An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« What is the difference between socialism and modern liberalism?

It Will Soon Be Time For A New New-Deal »

Spitting Nails Over Indefinite Detention

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics, War.
Sep 24th, 2009 | Comments

One of the negative effects of changes in national security policy during the Bush administration was the advent of “indefinite detention” as a way of handling potentially dangerous terrorists. (Or, in some cases, people who were picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a name having too many vowels in it.) Out on the campaign trail last year, one of the things I liked about candidate Obama was his seemingly unflinching loyalty to the rule of law and the basic belief that America was a place where the accused would get their day in court. He was hard on George W. Bush over this, and rightly so in my opinion. I have consistently maintained that these people should be brought up in some sort of court, (even if it’s a private, military one without press access if national security secrets must be aired) given a trial and either released if innocent, or executed / sentenced to life without parole if guilty.

Apparently, now that the campaign has ended, President Obama has either decided he no longer agrees with me or no longer has the stomach for the fight. Ed Morrissey reports on the subject.

Bush’s opponents screamed about human rights and due process, and claimed that Bush had abused his power. Those critics included Barack Obama, who regularly castigated the Bush administration for its failure to provide his idea of due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, as well as blasting Bush for his argument that he didn’t require Congress to act to maintain that power.

Now? Change you can believe in, baby:

The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

There are two views on this change making the rounds. One is that Obama has simply changed his mind and that the war powers act gives him the authority to hold suspects forever without benefit of a trial. The second is that he hasn’t actually changed his mind, but doesn’t want to get into a legislative battle over it while he’s in the middle of the fight of his life over health care and spending us into an economic black hole. Neither holds any water with me.

If he’s not going to follow through on this, then we were fed a bill of goods during the campaign and, as Ed is so fond of saying, all of his promises actually do have an expiration date. I have tried to point out the various areas in matters of foreign policy where I agree with and support the president, (since I find little or nothing to agree with him on domestically) but there’s no free pass to be given here. Stick to your word, sir, and put this system of indefinite detention out to pasture.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

ChrisWWW

Count me among those who think this is a major betrayal by Obama and the Democrats. If you can't prove these detainees are terrorists, then you have to let them go.

casualobserver

I don't think he "changed" his mind so much as he never really "had a mind", so to speak, on the campaign trail.

He was simply smart enough to know it was what he needed to say to stay left of Hillary and work the war fatigue sentiment against McCain.

If political office consisted only of the campaign speech part, Obama would be likely invincible.

HemmD

The indefinite detention problem will never be resolved until its outrageous nature is exposed for what it is, tyranny.

Pick up George Bush and Jimmy Carter and put them both under indefinite detention for unspecified charges. As long as current law allows for this kind of esoteric justice, let's just clear both ends of the political spectrum. Feel free to add to the list, nominate according to personal grudge or profitable business move. Clearly as long as proof isn't needed, the reason for holding people is just a formality.

Leonidas

As long as current law allows for this kind of esoteric justice

I am not convinced that the law allows for this, I am convinced that expanded federal power, especially in the Executive branch has allowed for mechanisms to evade following the law. When government started playing fast and loose with the Constitution we opened the door for such maneuvering.

shannonlee

As usual...Obama received a little push back on an issue and then completely caved. The first step in this process was the closing of Guan Bay. People about pooed on themselves when they found out that the "terrorists" might be held in their state. Can you imagine the reaction from the weak and fearful when they find out that we are actually going to try these people?!!? And that might actually be innocent and eventually set free?!?!

Too much pressure...costs too much...Obama doesn't want to deal with it.

As far as I am concerned, as long as we hold these people with charge or trial...we are no longer the America that we once were. You can't be a beaken for freedom when you behave in this way.

Leonidas

If political office consisted only of the campaign speech part, Obama would be likely invincible.

A lot of people remark on Obama's oratory, frankly I don't find it particularly impressive. I think he just looks really good to people who were used to Bush's tripping over words. Put him beside Bill Clinton and you have a different picture. I find Clinton to be a far better speaker than Obama, he didn't try to hard for lofty phrases, he was folksy enough to connect with the common man yet not so much to look like a hick. Clinton had Charm, something that Obama's oratory lacks.

What Obama did excel at, was grassroots turnout organization, and an excellent grasp of campaign mechanics. He was able to more efficiently use his resources to achieve the goals he needed. He didn't always go after the largest individual vote turnout, he went for what he needed to get the largest delegate, and then electoral votes.

roro80

I agree, Jazz, 100%. This is extremely disappointing.

casualobserver

Fair enough, my hyperbole distracted from the point I was trying to make.

What I am really trying to convey is that Obama is a marketeer, not an executive. He picked up a "vision" (campaign platform) and sold it...... better than Hillary and way better than McCain. He "adapted" to what was required of him for the job (get elected), not that he had some deep seated beliefs driving him.

I think he is perfectly happy with the backroom guys running with the downer-details like legal detention, rendition, even when these details don't jibe with the campaign rhetoric. He'll work with the speech guys to smooth it over if he needs to down the road.

Yes, he benefitted from some good campaign strategy behind the scenes as well.....but that certainly was not orchestrated by Obama himself.........but rather the EBC trio playing the netroots for all they were worth.

DLS

They should make up their mind what is to be done with the prisoners, and proceed to do it.

Then add retrocession of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba to a progressive or immediately-full end of the embargo as part of improvement eventually to US-Cuban policy.

TheMagicalSkyFather

I will express my horror that he did exactly what I expected him to do. Sadly Dems cave to talking heads on any matters military or terror related, I hope this changes at some point. But for now another nice shiny black mark on the US record of human rights and the rule of law, I expected this result but I hoped I would be surprised by a constitutional lawyer since they tend to adore the constitution even more than I.

T-Steel

President-Professor Obama has intellectualized this thoroughly. His heart and soul fight is health care. And the indefinite detention power buys him time to get his heart and soul issue pushed through. He has prioritized legislation plain and simple. I would not be surprised if President-Professor Obama turns into a "Mr. America The Just" and reverse his decision on indefinite detentions after health care. President-Professor Obama is an academic intellectual and what has been his announce was his plan all along, in my opinion. There are probably more guilty folks being indefinitely detained than innocent ones. So President-Professor Obama has gone all Spock logic on us with the "needs of the many (health care), outweigh the needs of the few (indefinite detainees)". It's a thought out and calculated decision. If health care legislation gets pushed through with some solid red meat for the Left Side of the house, indefinite detention won't look as bad because of President-Professor Obama's big victory. But if it doesn't, talk about a crap storm of sizable proportions!

This is why I thought the "empty suit" rhetoric against him was short-sighted. President-Professor Obama is a cool and calculating customer. After the month he had in health care "talk" he just shakes it off and continues with his plan. He may not have had executive experience, but he has sizable intellectual prowess. Even the Czar debacles aren't messing up his flow.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with his decision on this. I see both sides bringing up solid arguments for and against it. Maybe I lean a little in the disagreement field. But I bet he's going to ramp up is health care push even more. He knows he can't milk this indefinite detention decision for long.

LadyLogician

I would say I'm surprised but I'm not.

LL

HemmD

Leo

In this we agree. Unfortunately, Federalists have been trying to circumvent the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams.

HemmD

DLS

Today is sure weird.
I agree with you completely about Gitmo. It onlt stands as a symbol of America's imperial, jingoistic cravings of a century past.

ProfElwood

"Pick up George Bush and Jimmy Carter and put them both under indefinite detention for unspecified charges. "
I always wondered what would happen if some of these methods were used on the politicians or officials who advocated them. Pick up one representative to find out their role in the next scandal, and then see what the attitude of congress is the next day.

HemmD

T
"If health care legislation gets pushed through with some solid red meat for the Left Side of the house, indefinite detention won't look as bad because of President-Professor Obama's big victory."

I think you may misread the progressive left. Health care and justice or both moral issues; you can't trade one for the other. That may be the way politicians think, but the groundswell that backed Obama doesn't calculate morality. It's seen as disingenuous.

T-Steel

Point taken HemmD regarding misreading the progressive left.

I think that President Obama is only prioritizing issues. And after reading Kathy's recent post (http://themoderatevoice.com/47423/sometimes-the...), it seems to be a VERY smart prioritization as well as a very smart move. I didn't mean to "belittle" (for lack of a better word) the progressive left's feelings on both health care and indefinite detention.

casualobserver

@@ I would not be surprised if President-Professor Obama turns into a "Mr. America The Just" and reverse his decision on indefinite detentions after health care. President-Professor Obama is an academic intellectual and what has been his announce was his plan all along, in my opinion.@@

Are you confident enough in this theory to bet a low-country barbeque dinner on it?

Leonidas

Leo

In this we agree. Unfortunately, Federalists have been trying to circumvent the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams.

And in that we agree as well. Thing is, if we ever sat down and talked for a few hours we'd likely be very surprised with the number of issues we can agree on. The political environment in the US consists largely of two vey artificial groups, the left and the right. Many who are in opposite camps in general if taken out of that context on specific issues can be in agreement. We all simply do not fit our particular defined hemisphere that neatly. I know many on the "left" who are anti-gun control, anti-abortion, and pro indefinite detention; I also know many on the right who were anti-Iraq war, pro-gay rights, and pro-choice. if, however, those issues never come up and you only see these folk when operating in the "comfort zone" of their hemisphere its easy to get the wrong impression. I know I'm as guilty of this as most, but I do try to make an effort. Its just a shame when the members of our own "hemisphere" or the other "hemisphere" are able to create an environment that makes it difficult to express ourselves when our views do not conform with that of our own "half".

HemmD

T
". I didn't mean to "belittle" (for lack of a better word) the progressive left's feelings on both health care and indefinite detention."

And I didn't mean that belittling was the point. I think part of the problem with the misunderstanding between Left and Right comes down to how the respective brains are wired.

Health care discussions on this board seem to have a running theme of practicality vs moral imperative, this translates into a false understanding of the opposing sides intention. It's one of the reasons we see the debate as being a health care reform or health insurance reform effort. I'm going to use generalities here on out, so parse my analysis accordingly.

The Right, by and large, see health insurance reform generally as an economics problem testing Federalist/States Rights, and the Left sees health care reform as a social imperative that validates the Constitution's general welfare clause. No wonder each side scratches its head trying to figure out what salient points the other side is making. We're actually debating two different questions, money or morals.

shannonlee

What is Spock going to do when the health care legislation fails, he has lost his mojo, and we still have innocent people sitting in jail with no trial date?

Spock needs to become Mike Tyson and start punching people in the mouth.

prebioticman

War is different and we're in a war. It's different in some ways but the same as others in this one: We are forced to deploy troops on foreign battlegrounds to disrupt the enemy's ability to mount brutal strikes against us here and abroad.

If you send men and women into war, even the brave and patriotic who volunteer to serve, you owe them some consideration. One example would be not to release prisoners taken in the course of the war who might reappear on the battlefield and try to kill them again. When making this decision, you err on the side of caution. That means, in an imperfect world, detaining prisoners--apparent enemy fighters-- about whom convincing exculpatory evidence is lacking for an indefinite period of time.

kathykattenburg

Fascinating. :-|

HemmD

Leo

We gree again.

The political parties demonstrate simplistic views, humans are a little more complex.

HemmD

artcrit
"When making this decision, you err on the side of caution"

If it's war, casualties occur on both sides. A country's moral compass should not be one of those casualties, or you take the very meaning from a soldier's life.

kathykattenburg

President-Professor Obama has intellectualized this thoroughly. His heart and soul fight is health care. And the indefinite detention power buys him time to get his heart and soul issue pushed through. He has prioritized legislation plain and simple.

You know, I actually agree with this. And I say "actually" because there's really no objective evidence for it -- it's a gut feeling, an intuitive feeling, based on the sense you get of his spirit, of his soul, for lack of a better word. How he thinks. How he approaches his life, and issues. I haven't said it because it's not really a point you can argue -- because there isn't any tangible support for it that you can point to. But I was really struck by what you wrote here, because inside me, I have had the same belief. It's why I'm not always as upset as I might be when he does something that disappoints me. I think he'll get there. Hopefully, he'll be given the time to get there.

kathykattenburg

Wow. Well said, Leonidas.

T-Steel

Then Spock will have a S-I-T-U-A-T-I-O-N.

President Obama isn't the punch you in the mouth type in my opinion. If all what you said happens, he's going to think, re-think, out-think, re-re-think, and think again about a course of action. And I bet he'll salvage something out of that big nothing.

T-Steel

When I first heard then Senator Candidate Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention, the first words out of my mouth was "Professor Barack Obama". I saw this academic intellectual. His entire campaign was intellectualized thoroughly. I mean he should have been derailed by the Rev. Wright situation but he just "smoothed" right through it. It's his way.

So fast forward to this topic, President Obama does nothing on a whim. Whether we disagree with his decisions or not, he is always thinking in my opinion. Look at what you wrote in your recent post Kathy:

"But Obama’s decision has to be seen in the specific context in which he made it: He has decided not to institutionalize indefinite preventive detention. For those of us who were horrified beyond measure when Obama asserted his intention to do just that, in his National Archives speech, the fact that he has changed his mind is an enormous relief."

Look at that! Talk about intellectualizing a decision. Nuance galore and he got it right, in my opinion. Look, I disagree with how he's handling the economy and health care. I'm a jobs guy and I wish that was a priority. But President Obama is a thinker. And it irritates some folks at times but it is what it is.

ProfElwood

"The Right, by and large, see health insurance reform generally as an economics problem testing Federalist/States Rights, and the Left sees health care reform as a social imperative that validates the Constitution's general welfare clause."
Except for a few of us, and I'm getting a little bummed about how few, see it as both. The price of medical care has been artificially inflated on purpose. That was the specific intention of the the McCarran-Ferguson Act and an intentional consequence by the AMA of setting high academic standards for doctors. Pharmaceuticals have been protected from foreign competition and the bargaining power of the federal government in Medicare part D. There's a lot more, but I'll stop there.

Using the law to benefit one group at the expense of the nation should be considered an immoral act and a perversion of the purpose of government by liberal, conservative, and libertarian groups. Now we're going to try and "fix" this deliberate sabotage by attacking the insurance companies and/or tort lawyers. It's insane!

Sorry for the rant, but this whole health care debate seems surreal at times.

blog comments powered by Disqus