A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority

Saturday, June 26, 2010


But even if it required legislation, Obama & Democrats would love for their supporters to believe it's all the Republicans' fault.



The fact of the matter is that Democrats don't need Republicans for passing anything. Democrats enjoy a greater majority in both houses of Congress than either party has in decades. Even without 60. But Obama doesn't need 60 to pass legislation. He doesn't need Republicans to pass legislation.



All Democrats need: 50 + Biden



But they won't do that.



Democrats also won't exercise the discretion that Rule 22 allows: Making Republicans actually filibuster, instead of just threatening to do it.



Rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader the discretion to actually make the call. Filibustering is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. HarryReid should them do it, over every issue where they threaten to do it -- Americans love reality TV. 'Survivor - Washington, DC'.



But Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land & do good for the People. And that's not what Obama&Company are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnational corporations, and preventing that are the liberals.



So Obama reaches out for Republicans, watering down the legislation that they won't vote for. Because everything that the parties do, both parties, is for the next election campaign.



Democrats could even change the supermajority rule, do it by SIMPLE majority (50 + 1)
About Guantánamo Bay
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. One of Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- & then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court.



The Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone & ship them to Guantanamo, then that person has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged.



One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when Obama lawyers told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of Bush’s legal team.



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/bagram/index.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


Obama has a nasty habit of conceding that which isn't his to concede. Obama cuts secret deals, out of oversight of the American people (Congress). I've yet to find one issue on which Obama shares the values or beliefs of Democratic voters' interest groups. Not environmentally, not on foreign policy, not domestically, not on healthcare, jobs, nothing -- Obama is a DINO. So for him to be negotiating on behalf of all of these different interest groups is something of a stacked deck. It would be like you playing against yourself in a game of checkers. That's not how fair negotiations take place, or how lasting contracts that all can and do abide by happen.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


"If you're someone who believes, or are at least willing to acquiesce to the claim, that the U.S. President has the power to target your fellow citizens for a$$assination without a whiff of due process, what unchecked presidential powers wouldn't you support or acquiesce to? I'd really like to hear an answer to that. That's the question Al G0re asked about GeorgeBush in a 2006 speech condemning Bush's claimed powers merely to eavesdrop on and imprison American citizens without charges, let alone a$$assinate them: "If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? . . . If the president has th[is] inherent authority. . . . then what can't he do?" Can anyone defending this Obama policy answer that question?"



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


"If you're someone who believes, or are at least willing to acquiesce to the claim, that the U.S. President has the power to target your fellow citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process, what unchecked presidential powers wouldn't you support or acquiesce to? I'd really like to hear an answer to that. That's the question Al Gore asked about George Bush in a 2006 speech condemning Bush's claimed powers merely to eavesdrop on and imprison American citizens without charges, let alone assassinate them: "If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? . . . If the president has th[is] inherent authority. . . . then what can't he do?" Can anyone defending this Obama policy answer that question?"



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


A growing part of the Obama legacy:



When the history of the Bush era is written, the obvious question will be: what was done about the systematic war crimes, torture regime, chronic lawbreaking, and even human experimentation which that administration perpetrated on the world? And the answer is now just as obvious: nothing, because the subsequent President -- Barack Obama -- decreed that We Must Look Forward, Not Backward, and then engaged in extreme measures to carry out that imperial, Orwellian dictate by shielding those crimes from investigation, review, adjudication and accountability.



All of that would be bad enough if his generous immunity were being applied across the board. But it isn't. Numerous incidents now demonstrate that as high-level Bush lawbreakers are vested with presidential immunity, low-level whistle blowers who exposed serious wrongdoing and allowed citizens some minimal glimpse into what our government does are being persecuted by the Obama administration with a vengeance.



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/08/legacy/index.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Closing Guantanamo Bay Fades As A Priority


The reason for having a prison offshore (and Obama not only has Gitmo, but he expanded Baghram, too), is to be able to deny detainees rights, including torture. Yes, it's still going on. Along with murder. No judicial oversight.



This administration is a continuation of the criminal Bush administration.



How many Americans are targeted for assassination?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html



Pure Kafka-

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/29/kafka/index.html
About Guantánamo Bay
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP