Who Are We? by Bob Herbert

[TacticalPeek]

Who Are We?

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 22, 2009

Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the early months of the Obama administration has been its unwillingness to end many of the mind-numbing abuses linked to the so-called war on terror and to establish a legal and moral framework designed to prevent those abuses from ever occurring again.

The president deserves credit for unequivocally banning torture and some of the other brutal interrogation techniques that spread like a plague in the Bush administration’s lawless response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But other policies that offend the conscience continue.

Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.

And yet we’ve embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we’ve tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it “prolonged detention”), but he wants to make sure it is carried out — here comes the oxymoron — fairly and nonabusively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1



Oxymorons are where you find them.

[The Traveler]

1. A dangerous path

Sorry ... but I have to agree with Herbert on the subject of "prolonged detention". I think it sets a very dangerous precedent ... and one that is unnecessary. The legal framework for dealing with (and determining who is) a prisoner of war is well established. (Torture, for example, or "enhanced interrogation" is strictly a no-no.) There is no need for this new and ambiguous category. I am not sure why Obama and his people seem to think otherwise. It puzzles and concerns me.

Trav

[Skittles]

2. read it and weep, apologists

LET IT SINK IN

[chimpymustgo]

3. Why do you hate AMerica? Actually, how can anyone SUPPORT this. It's gruesome

And so very sad. And tragic that some people will let it slide because they "believe in" - not the Constitution - but a politician.

It's only been 5 months, they say. Tell me how that relates to this matter?

[Skittles]

4. it should have been dealt with starting on DAY ONE

[CrispyQ]

8. Yes. Absolutely on day one!

Of all the issues I went to the polls for, this & the wars were the most critical.

k&r

[democrank]

5. K & R

"Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House."

[Senator]

6. Sorry, there's no credit for oxymoronically "banning torture."

Particularly when the non-prosecution of it is de facto legalization -- and already has http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">damaged our reputation anew.

Herbert's usually a bit late on the trigger.

---

[Festivito]

7. Newspaper policies wrong under Bush, now more wrong under Obama.

Where was this wrongness printed when Bushie was prez. Obscured under a misleading title, set on a day of major news, or non-existent.

Fair nonabusive prolonged detention also invokes a question of integrity. Also.

The difference arises from one being left with the problem from someone else. The other -- not so much.