questions:

>>

>>

>>

>> (a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a

>> law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people

>> indefinitely and with no charges?;

>>

>>

>>

>> (b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of

>> people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right- 

>> wing

>> groups such as Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive

>> detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

>>

>>

>>

>> (c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power  

>> because I

>> trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents --

>> including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive

>> detention"?

>>

>>

>>

>> (3)  Questions for defenders of Obama's proposal:

>>

>>

>>

>> There are many claims being made by defenders of Obama's proposals

>> which seem quite contradictory and/or without any apparent basis, and

>> I've been searching for a defender of those proposals to address  

>> these

>> questions:

>>

>>

>>

>> Bush supporters have long claimed -- and many Obama supporters are  

>> now

>> insisting as well -- that there are hard-core terrorists who cannot  

>> be

>> convicted in our civilian courts. For anyone making that claim,  

>> what is

>> the basis for believing that? In the Bush era, the Government has

>> repeatedly been able to convict alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban  

>> members in

>> civilian courts, including several (Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla, John

>> Walker Lindh) who were tortured and others (Zacharais Moussaoui,

>> Padilla) where evidence against them was obtained by extreme  

>> coercion.

>> What convinced you to believe that genuine terrorists can't be

>> convicted in our justice system?

>>

>>

>>

>> For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet

>> been given any trial and who Obama can't possibly release, how do you

>> know they are "dangerous" if they haven't been tried? Is the

>> Government's accusation enough for you to assume it's true?

>>

>>

>>

>> Above all: for those justifying Obama's use of military commissions  

>> by

>> arguing that some terrorists can't be convicted in civilian courts

>> because the evidence against them is "tainted" because it was  

>> obtained

>> by Bush's torture, Obama himself claimed just yesterday that his

>> military commissions also won't allow such evidence ("We will no  

>> longer

>> permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been

>> obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods").

>> How does our civilian court's refusal to consider evidence obtained  

>> by

>> torture demonstrate the need for Obama's military commissions if, as

>> Obama himself claims, Obama's military commissions also won't  

>> consider

>> evidence obtained by torture?

>>

>>

>>

>> Finally, don't virtually all progressives and Democrats argue that

>> torture produces unreliable evidence? If it's really true (as Obama

>> defenders claim) that the evidence we have against these detainees  

>> was

>> obtained by torture and is therefore inadmissible in real courts, do

>> you really think such unreliable evidence -- evidence we obtained by

>> torture -- should be the basis for concluding that someone is so

>> "dangerous" that they belong in prison indefinitely with no trial? If

>> you don't trust evidence obtained by torture, why do you trust it to

>> justify holding someone forever, with no trial, as "dangerous"?

>>

>>

>>

>> (4)  Do other countries have indefinite preventive detention?

>>

>>

>>

>> Obama yesterday suggested that other countries have turned to

>> "preventive detention" and that his proposal therefore isn't radical

>> ("other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must  

>> we").

>> Is that true?

>>

>>

>>

>> In June of last year, there was a tumultuous political debate in

>> Britain that sheds ample light on this question. In the era of IRA

>> bombings, the British Parliament passed a law allowing the Government

>> to preventively detain terrorist suspects for 14 days -- and then

>> either have to charge them or release them. In 2006, Prime Minister

>> Tony Blair -- citing the London subway attacks and the need to

>> "intervene early before a terrorist cell has the opportunity to  

>> achieve

>> its goals" -- wanted to increase the preventive detention period to  

>> 90

>> days, but MPs from his own party and across the political spectrum

>> overwhelmingly opposed this, and ultimately increased it only to 28

>> days.

>>

>>

>>

>> In June of last year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought an expansion

>> of this preventive detention authority to 42 days -- a mere two weeks

>> more. Reacting to that extremely modest increase, a major political

>> rebellion erupted, with large numbers of Brown's own Labour Party

>> joining with Tories to vehemently oppose it as a major threat to

>> liberty. Ultimately, Brown's 42-day scheme barely passed the House of

>> Commons. As former Prime Minister John Major put it in opposing the

>> expansion to 42 days:

>>

>>

>>

>> It is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours;

>> South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5  

>> days;

>> and Turkey 7? days.

>>

>>

>>

>> By rather stark and extreme contrast, Obama is seeking preventive

>> detention powers that are indefinite -- meaning without any end,

>> potentially permanent. There's no time limit on the "preventive

>> detention." Compare that power to the proposal that caused such a

>> political storm in Britain and what these other governments are

>> empowered to do. The suggestion that indefinite preventive detention

>> without charges is some sort of common or traditional scheme is  

>> clearly

>> false.

>>

>>

>>

>> (5)   Is this comparable to traditional POW detentions?

>>

>>

>>

>> When Bush supporters used to justify Bush/Cheney detention policies  

>> by

>> arguing that it's normal for "Prisoners of War" to be held without

>> trials, that argument was deeply misleading. And it's no less

>> misleading when made now by Obama supporters. That comparison is

>> patently inappropriate for two reasons: (a) the circumstances of the

>> apprehension, and (b) the fact that, by all accounts, this "war" will

>> not be over for decades, if ever, which means -- unlike for  

>> traditional

>> POWs, who are released once the war is over -- these prisoners are

>> going to be in a cage not for a few years, but for decades, if not  

>> life.

>>

>>

>>

>> Traditional "POWs" are ones picked up during an actual military  

>> battle,

>> on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting.

>> The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a "combatant"  

>> was

>> thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the "war  

>> on

>> terror" of being "combatants" aren't anywhere near a "battlefield, "

>> aren't part of any army, aren't wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead,

>> many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the  

>> streets.

>> In most cases, then, we thus have little more than the say-so of the

>> U.S. Government that they are guilty, which is why actual judicial

>> proceedings before imprisoning them is so much more vital than in the

>> standard POW situation.

>>

>>

>>

>> Anyone who doubts that should just look at how many Guantanamo

>> detainees were accused of being "the worst of the worst" yet ended up

>> being released because they did absolutely nothing wrong. Can anyone

>> point to any traditional POW situation where so many people were

>> falsely accused and where the risk of false accusations was so high?

>> For obvious reasons, this is not and has never been a traditional POW

>> detention scheme.

>>

>>

>>

>> During the Bush era, that was a standard argument among Democrats, so

>> why should that change now? Here is what Anne-Marie Slaughter -- now

>> Obama's Director of Policy Planning for the State Department -- said

>> about Bush's "POW" comparison on Fox News on November 21, 2001:

>>

>>

>>

>> Military commissions have been around since the Revolutionary War.  

>> But

>> they've always been used to try spies that we find behind enemy  

>> lines.

>> It's normally a situation, you're on the battlefield, you find an  

>> enemy

>> spy behind your lines. You can't ship them to national court, so you

>> provide a kind of rough battlefield justice in a commission. You give

>> them the best process you can, and then you execute the sentence on  

>> the

>> spot, which generally means executing the defendant.

>>

>>

>>

>> That's not this situation. It's not remotely like it.

>>

>>

>>

>> As for duration, the U.S. government has repeatedly said that this

>> "war" is so different from standard wars because it will last for

>> decades, if not generations. Obama himself yesterday said that  

>> "unlike

>> the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony

>> to bring this journey to an end" and that we'll still be fighting  

>> this

>> "war" "a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all  

>> probability

>> -- 10 years from now." No rational person can compare POW  

>> detentions of

>> a finite and usually short (2-5 years) duration to decades or life  

>> in a

>> cage. That's why, yesterday, Law Professor Diane Marie Amann, in The

>> New York Times, said this:

>>

>>

>>

>> [Obama] signaled a plan by which [Guantanamo detainees] - and perhaps

>> other detainees yet to be arrested? - could remain in custody forever

>> without charge. There is no precedent in the American legal tradition

>> for this kind of preventive detention. That is not quite right:

>> precedents do exist, among them the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798  

>> and

>> the Japanese internment of the 1940s, but they are widely seen as low

>> points in America's history under the Constitution.

>>

>>

>>

>> There are many things that can be said about indefinitely imprisoning

>> people with no charges who were not captured on any battlefield, but

>> the claim that this is some sort of standard or well-established

>> practice in American history is patently false.

>>

>>

>>

>> (6)  Is it "due process" when the Government can guarantee it  

>> always wins?

>>

>>

>>

>> If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when  

>> he

>> described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to  

>> which

>> each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a

>> violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is

>> saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we  

>> know

>> in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict  

>> in

>> a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm

>> creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions,

>> we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively  

>> detain"

>> them).

>>

>>

>>

>> Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that

>> you'll get convictions is not due process. Those are called "show

>> trials." In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives  

>> everyone

>> it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it  

>> can

>> convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies

>> (convictions or acquittals).

>>

>>

>>

>> Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that  

>> is

>> constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies  

>> and is

>> determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions  

>> for

>> others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and

>> chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always  

>> wins. A

>> more warped "system of justice" is hard to imagine.

>>

>>

>>

>> (7)  Can we "be safe" by locking up all the Terrorists with no  

>> charges?

>>

>>

>>

>> Obama stressed yesterday that the "preventive detention" system  

>> should

>> be created only through an act of Congress with "a process of  

>> periodic

>> review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and

>> justified." That's certainly better than what Bush did: namely,

>> preventively detain people with no oversight and no Congressional

>> authorization -- in violation of the law. But as we learned with the

>> Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007,

>> the mere fact that Congress approves of a radical policy may mean  

>> that

>> it is no longer lawless but it doesn't make it justified. As  

>> Professor

>> Amann put it: "no amount of procedures can justify deprivations that,

>> because of their very nature violate the Constitution' s core  

>> guarantee

>> of liberty." Dan Froomkin said that no matter how many procedures are

>> created, that's "a dangerously extreme policy proposal."

>>

>>

>>

>> Regarding Obama's "process" justification -- and regarding Obama's

>> primary argument that we need to preventively detain allegedly

>> dangerous people in order to keep us safe -- Digby said it best:

>>

>>

>>

>> We are still in a "war" against a method of violence, which means  

>> there

>> is no possible end and which means that the government can capture  

>> and

>> imprison anyone they determine to be "the enemy" forever. The only

>> thing that will change is where the prisoners are held and few little

>> procedural tweaks to make it less capricious. (It's nice that some  

>> sort

>> of official committee will meet once in a while to decide if the  

>> war is

>> over or if the prisoner is finally too old to still be a "danger to

>> Americans.")

>>

>>

>>

>> There seems to be some misunderstanding about Guantanamo. Somehow

>> people have gotten it into their heads is that it is nothing more  

>> than

>> a symbol, which can be dealt with simply by closing the prison.  

>> That's

>> just not true. Guantanamo is a symbol, true, but it's a symbol of a

>> lawless, unconstitutional detention and interrogation system.  

>> Changing

>> the venue doesn't solve the problem.

>>

>>

>>

>> I know it's a mess, but the fact is that this isn't really that

>> difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There

>> are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the

>> world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect  

>> ourselves

>> from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody  

>> locked

>> up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US.

>> It's patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even

>> the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so

>> they "can't kill Americans."

>>

>>

>>

>> The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the

>> complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice

>> systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily

>> terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too

>> dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over

>> the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take  

>> his

>> place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or

>> capture and then the "war" will be over and the babies will always be

>> safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

>>

>>

>>

>> As I said yesterday, there were some positive aspects to Obama's

>> speech. His resolve to close Guantanamo in the face of all the

>> fear-mongering, like his release of the OLC memos, is commendable.  

>> But

>> the fact that a Democratic President who ran on a platform of  

>> restoring

>> America's standing and returning to our core principles is now

>> advocating the creation of a new system of indefinite preventive

>> detention -- something that is now sure to become a standard view of

>> Democratic politicians and hordes of Obama supporters -- is by far  

>> the

>> most consequential event yet in the formation of Obama's civil

>> liberties policies.

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE: Here's what White House Counsel Greg Craig told The New  

>> Yorker's

>> Jane Mayer in February:

>>

>>

>>

>> "It's possible but hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first  

>> President

>> of the United States to introduce a preventive-detentio n law," Craig

>> said. "Our presumption is that there is no need to create a whole new

>> system. Our system is very capable."

>>

>>

>>

>> "The first President of the United States to introduce a

>> preventive-detentio n law" is how Obama's own White House Counsel

>> described him. Technically speaking, that is a form of change, but

>> probably not the type that many Obama voters expected.

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE II: Ben Wizner of the ACLU's National Security Project is the

>> lead lawyer in the Jeppesen case, which resulted in the recent

>> rejection by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the Bush/Obama state

>> secrets argument, and also co-wrote (along with the ACLU's Jameel

>> Jaffer) a superb article in Salon in December making the case against

>> preventive detention. I spoke with him this morning for roughly 20

>> minutes regarding the detention policies proposed by Obama in

>> yesterday's speech. It can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder

>> below. A transcript will be posted shortly.

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE III: Rachel Maddow was superb last night -- truly superb --  

>> on the

>> topic of Obama's preventive detention proposal:

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE IV: The New Yorker's Amy Davidson compares Obama's detention

>> proposal to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II

>> (as did Professor Amann, quoted above). Hilzoy, of The Washington

>> Monthly, writes: "If we don't have enough evidence to charge someone

>> with a crime, we don't have enough evidence to hold them. Period" and

>> "the power to detain people without filing criminal charges against

>> them is a dictatorial power." Salon's Joan Walsh quotes the Center  

>> for

>> Constitutional Rights' Vincent Warren as saying: "They're creating,

>> essentially, an American Gulag." The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will  

>> Bunch

>> says of Obama's proposal: "What he's proposing is against one of this

>> country's core principles" and "this is why people need to keep the

>> pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency

>> favorably."

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE V: The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder -- who is as close to the  

>> Obama

>> White House as any journalist around -- makes an important point  

>> about

>> Obama that I really wish more of his supporters would appreciate:

>>

>>

>>

>> [Obama] was blunt [in his meeting with civil libertiarians] ; the

>> [military commissions] are a fait accompli, so the civil libertarians

>> can either help Congress and the White House figure out the best  

>> way to

>> protect the rights of the accused within the framework of that

>> decision, or they can remain on the outside, as agitators. That's not

>> meant to be pejorative; whereas the White House does not give a

>> scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and

>> will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an

>> administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and  

>> useful.

>>

>>

>>

>> Ambinder doesn't mean me personally or exclusively; he means people  

>> who

>> are criticizing Obama not in order to harm him politically, but in

>> order to pressure him to do better. It's not just the right, but the

>> duty, of citizens to pressure and criticize political leaders when  

>> they

>> adopt policies that one finds objectionable or destructive. Criticism

>> of this sort is a vital check on political leaders -- a key way to

>> impose accountability -- and Obama himself has said as much many  

>> times

>> before.

>>

>>

>>

>> It has nothing to do with personalities or allegiances. It doesn't

>> matter if one "likes" or "trusts" Obama or thinks he's a good or bad

>> person. That's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether

>> one thinks that the actions he's undertaking are helpful or  

>> harmful. If

>> they're harmful, one should criticize them. Where, as here, they're

>> very harmful and dangerous, one should criticize them loudly. Obama

>> himself, according to Ambinder, "finds this outside pressure healthy

>> and useful." And it is. It's not only healthy and useful but  

>> absolutely

>> vital.

>>

>>

>>

>> UPDATE VI: Bearing in mind what Obama repeatedly pledged to do while

>> running, this headline from The New York Times this morning is rather

>> extraordinary:

>>

>>

>>

>> As Greg Craig put it: "hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first

>> President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detentio n

>> law."

>>

>>

>>

>> -- Glenn Greenwald

>>

>>     Stop thinking like an American,

>> Start thinking about humanity!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20090527/1a19b861/attachment.htm>