Glenn Greenwald: Criticisms, political pressure and Barack Obama

[Fumesucker]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/13/obama/


Barack Obama's announced intentions on ABC this Sunday regarding Guantanamo sparked substantial objections from civil liberties and human rights advocates. The result of those objections? From today's New York Times:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

Not only did Obama advisers quickly leak that Obama planned to do that -- something he made no mention of on ABC or at any time before that -- but they also made known that they have all but rejected the principal plan urged by the pro-war, anti-civil-liberties Brookings Institution and like-minded comrades (such as former Bush official Jack Goldsmith) for a Congressionally-authorized scheme of preventive detention to empower the President to indefinitely detain Terrorists inside the U.S. without having to charge them with any crimes:

In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. . . .

In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

Why did Obama advisers rush forth on Monday to ensure publication of articles like this one with new announcements for Obama's plans for closing Guantanamo? The reason seems rather obvious, but in case it isn't, the NYT spells it out:

(snip)

More at the link...

[merh]

1. Greenwald is distorting what was said.

He is reporting what he heard - he is reporting on how he interpreted what was said and that interpretation is incorrect.

There are still many vital details left unaddressed, beginning with what Obama meant in the interview when he spoke of the need for authority -- what he called a new "process" -- to detain accused Terrorists even when the evidence against them is "tainted."

What was actually said.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you're still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So not necessarily first 100 days.

OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.

Greenwald is being an ass and he definitely has trouble understanding the justice system.

The tainted evidence, the evidence obtained through torture would not be admissible in a court of law.

The system calls for a trial to adjudicate guilt or innocence, to afford due process and that is what Obama is advocating.

[Fumesucker]

2. Umm...

Did you even read what you posted?

And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

If they are found innocent by reason of tainted evidence then they must be released, whether they want to "blow us up" or not.

Anything less is not according to our Constitution.

[merh]

14. Again, ignorance of the justice system makes that statement

alarming to the likes of you and Greenwald.

That happens all the time in the system, balancing the constitutional rights of the accused with the rights and safety of society. What has not happened for the Gitmo detainees and what should have happened a very long time ago, is that they be afforded their DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

That is that they stand accused, that they be afforded a lawyer to help them in defending themselves, that they be afforded their day in court.

Do we hold people that were intent on blowing up this nation that have not had their rights protected and/or have been tortured and that is how we know their intentions? If so, what do you do with them. Simple pat them on the head, tell them sorry and release them on the streets? It is a potential problem that must be dealt with and it is a delicate balancing act that the justice has had to deal with for as long as this nation has existed. Protecting the rights of the accused while protecting the citizens, weighing the rights of the accused against the needs of society and public safety and protection.

Obama has spoken to the problem and nothing he said comes close to saying what Greenwald has alluded to.

[jaxx]

3. It seems like the majority are being asses these days.

With all the 'Obama had better do this, or else' junk going around we should have had a much larger bunch in the campaigns because the armchair brigade thinks they have all the answers.

[KoKo]

7. Your comment shows you didn't read the whole article..because it addresses

what you stated and why Obama needs criticism:

Here, from the article:

--

Just as Congressional Democrats have known for the last eight years, Obama will know that there is only a price to pay when he acts contrary to the Republican and Beltway "centrist" agenda, but no price to pay when he acts contrary to the agenda of his most ardent supporters (because they won't criticize him, because to do is to "tear him down," "help Republicans," act like a Naderite purist, etc. etc. etc.). That meek and deferential attitude -- aside from being a wildly inappropriate and even dangerous way to treat a political leader -- also ensures that one is irrelevant and taken for granted and one's views easily ignored.

When Obama does things that warrant praise -- when he appoints someone like Dawn Johnsen as OLC Chief, or defies Beltway demands by going outside of the intelligence community to find his CIA Director -- he should be praised. When he does things that warrant criticism -- such as going on national television to talk about the need for a special process to allow the use of "tainted" evidence against Guantanamo detainees, or when he openly contemplates naming someone as CIA Director who supports rendition and torture, or when he votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- he should be vigorously criticized. When he makes statements without any apparent basis -- such as Sunday's assertion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons -- he ought to be made to account for that claim and show evidence for it. That's just basic accountability for a political official.

Like all politicians, Obama is not intrinsically good. Good things don't happen by virtue of the mere existence of his presidency. His presidency will be good only and exactly to the extent that he does good things. Pressure and criticisms make his doing those good things more likely (there is a quote from FDR, which I cannot find but am certain commenters will quickly cite, where FDR privately instructed his supporters to publicly criticize him for not doing X so that he would be able to do X more easily).

Obama is about to become one of the world's most powerful political leaders, if not the single most powerful. He begins with sky-high approval ratings, his political party in control of Congress by a large margin, and enjoys reverence so intense from certain quarters that such a loyal following hasn't been seen since the imperial glow around George Bush circa 2002. He's not going to crumble or melt away like the Wicked Witch if he's pressured or criticized. The far more substantial danger is that he won't be pressured or criticized enough by those who are eager to see meaningful changes in Washington, and then -- either by desire or necessity -- those are the voices he will ignore most easily.

[jaxx]

10. I did and it doesn't excuse the other.

[merh]

11. I did read the article and my opinion is that Greenwald is being

dishonest, sticking to his guns despite the fact that he blew it.

Obama did not say what he has said he said. Obama spoke of the intricate balance that our courts face every day, that is protecting the rights of the accused while trying to see that justice is done.

[Luminous Animal]

16. You don't do that by creating a process...

we already have a process. That is the most telling line and Greenwald and every other civil rights advocate are well within their rights to question what sort of process does Obama feels should be created outside of our well established judicial system.

[merh]

18. Yes, there has to be some process created.

You just don't say close Gitmo and move on, you have to have a process in place to deal with what is found at Gitmo.

Do you just put the bags over their heads and fly them to strange lands and dump 'em?

Do you just ship them from one max security facility to another?

A process has to be set up to get them in the system and to allow them the due process that has not been afforded to them. To think otherwise is rather naive. If Greenwald is that naive then he really needs to stop writing as if he isn't.

[Luminous Animal]

22. You are ignoring my point

and Greenwald's, the ACLU's and other civil libertarians and entering facts that are not in evidence with your assertion that Obama explicitly meant that, a "process has to be set up to get them in the system and to allow them the due process that has not been afforded to them." There is nothing wrong in questioning what sort of process Obama is considering given that his transition team includes those who advocate a new system that would allow tainted evidence to be used. The question that hangs in their air is a response to Obama's claim on Sunday that we must create a process. It behooves us to know what process Obama is considering. To support Obama otherwise is rather naive.

[merh]

24. LOL, and there is nothing in what Obama states that provides

he is trying to invent some process that subverts the justice system and denies anyone their constitutional rights. Obama doesn't say write new laws, create a new court, set up a hidden tribunal. Reading so much into what Obama has said makes you look as foolish as Greenwald looks. What our party and the justice system doesn't need is a bunch of alarmist that form judgments based upon poor interpretations of simple statements.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Again, you are missing the point.

What does Obama mean when he says create a process that does not result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up?

How would that process differ from the judicial system that we already have? One of the main ideas being floated out there by beltway insiders and think tanks is that we create a system (including new laws) which would allow tainted evidence to be used at trial. Does Obama agree with this? Certainly, if one advocates for a creating system that keeps bad guys in jail even though the evidence against them was derived through torture, it would have to be a system that differs from the one that we already have.


Look at Obama's statement again...
"you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

He assumes guilt.

He admits that the evidence is tainted.

He advocates creating a process.

That keeps them in prison.

The question is simple, what process do you imagine can be created outside of our already established judicial system?

[merh]

26. And a process does have to be created.

How hard is that to understand.

You have 400 or so people that have been held for 7 years or so in jail. You have to do something with them. Do you advocate just throwing open the doors? How about giving them air fair and a pat on the back? Will that be justice?

A process to review each individual case and to see that the individuals are afforded the due process rights they are entitled to is not a new and sparkly legal process as Greenwald tries to allude to and as you have read into Obama's statement. It is a system of trying to handle each individual case as is necessary and appropriate so that their rights are respected and so that the nation remains secure. We could load them on a plane and dump them in your state and wish them well, where do you live? Are you opening your door to them? What do you do with all these folks? What do you advocate?

Me, I think setting up a process to figure it out makes sense.

[Luminous Animal]

27. No shit.

But you conveniently leave out the intent of the process being created. That is keeping people in prison. How do you create a process with the intent of keeping people in prison that would otherwise be released because of tainted evidence?

Obama's words are clear. He advocates creating a process to keep people in prison.

[EFerrari]

28. The ironic thing is that people that have been released have by and large

not returned to "combat" -- they were never in combat in the first place. The Pentagon released some spurious, inflated numbers and when questioned, couldn't account for any of them. This was run down in a House subcommittee meeting I watched last Summer.

The underlying assumption, imo, is that tainted evidence is evidence which it clearly can't be. The rate of prisoner recidivism seems to be very very low. There is no objective reason to keep these people behind bars except to protect our government from law suits . . .

[Luminous Animal]

29. I actually think that Greenwald ceded

the high ground to Obama to quickly. Not addressed (as Hilzoy) pointed out, is the issue of creating a new process for those that the Obama administration assumes to be guilty.

[merh]

31. There is no finding of guilt, there is the promise of constitutional

protection. Why do you continue to pervert what has been said?

[Luminous Animal]

33. I am not.

Obama: "you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication."

Making the claim that many may be very dangerous.

Obama: And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true.

Allowing that some of the evidence obtained against very dangerous folks may be tainted.

Obama: And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system,

Advocating for creating a system. Well we already have a system. What precisely is Obama proposing? What needs to be created so that...

doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

It is a simple question. What kind of system is Obama proposing that we create that allows us to imprison people on tainted evidence? It deserves an answer.

[merh]

34. Okay, let's take this one step at a time.

Do you advocate opening the doors of Gitmo and just setting those housed there free?

[Luminous Animal]

36. No.

Here is my question to you...

Do you advocate keeping detained those folks who Obama considers dangerous but who are at risk of being set free because of tainted evidence?

[merh]

37. That is not what Obama is advocating.

As I have said - you continue to misinterpret what Obama said, conveniently leaving out the parts that don't fit your argument. You focus on this:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you're still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?

OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

While you ignore this definite position:

OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.

He is explaining the dilemma that he faces and thus my question to you deserves answer.

Do you advocate opening the doors of Gitmo and just setting those housed there free?

[Luminous Animal]

39. Already did answer it.

My answer is no. I expect that each should get their day in court. Does Obama believe this? I am not so sure.
He needs to be clear as to kind of process he intends to create that would keep people in jail despite tainted evidence; until he is forthcoming,I will stick with my concerns. Remember GWB claims his actions are within the confines of U.S. law and he used the judicial as a back up.

It is quite simple. What kind of process will he create that will keep people in jail who otherwise would be released because of tainted evidence?

[merh]

41. Yes Obama advocates that, he said that

But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.

He has said he doesn't know what the process will be yet. He has said that the procedures that are set up will abide by the constitution.

[EFerrari]

32. And what about rendition? Until our government ends its practice

of kidnapping potentially innocent people, the problem of their detention doesn't end, does it? I haven't heard Obama say a word about rendition.

[merh]

30. No, it is you and Greenwald that conveniently leave out the intent

of the process. Obama is very clear.

We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.

[Luminous Animal]

35. I understand...

but he needs to reconcile conflicting statements. The first, in which he claims the need to create a process for the continuing detention of those deemed to dangerous to release but who are at risk of being released due to tainted evidence, and the second, abiding by the Constitution.

These, in my point of view, are not reconcilable.

[merh]

38. His second answer does reconcile the confusion his first

statement seems to cause for those who only read the first. His first statement is describing the dilemma he faces. It is not "we are going to do this", it is "how do we deal with this".

His second statement says we will adhere to the constitution.

[Luminous Animal]

40. No, it does not.

GWB has made the constitutional same claim and he found some lawyers to back him up.

[merh]

42. And GWB's lawyers that made that constitutional claim

were told they were wrong and Obama has said they were wrong. SCOTUS has held that they were wrong.

I'm sure as soon as the procedure is decided he will let you know what it is.

Why are you now arguing for the sake of argument?

[Luminous Animal]

43. I am not.

I sincerely want to know what process he intends to create to keep people in jail who the government will be not be able to successfully prosecute because the evidence is tainted because the defendant was tortured.

Those were his words. I did not read anything into them.


I am old enough to have seen every politician slip and slide around issues. And this torture issue has me horrified. I have friends from around the world that are flabbergasted that we are having an open debate about torture in this country... that there has not been an outrage from U.S. citizens. I honestly did not think that I would live to see the day that torture would become policy and that syndicated columnists and major network pundits openly advocate its efficacy. For an example, see today's opinion in today's San Francisco Chronicle... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/13/EDD4157S50.DTL

In my opinion, if Obama wants to the U.S. to rejoin the rest of the civilized world, then, not only does he need to repudiate torture in words but with deeds. Every Guantanamo prisoner should get his or her day in court and, no matter what the outcome, each of those who can mount a credible defense on the basis that their confessions were coerced through the use of torture, should walk. Any creation of any process that would keep them incarcerated would be extralegal unless our government changes the law.

So, again. What process does Obama intend to create to accommodate the incarceration of those who he deems too dangerous to let free?

[merh]

44. He doesn't know yet, they are trying to figure it out.

Don't you get it, he is not a saint, he is a man with limitations and one of the limitations today is he is not in office.

They won't know what they have until they get into office and each case has to be reviewed on an individual basis.

If you are old enough then one would assume you were mature enough to understand he doesn't have the answers yet. That is what he said in his interview.

The only thing he knows is he will require that the constitution be followed.

Like I said, consider what you would do - where would you put them, how would you handle this.

[Luminous Animal]

45. He may not know the process

but he seems sure of the outcome. That is, keeping people in prison even though the evidence against them is tainted.

As for a solution, back in May of 2007, this looked reasonable to me.

http://www.globalsolutions.org/politics/legislation/110th_congress/senate/s_1469

[merh]

46. yes, the outcome is

he will comply with the constitution.

send your suggestions to obama and holder

Don't try to explain them, they wouldn't take you seriously as you don't take them seriously.

[merh]

48. Here, this is an example of one of the detainees they have to

decide how to deal with, what to do with the man.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3689102

The link you provide doesn't even come close to touching on how to deal with this.

In all honesty, the proposed legislation doesn't even come close to providing a means to solve this, it sets up an incomplete process. What you linked provides the obvious, I would venture to say that is the easy part and a process like that will be adopted. But there is so much more to this.

The dilemma is the man was involved according to what they know, in 9/11. They obtained the evidence by torturing the man. Because of the torture, the man is a broken man now, he has tried to commit suicide.

So what doe the Obama administration do with him?

[Luminous Animal]

51. According to Obama,

if we are to abide by the rule of law, Qahtani should not be prosecuted. The evidence is inadmissible and he should be free to go home.

[merh]

52. Oh, so that is your problem

you don't understand what you read and you have your mind made up.

[Luminous Animal]

53. I do understand what I read.

Perhaps you have trouble getting your point across. What do you think we should do with a prisoner such as Qahtani?

[Fumesucker]

4. From Greenwald's blog...

I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I am the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy. My most recent book, "Great American Hypocrites", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press, and was released in April, 2008, by Random House/Crown.

[merh]

9. And that has what to do with his efforts to distort what was said.

How many times and in how many ways does Obama have to say "We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution" for Greenwald to understand that he is advocating the rule of law and adherence to the constitution?

[KharmaTrain]

6. This Is Yet Another Mess...

I guess people expect that one Day One everything from the past 8 years will vanish and all those who perpetrated crimes will be frog marched into the Hague. While I wish that were the case, the first problem is cleaning up the many messes this regime leaves behind and one that everyone knows is toward the top of the list is Gitmo. But now what? Do we release all of those who are there? Do we bring them to a US facility and try them in our judicial system (and as you point out, this includes evidence that is not just tainted by coerced). Do you send them to a third country and come up with some system that passes the buck to an international tribunal? It's easy to close the doors...and that's important, but then what? An honest question that the new Administration really can't tackle until they have their people in place and start cleaning things up.

I found it very cryptic last weekend when President Obama intimated there were things he and boooshie knew about the intel situation and he said it in what appeared as both a cyincal and disgusting way. I can only imagine what he's been "volunteered" in his daily briefings and meetings and what's left to uncover starting next week.

[merh]

13. It is a mess that GWB leaves for Obama

and it is not something that can be cleaned up in the first week or even the first year.

Imagine buying a house that looks all sparkly and clean, maybe a little dust here and there, you know that you will have to repaper rooms and paint others. Then imagine opening the cabinets and finding droppings and following it to find vermin infestation. Termite damage is discovered in all the woodwork and the foundation appears to be cracked.

That is what is before Obama the only problem is, he can't say tear it down and begin again and he can't just try to find another house. He has to make this one stand and liveable, something we all can be proud of again.

[KharmaTrain]

15. It's Also A Balancing Act...

This seems to be the trickiest part of the job ahead some here aren't considering. You're absolutely correct...he can't tear down the system (or house)...and he's taking possesion of a house that is crumbling in many ways. Before you can fix things, you need to learn the extent of the damage and shore up the foundation. Then you can move forward in fixing what's still messed and only then look at improvements.

As I've said, we can only fathom the messes President Obama is starting to learn about. While we've had our suspicions (and many confirmed), I think it's safe to say that the damages we've witnessed over the past 8 years were far worse than anyone could have anticipated...and also that anyone could really comprehend...until now. And even then, I'm sure the booosh regime will leave a lot of gaping holes where it will not only take lots of investigating but possible litigating to get the answers. Yes, this will be a mess for years to come.

Unlike past Administraions, this one isn't being offered the luxuary of a budget surplus or generally sound economy or peaceful world...the problems that President Obama faces next week are massive...and can't be understated. The problem isn't what to fix...it's where to start.

Cheers...

[merh]

20. It truly is scandal fatigue, that has been their legacy and their protection.

They have abused the system so much, they have committed so many crimes and caused so much damage that the enormity alone makes it almost impossible to comprehend let alone deal with.

Katrina is getting all the news still and the folks in Galveston are shouting "what about Ike".

Obama will be as busy as a one armed wallpaper hanger in a windstorm for the next four years. I don't envy him the job but I do believe he is going to give it his all.

[KoKo]

5. An Excellent Read...here's a little more from the article....

Just as Congressional Democrats have known for the last eight years, Obama will know that there is only a price to pay when he acts contrary to the Republican and Beltway "centrist" agenda, but no price to pay when he acts contrary to the agenda of his most ardent supporters (because they won't criticize him, because to do is to "tear him down," "help Republicans," act like a Naderite purist, etc. etc. etc.). That meek and deferential attitude -- aside from being a wildly inappropriate and even dangerous way to treat a political leader -- also ensures that one is irrelevant and taken for granted and one's views easily ignored.

When Obama does things that warrant praise -- when he appoints someone like Dawn Johnsen as OLC Chief, or defies Beltway demands by going outside of the intelligence community to find his CIA Director -- he should be praised. When he does things that warrant criticism -- such as going on national television to talk about the need for a special process to allow the use of "tainted" evidence against Guantanamo detainees, or when he openly contemplates naming someone as CIA Director who supports rendition and torture, or when he votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- he should be vigorously criticized. When he makes statements without any apparent basis -- such as Sunday's assertion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons -- he ought to be made to account for that claim and show evidence for it. That's just basic accountability for a political official.

Like all politicians, Obama is not intrinsically good. Good things don't happen by virtue of the mere existence of his presidency. His presidency will be good only and exactly to the extent that he does good things. Pressure and criticisms make his doing those good things more likely (there is a quote from FDR, which I cannot find but am certain commenters will quickly cite, where FDR privately instructed his supporters to publicly criticize him for not doing X so that he would be able to do X more easily).

Obama is about to become one of the world's most powerful political leaders, if not the single most powerful. He begins with sky-high approval ratings, his political party in control of Congress by a large margin, and enjoys reverence so intense from certain quarters that such a loyal following hasn't been seen since the imperial glow around George Bush circa 2002. He's not going to crumble or melt away like the Wicked Witch if he's pressured or criticized. The far more substantial danger is that he won't be pressured or criticized enough by those who are eager to see meaningful changes in Washington, and then -- either by desire or necessity -- those are the voices he will ignore most easily.

[Fumesucker]

8. This line in particular bears repeating, so I will....

Just as Congressional Democrats have known for the last eight years, Obama will know that there is only a price to pay when he acts contrary to the Republican and Beltway "centrist" agenda, but no price to pay when he acts contrary to the agenda of his most ardent supporters (because they won't criticize him, because to do is to "tear him down," "help Republicans," act like a Naderite purist, etc. etc. etc.). That meek and deferential attitude -- aside from being a wildly inappropriate and even dangerous way to treat a political leader -- also ensures that one is irrelevant and taken for granted and one's views easily ignored.

[PM Martin]

47. It does.

If Obama does not do the right thing, he will throw away a great opportunity to take America towards the center-left.

[TTUBatfan2008]

12. Why is Greenwald claiming...

that Obama never said he'd close Gitmo up until the breaking news yesterday? I remember Obama saying it countless times during the campaign. That seems really sleazy of Greenwald to make that kind of claim.

[Luminous Animal]

17. He is not making that claim. (n/t)

[TTUBatfan2008]

19. Well what is this line then?

"Not only did Obama advisers quickly leak that Obama planned to do that -- something he made no mention of on ABC or at any time before that -- ..."

[Luminous Animal]

21. Obama has consisently made the claim

that he will close Guantanamo within the first 100 days of his administration. This is the first time that he said that he will issue an executive order on his first full day in office.

[TTUBatfan2008]

23. Ah, OK...

that makes a lot more sense.

[alarimer]

49. Closing Gitmo is simply window dressing.

The CIA will still torture. There will still be extraordinary rendition. We just won't see it. Obama is a fucking politician and every single President before him has condoned illegal acts in the name of national security. The evil shit that has been done BY THIS COUNTRY in our name will still continue. Obama will not change that. He is more of the same old, same old and is, just like every other Democratic politician, too damn cowardly to actually do what is right. Because of the entrenched war-mongers in Congress and the Pentagon. First, fire all the generals. A good house-cleaning at the Pentagon is in order. We need to get rid of all the war-mongering pigs there. Not that Obama will do it. He is a cowardly politician after all who is, from day one, mostly concerned with being re-elected.

Sorry if I am not sharing in the general Obama love-fest. Blind faith in him is going to get a lot of people killed, mark my words.

Let's not forget that the spineless weasels are now in charge. Expect no bold moves from Congress, certainly. THEY are too busy kowtowing to Republicans (whatever for? They have a large majority).

[anonymous171]

50. Marked. nt