Who here watched Obama's speech given in the National Archive? Anybody?
Who here was scared by that speech?
That speech was the biggest load of doublespeak I have ever heard, and that includes those given by the fear-mongering regime that was the Bush administration. In this speech Obama speaks both to the necessity to defend the rules outlined in the Constitution ("the rule of law"). He says that without "these documents," referring to the documents housed in the National Archives including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, among others, our country would not be great.
"Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world. It is the reason that enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government."
That is what this country is about, really. Our values, our rights, our freedoms.
"It's the reason we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the iron curtain of communism [...] Where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that it's values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology."
What a wonderful statement. It was gratifying to finally hear Obama jump in on civil liberties, and I hoped to hear all about the changes coming our way that would begin to restore the rights that the bush regime had whittled away over the course of their tenure in office.
Obama goes on to criticize the Bush regime for their "ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism - one that was neither effective nor sustainable, a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass." Utterly scathing, that.
With those statements, he went on to declare the following points of action that he has taken to rectify these situations:
- Banned the use of torture as an interrogation method. Bravo. This never should have been sanctioned. Cheney would later reply that torture is still a valid method of interrogation, because there is no middle ground in the fight against terrorism. Cheney is beyond senile and should be locked up somewhere.
- Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Sort of. He points out that in over 7 years, Guantanamo Bay managed to convict a whopping 3 prisoners. That was obviously a failure and deserved to be shut down.
- Ordered a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo, because he knew closing Guantanamo Bay. He goes on to further criticize the Bush administration for all the legal challenges his people have to face, because it's all their fault. Commence finger-pointing, and a whole lot of it. It wasn't me, it was him. The finger points so hard, it trembles.
And here is where we start to break down. Barely a breath ago, Obama was preaching the wonders of the Constitution, the strength that our rights lend this country. Then he starts in with "what we are doing [...] I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values we hold dear."
Here's where it gets scary. See if you can spot the subtext in what Obama says right here:
"We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people."
... scary. Couple this statement with the Patriot Act, which allows the government to arrest anybody as long as they think you are a terrorist, and you have a recipe for indefinite, unjust imprionment of anybody. As I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, there is no recourse for people arrested under the Patriot Act - you are denied your rights under the Constitution. And we now have Obama, paragon of Change, telling us that he will not release people suspected of terrorism if they are a threat to national security. What this boils down to, friends and readers, is preemptive arresting. They are going to arrest you for a crime you might commit rather than a crime you did commit; they're going to bypass all that evidence stuff, and they're going to hold you as long as they damn well please without trial, without representation, without rights.
This coming from the same man who not even 10 minutes earlier was espousing the virtues of the Constitution and upholding the rights it grants us.
Think I'm reading too far in between the lines? Well, he goes on:
"Now finally there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo Bay who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."
What exactly does that mean? We cannot prosecute them for crimes that they have committed, why? If they did something wrong, prosecute them. If they didn't, let them go. You cannot, cannot, CANNOT hold people without having committed a crime. That goes against the Constitution, the rule of law, if you will. You cannot, Mr. President, start your speech by talking about how we as a nation must uphold the Constitution then not even a breath later, talk about all the ways you intend on breaching that same document. This is a level of hypocrisy that not even Bush the Second could lay claim to. And it's terrifying.
He is calling it "prolonged detention." It seems so innocent on the surface, those two words. Prolonged. Detention. And yet, what they mean to this country is nothing short of tyranny. To quote, once again, Obama:
"If and when we determine the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and Congressional oversight."
So, we're going to hold individuals to keep them from committing a crime, under the Patriot Act where there is no recourse for those being held, until we deem that they are no longer a threat? Really? So, how long exactly is "prolonged?"
"Right now [...] there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probability ten years from now."
No, he doesn't define exactly what "prolonged" means, but his reasoning for justifying prolonged detentions is the threat of attacks on America. If there is still a threat of an attack on America in a decade, he will be able to justify holding a prisoner until that threat is gone. Could you imagine being held for a decade without a trial, a conviction, or a sentence? Perhaps I might be arrested for writing this contradiction of the President, this criticism of his (ab)use of power. Perhaps you will be arrested for reading it. Perhaps we will be imprisoned for a "prolonged" period of time until they determine that we are no longer a threat to our country. Somebody tell me how this lines up with the Constitution.
And where is this oversight system?
"[...] my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply [...] going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime [...]"
A legal regime? What he's really saying is this: Obama is going to create a system to make illegally jailing United States citizens legal. This is a system that will likely exist beyond the judicial system, which will guarantee it can get away with anything it decides is in the nation's best interest. This is such a step beyond even the radical policies of Bush that it makes my head spin.
And if you'd like to sit there and think that I'm blowing this out of proportion, I invite you to read this story I reported on a couple of weeks ago, where a tenth grade kid was arrested and denied his due process under the Patriot Act. This kid could be in jail for as long as the President damn well sees fit to keep him there. No lawyer, no trial, no nothing.
For years, we have lived under the assumption that we are safe from our government because we are protected by the rights granted us by the Constitution. Well, if Obama gets his way, we are no longer safe from our government. Our government is free to treat us as they wish, because we will have no recourse. Spout as he will his dedication to upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Obama is doing no such thing. Strip away the poetic language, the pats on the back he gives himself and his administration, cut away the talk of change and hope, and you are left with a message as stark and terrifying as anything we heard from the previous administration. A message that is, in fact, more radical and anti-Constitution than any we heard from Bush or Cheney.
In the world Obama lives in, "Change" does not mean changing for the better. "Change" means giving the government unlimited power over its people, it means stripping US citizens of their rights, and it means holding citizens without cause for an indefinite "prolonged" length of time at the government's will.
Obama says, "I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution." We get that you swore an oath, but a mere hundred days into your term, you jump in here with a speech that takes our Constitutional rights and shreds them. How exactly then are you living up to your oath?
We all hoped for change when Obama was elected. I was a very vocal opponent of the man getting elected, as I was for McCain, but after his election, I tried to have hope that perhaps he would change things for the better.
Hope. With this speech, Obama shows us that Hope is, in fact, audacious.
More on this infuriating issue can be found, oddly, on MSNBC. The station is known for being quite liberal-leaning, however, Rachel Maddow gave a scathing review of this speech on her show, and her points are many and valid. Take a look right here.
No comments:
Post a Comment