If you do something and I criticize you for it, and yet you get away with it, you have no business accusing me of hypocrisy for doing the same thing.
Exactly: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html
It seems that when push comes to shove, he’s only paying lip service to change.
It’s not that his policies are a bad thing. It’s just that he seems to feel the need to couch everything in “This is so much different than Bush”, and that just wears a little thin.
I’m pleased at the symbolic gesture, and will await developments regarding implementation.
The very term “enemy combatant” presupposes guilt. While this may be appropriate, even insufficient, for some detainees, it is arguably not an accurate descriptor of others. If we are going to resolve these outrageous detentions by trial or some other lawful means, I think we are morally obligated to call those persons “accused” or some other neutral epithet.
The reality is that some of these persons probably were e-e-e-vul, while others were such innocent babes that buttercups wouldn’t melt in their mouths. The Bush administration really screwed the pooch by ensuring that, for most of them, we probably will not be able to prove the difference in a court of law.
The Obama administration has to somehow navigate this quagmire and walk a fine line. On the one hand we cannot just let them all go, even if tainted evidence strongly suggests they are actually bad actors. At the same time, we can’t just keep arguably innocent people prisoner, even though their incarceration is almost certain to have made them enemies now, if they were not before.
While ways to accomplish these conflicting goals are explored, I’ll take that symbolic re-naming as a worthwhile gesture.
So, how does the new designation of the detainees hang with the rest of the executive order?
Sections I think are relevant quoted below. I bolded sections that I think might show quite a departure from Bush’s policy.
The Supreme Court had already said this. If Bush were in his third term right now, he’d be doing this as well.
This is also exactly what Bush claimed. If this satisfies you, it can only be on the basis of, “I believe Obama will do this in the future, and I didn’t believe Bush when he said it.”
Again - how is this different from the Bush approach?
I have little doubt that many people will jump on a previous sentence of mine: “I believe Obama will do this in the future, and I didn’t believe Bush when he said it,” and think (or even respond) with some version of, “Well, YEAH!”
But if your only reason for applause here is that you trust Obama to handle this better in the future, you still haven’t answered my basic question: why, if that’s his plan, didn’t he take an obvious and necessary step towards it now, instead of reaffirming the basic Bush premise?
“I trust Obama and I didn’t trust Bush.” That’s fine – but I hope you see it’s not a factual argument.
Do you know this or is it speculation? (I don’t mean this to be snarky–the rationale I gave is pure speculation on my part and could easily be wrong. I have no idea what your political knowledge is.) If Obama repudiates the authority for keeping the detainees then I don’t see how he could continue to hold them unless some other excuse is given.
…
I’m a Republican who voted for McCain but I’m willing to concede that complex international matters cannot always be confronted in the forthright manner I would like to see. It’s perfectly reasonable to hold Obama’s feed to the fire on this issue (as Bricker is doing) while acknowledging that Obama may be doing all he can in this situation.
By removing the people to different prisons he’s closed Gitmo down and and that’s different somehow so it’s a change. And by refusing to call them enemy combatants they cease to exist so problem solved. Maybe he can assign a symbol to them like Prince did which means “formerly referred to as enemy combatant”. If that’s too confusing how about referring to them as “Changlings” in honor of the President. The positive side of this is that we now have high quality photos of them so they’ll show up better on the next deck of playing cards.
I think that Obama knows it would be difficult to effect drastic change too soon and too fast. Because he has credibility with me, I trust that this will simply be the first step into granting these people the human rights that they deserve. This is the kind of thing an honest and non-reactionary politican can and will do. At each step, he will institute policy changes that are small but in retrospect, the sum of all his changes will have amounted to something huge
So true. You see, GWB is stupid for mispronouncing words but Obama using teleprompters all the time is A-OK. I’m getting used to the unique logic that the Messiah has laid on us like manna.
Explain.
Obama agreed they had the right to habeas. Bush fought tooth and nail for years to try and deny the detainees that. Big difference.
Bush said a lot of things. His actions spoke a ton louder. In no way, shape or form was Bush’s policies and actions reflect a “prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals.” The fact of the matter is that the system he had put in place, and the way he used the system, were both seriously flawed. In the 6 plus years since the War on Terror, how many Guantanamo detainees have been tried? A big fat none of them. All Bush did was detain people, release some of them after a while, and then wait for the next President to clean up his mess.
Bush didn’t try a single one. Many of the other countries we released prisoners from Guantanamo to, found the time to try them. But we didn’t. How very odd.
He has. Did you honestly expect him to get a new system, go through all the information on all the detainees, decide where, how, and on what charges to try them, all within a couple months? After Bush had 6 years to do so?
Talk about shifting standards.
What Bush and Obama have in common is the problem: what to do with the people detained in the War on Terror. They will have to determine who is properly detained, who isn’t, who can be charged, who can’t, where they should be tried, if at all, and all the rest. And in all the time Bush had, all he did was establish shoddy CSRTs and … well, that’s about it. And now, now you’re wondering why Obama, in his 2 months, hasn’t solved all these problems.
Sometimes, I just gotta shake my head.
Do you really think this will make a practical difference? That’s not an incredulous ‘really’, by the way. I have no idea how much support Bush’s policies have in Congress these days or who will cave or how badly.
Me, too.
I’m shaking my head because I’ve said several times now that I’m not expecting him to solve all those problems. Did you read where I said that?
It’s the entire premise of the thread. “But in terms of actual… you know… stuff, it seems to me not so hugely different than Bush’s approach.” You’re pretending that there is no difference between 2 months under Obama and 6+ years under Bush. You, and the other typical cheerleaders, insist on pretending that it is fair to judge the two presidencies at this point. It’s not. On one hand, you have a President who fought almost every single step of offering due process to the detainees; who didn’t try a single one, whose biggest contribution was delay and delay and delay, and whose system for determining the propriety of their detention left a great deal to be desired. On the other, you have a new President just getting up to speed on the classified information about the detainees. And you have the audacity (or more properly the partisan blinders) to pretend they are comparable.
The similarities between the two are that they have to deal with the same issue, and agree on certain basic things (Presidential power to detain non-citizens). But, beyond that, you’re doing nothing of substance and only trying to score politicial points. What a surprise.
I’m going to go with those saying essentially it’s too early too tell…and it’s premature to decide at this point (less than 3 months into Obama’s presidency) how this will play out. While it’s true that Obama is seemingly reserving the right of the President to ‘detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges’, that doesn’t necessarily mean he WILL do that…it simply means he reserves the right to do so in the future if the circumstances warrant it. IOW, Obama is keeping his options open.
I’m willing to take a wait and see approach on this one. It’s a touchy subject and pretty much a mine field for Obama. On the one hand if he just waves his magic presidential wand and simply frees all the prisoners this could potentially turn around and bite him squarely on the ass…and would royally piss off the Republican’s. Of course, on the other hand, if he holds the prisoners indefinitely this could…well, piss off the Republican’s who will gleefully point out that he is going against his promise of change. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, and probably by folks on both sides no matter what he does.
It’s a mine field problem and one I’m surprised (and pleased) he is actually trying to at least take a shot at this early in his presidency and with as much as he has on his plate already. He’s already thrown out the bogus ‘enemy combatant’ thingy after all, so we have move that far already. That he is keeping his options open on holding suspected terrorists is, to me, probably a good thing at this point. Let’s see what he actually DOES however. If, say, 3 years from now he is STILL holding these folks…well, that will be another kettle of fish…
-XT
Obama has departed from Bush’s War on Terror tactics in a number of areas. Their actions and filings in the Al-Marri case are one concrete example. And one need only read the latest reports of the torturing detainees under Bush to breath a sigh of relief that Obama is in office instead of Bush.
But let’s examine this particular claim of sameness. Bricker argues that Obama is claiming the same detention power as Bush. Bricker, can you cite for me the part of the DOJ’s submission that claims a power to detain indefinitely? Or were you being hyperbolic in your thread title? My reading of the filing is that the Obama Administration claims some not-yet-wholly-defined power to detain under the AUMF and that they are undergoing a complete review to determine the extent and nature of that detention power. Did he disclaim any power to detain non-citizens during the campaign? Can you provide us the quote?
I also note that Obama changed the standard for when someone can be detained from “supported” to “substantially supported.” This prevents the detaining of people who unwittingly or indirectly supported the Taliban. That seems like a step in the right direction. Why do you think that is mere symbolism?
Or it could be based on the rational observation that George Bush consistently lied throughout the eight years of his Presidency. It reached the point where you had to be a partisan in order to trust Bush. I personally give every President the benefit of the doubt when they assume office and they have to earn my distrust. Bush did that. If Barack Obama starts showing that he plans on lying on a regular basis, he’ll lose my trust as well.
There really isn’t any point to arguing this, is there? You’ll just dismiss everything anyone says against it, just like you did in the signing statement thread.
Given that Obama has been voicing criticism of Bush’s policies re: Guantanamo loudly for at least three years now, probably longer, doesn’t it seem that at some point he should have given thought to the question of what he would do if he was in charge?
AFAIK there have been no substantive changes to the underlying legal or security situations in the last year. In all that time, they’ve been unable to come up with any better policy – and yet kept on hammering Bush for it.
And just FTR: at what point will it be fair to criticize Obama for failing to change policies he campaigned against since Iowa? 6 months? A year? Four?
One can assert that it is a bad idea to indefinitely hold and torture a bunch of people who may or may not be loosely related to Al Qaeda and the Taliban solely on the President’s say-so without having planned out the details for each individual detainee.
What Obama has done is set a deadline for closing Guantanamo, issued a new executive order to prevent the torture Bush allowed, tightened the definition of who can be detained, and begun charging those who can be charged. Those are significant and real steps. What more should he have planned without access to the specific evidence against individuals?