Saturday, January 24, 2009

So Much For...

Transparency-
Mr Obama has pledged to end the culture wars on social issues that have riven American politics for a generation and did not allow television cameras to film him signing the executive order reversing the Bush abortion funding ban on aid agencies abroad, in order not to provoke pro-life groups.


Bipartisanship-

He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."



National Security-

Republicans are also criticizing Mr Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp with no plan for the detainees still incarcerated there and for forcing the CIA to follow stricter rules on interrogations. The revelation last week that 60 former inmates have returned to terrorism - and that one is now deputy leader of al Qaeda's Yemeni branch - was unfortunate timing for the President.


Ethics-

Having announced new ethics rules banning lobbyists serving in his administration, the president was immediately forced to make an exception for his deputy defense secretary William Lynn, who has lobbied for the defense industry giant Raytheon.




So, is he going to break all of his campaign promises? Or is he going to keep the ones that will cause irreparable harm to our way of life? I have a feeling it's going to be a rough four years.

12 comments:

Becky Sue said...

do you think his voters are prepared for what they asked for?
Ugh.

Rachel said...

As for not provoking pro life (not anti-abortion)advocates it is not working...but you would never know it. Just take a look at the March for Life that happened last eweek at the capitol. over 10 thousand people and no media coverage and page 12 in the L.A. TIMES. So much for that promise of a bi-partisan president. But really we didn't expect one did we?

Chris Johnson said...

Taking the steps toward shutting down Guantanamo is a positive step as is eliminating the use of systemic torture. Also, that number of "60 former inmates" has been refuted.

From a January 13 press conference at the Pentagon, it is stated that only 18 of these individuals have been confirmed. Transcript here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4340

There was also a study done by a professor at Seton Hall examining the Pentagon's claims of former detainees returning to the battlefield. This study finds that these numbers are not specific, do not indicate the names, dates, places or any conduct by released detainees. This study can be found here:

http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/propaganda_numbers_11509.pdf

Jenny said...

Oh, only 18 terrorists now planning to attack Americans with the goal of destroying our country? Let's hope that the number is even smaller with the *dangerous* ones they kept.

Chris Johnson said...

Jenny,

The point is that while the government is claiming that 61 former detainees have "returned to the battlefield", they themselves can only confirm 18.

Also, according to the study found at the second link I posted, the Defense Department has put forth different sets of numbers that are contradictory at different periods of time.

A system which promotes indefinite detention without charge is not an adequate system of justice.

Jenny said...

Chris, these aren't people that were just sitting at home having dinner with their families when the big bad Americans broke in and kidnapped them and stuck them in Gitmo. They are people that were engaged in terrorist acts against the US. I'm ok with locking up people that participated in terrorist acts, whether they pulled the trigger or not. If you don't want to be called a terrorist, then don't hang out with other terrorists.

Chris Johnson said...

Jenny,
Then if they are guilty of these actions, shouldn't they be charged? Just like any other situation shouldn't the government have to proove that these people were not just sitting at home having dinner? If they are not charged then where is the proof?

Just because the government claims that someone is guilty of "X" doesn't mean that the person is guilty of "X". This holds true even for terrorism. If they are guilty of crimes against America then I am all for punishing them, but just like the serial killer can have his day in court, so too should the terrorist.

Jenny said...

If you can give me one example of a Gitmo detainee that was picked up while minding his own business, and is in no way connected with terrorists, I will revisit my conviction that these people should not be allowed trials where the possibility of manipulating the legal system and getting off on a technicality exists. Until then, we're going to have to disagree that the detainees *deserve* fair trials in the US.

Chris Johnson said...

Even though you are the one that is claiming that all of these people are terrorists (which indicates that the burden of proof is on you, or the government in this case), Here is one of the many that have been released

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402511.html

Jenny said...

I have not claimed that all of the detainees are terrorists. Some may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which is why one should take pains to stay out of the wrong places, especially at the wrong times. Much (if not most) of the information about the arrests of these people is classified, so I have to trust that our military is doing their best to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. I sincerely hope that I never have cause to say, "I told you so," in the scenario that a tried and released Gitmo detainee participates in an attack on the US. I happen to think that it's better to keep two men in jail for the crimes of one in order to protect America than to let both go and threaten the safety of our country.

And for what it's worth, the burden of truth is on the person that contests the articles written by an author on said author's own personal site.

Lauren said...

Jenny, I hope one of your close relatives is in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and sits in jail for years for a crime they didn't commit. I would LOVE to see how you feel about it then. The people that have been wrongfully are HUMAN BEINGS, just like your family and friends, and YOU. You people who think every non-American is a threat to the U.S. need to step outside of your box and learn about the concept of DUE PROCESS.

Jenny said...

Lauren, I don't believe that wishing ill on myself or my loved ones is a valid argument. I think I've made it pretty clear that I base my beliefs on facts, not emotions.

I have no idea why you think that I think that every non-American is a threat to national security. Could you please point out where I said that? I would be willing to bet, however, that every non-American closely associated with terrorists is a threat to our nation, and no, I do not believe that they should reserve the same rights and privileges as Americans.