[CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive detention proposal

[Jay Becker]

We have to continually deepen our study of the material reality in which we find ourselves, on many levels, including the opinions or attitudes of those around us but those are more determined by larger social and political forces than determinative of them and are just one part of the picture in any case.

I go back to an analogy I read in Revolution newspaper: Here in the US, it's like we are living in the house of Tony Soprano. We know there's something going on out there in the world that Tony's involved in and that supports the lifestyle we live but we don't really want to know very much about that! 

Society is split into classes: imperialists who run their global empire of production and extraction of value and destruction of people & the environment to keep their profit-making machinery and its military enforcers going and to stave off their international competitors; a whole lot of people in various levels of administration and technology keeping things running in the middle; and working class people in manual labor and those thrown out of the working class at the lower and lowest ends. And the imperialists at the top are not about to let any of the rest of us decide what they are or are not going to do to try to solve the apparent multiple crises in which they find themselves, elections or no elections!

So, in my years of experience, in more or less normal times, most people will keep on keepin' on as much and as best as they can. Then something will happen that wakes up some people, sometimes more personal events, more often probably social ones, like 9/11, war, financial meltdown. And then those people look for answers. We can tell them it'll be okay, let's just rearrange the furniture in Tony's house so we can feel a little more comfortable awhile longer, or we can share with them both a materialist understanding of the worldwide 'food chain' we find ourselves at the (relatively) top end of and the most important fact of all: It is all totally unnecessary in this day and age and there's actually a strategy that could put power in the hands of the people. (Curious? Find a lot more at revcom.us)

Yes, that puts a lot of responsibility on us but you know what? It's also really liberating to see a way to act on this madness that actually is responsible. What's life about anyway but the meaning we give it and to me, the highest meaning is contributing what we can to humanity. I invite everyone to read some thoughts on "Life with a Purpose" from a great revolutionary, Bob Avakian, at http://revcom.us/avakian/ruminations/BA-ruminations2-en.html.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Jay

    Stop thinking like an American, 
Start thinking about humanity!


--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Hal Snyder <hal at drxyzzy.org> wrote:

From: Hal Snyder <hal at drxyzzy.org>
Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] Glenn Greenwald on preventive detention proposal
To: citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 5:17 PM

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 threatswarmass extinctionecosystem collapseineffective/corrupt governmentetc. 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 shopping2) reformer - iceberg ahead, ring the alarms, change course or at least prepare lifeboats3) 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!
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
CitizensTruth mailing list
CitizensTruth at six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth
website: http://citizenstruth.info



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20090527/7be4a496/attachment-0001.html>