[Peace-discuss] Re: the rule of law is dead

Thu Jul 9 10:48:31 CDT 2009

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

>  Did the rule of law ever actually exist or was it a delusion that was
> reinforced by mass hallucinations which we were taught in school to believe
> in and espouse?   Have we not be an emulation of Voltaire’s Candid-
> optimistically believing that we live in the best of all possible world
> governed by the rule of law and not man.
>
"Might makes right" is the rule of law, as anyone who reads my article on
the subject comes to understand clearly.  The public i has refused to print
it, and I don't have the connections Carl has to well-known web-based
political forums.

> So this is (another) one of those cases where Obama is embracing a radical
> Bush theory of power rather than inventing one of his own.
>
>
>
> Did Obama ever really have a “theory of power” or even policies of HIS OWN
> as opposed to adopting or stealing others theories and policies which he
> then repackaged in the wrapping of his rhetoric and oratorical skills for
> resale to everyone? From the outset, Obama has only been true to one
> philosophy, one theory of power, and one policy – that of political
> opportunism, of sleight of hand, and of duplicitous hypocrisy.  Of course,
> most practical politicians operate in the same way under the same premises
> where winning and staying in power are the goal and priority with law,
> morality, ethics, fairness and equality being secondary and defined by what
> it takes to win and stay in power.
>
>
>
> Maybe, it is time we recognize that all that has happened over the past 75
> years is that we have shed the course cloak of fictitious  literary idealism
> and ideological symbolism, replacing it with a more technological and
> sophisticated one, so as to reveal that we have become  the very
> imperialistic and arrogant fascism that that we have always been since the
> start. Today’s U.S. has become a giant retailer promoting and selling all
> kinds of low quality, cheap, worthless, and useless goods and services at a
> profit to the established aristocratic owners, who hide behind the corporate
> structure of government and the façade of the alleged ultimate ownership by
> citizen shareholders operating under the guise of democratic rule by law.
>
>
>
> If we get any form of health care reform, it will be because the
> establishment corporate elite want it and will take the form that they will
> accept – general public be damned.  If we get any relief from engagements in
> war making or the support of such activities, it will be because this same
> elite see it in their interests and not because of anything that the general
> public does or says.  If we get economic stability and reform, it will be
> because this elite find it desirable and profitable to obtain it – and not
> because  it helps the general public or is good for the country.  But we all
> know and acknowledge these facts, then we turn a blind eye and start spewing
> out all the old symbolic clichés about democracy, civil rights,
> opportunities of the ordinary citizen, freedom, equality, public welfare,
> national security, free enterprise, progress, etc.
>
>
>
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Ricky Baldwin
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:04 AM
> *To:* astridjb at comcast.net
> *Cc:* peace discuss
> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] Re: the rule of law is dead
>
>
>
> The stuff of nightmares.
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
> --- On *Wed, 7/8/09, Astrid Berkson <astridjb at comcast.net>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Astrid Berkson <astridjb at comcast.net>
> Subject: the rule of law is dead
> To: "lp53forum at lpths.org" <lp53forum at lpths.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 8:39 PM
>  Glenn Greenwald <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/>
>
> Wednesday July 8, 2009 08:09 EDT
>  The Obama justice system
>
>
>
> Spencer Ackerman yesterday attended a Senate hearing at which the DOD's
> General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified.  As Ackerman highlighted<http://washingtonindependent.com/49886/johnson-opens-the-door-to-post-acquittal-detentions>,
> Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama
> administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President
> has the power *to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are
> acquitted at their trial.*  About this assertion of "presidential
> post-acquittal detention power" -- an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque
> concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all
> about the most basic liberties -- Ackerman wrote, with some understatement,
> that it "moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil
> liberties perspective."  Law professor Jonathan Turley was more blunt<http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/08/12598/#more-12598>:  "The
> Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush
> policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention."
>
> In June, Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked by *ABC News*' Jake Tapper
> whether accused Terrorists who were given a trial and *were acquitted*would be released as a result of the acquittal, but Gibbs -- amazingly -- refused
> to make that commitment<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/white-house-refusal-to-answer-question-on-terrorist-prompts-senate-skirmish.html>.
>  But this is the first time an Obama official has affirmatively stated that
> they have the "post-acquittal detention" power (and, to my knowledge,
> the Bush administration never claimed the power to detain someone even if
> they were acquitted).
>
> All of this underscores what has clearly emerged as the core "principle"
> of Obama justice when it comes to accused Terrorists -- namely, "due
> process" is pure window dressing with only one goal:   to ensure that anyone
> the President wants to keep imprisoned will remain in prison.  They'll
> create various procedures to prettify the process, but the outcome is always
> the same -- ongoing detention for as long as the President dictates.   This
> is how I described it<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/>when Obama first unveiled his proposal of preventive detention:
>
> If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he
> described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each
> will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of
> Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll
> give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict.
> For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get
> convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't
> convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway
> with no charges ("preventively detain" them).
>
> After yesterday, we have to add an even more extreme prong to this
> policy:  if by chance we miscalculate and deign to give a trial to a
> detainee who is then acquitted, *we'll still just keep them in prison
> anyway by presidential decree*.  That added step renders my criticism
> of Obama's conception of "justice" even more applicable:
>
> Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that
> you'll get convictions is not due process. Those are called "show trials."
> In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to
> imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The
> process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or
> acquittals).
>
> Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is
> constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is
> determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for
> others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses
> which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped
> "system of justice" is hard to imagine.
>
> In today's *Wall St. Journal*<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html>,
> which also reported that "the Obama administration said Tuesday it could
> continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been
> acquitted of terrorism charges," Rep. Jerry Nadler was quoted as saying
> something quite similar about the Obama approach:
>
> "What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good
> enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the
> evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. *We'll give
> them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're
> guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial,"* Mr. Nadler said.
>
> Exactly.  Show trials are exactly what the Obama administration is
> planning.  In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more
> honest and transparent:  they made no secret of their belief that
> the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all.
> That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate,
> multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes
> exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due
> process being accorded.   And for those who -- to justify what Obama is
> doing -- make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a
> difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new
> detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but
> to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well<http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/i_want_to_draw_attention.php>
> ?
>
> Whatever else is true, even talking about imprisoning people based on
> accusations of which *they have been exonerated* is a truly grotesque
> perversion of everything that our justice system and Constitution are
> supposed to guarantee.  That's one of those propositions that ought to be
> too self-evident to need stating.
>
> * * * * *
>
> Several related points:  Spencer also notes<http://washingtonindependent.com/49958/guantanamo-open-after-january-2010>that Johnson testified yesterday about the possibility that Guantanamo might
> remain open beyond January, 2010 -- the date Obama, to much fanfare,
> established as the deadline for closing that prison.  That decision is one
> of the very few to which Obama defenders can cling in order to claim there
> are significant differences between his approach to these issues and the
> Bush/Cheney approach.
>
> Meanwhile, former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed is engaged in what *The
> Guardian* calls<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/05/binyam-mohamed-guantanamo-evidence-photographs>"an urgent legal attempt to prevent the US courts from destroying crucial
> evidence that he says proves he was abused while being held at the detention
> camp detainee."  The photographs -- which show Mohamed after he had been
> severely beaten and which he claims was posted on the door to his cage
> "because he had been beaten so badly that it was difficult for the guards to
> identify him" -- is scheduled to be destroyed by the U.S. Government, an act
> *The Washington Independent*'s Alexandra Jaffe calls<http://washingtonindependent.com/49932/alleged-torture-photos-slated-for-destruction> "another
> black mark on the Obama administration’s promised transparency."
>
> Finally, I was on an NPR station yesterday in Seattle to discuss NPR's ban
> on the use of the word "torture" to describe Bush administration
> interrogation tactics.  I originally understood that I would be on with
> NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard, but alas, it turns out that she agreed only to
> be on the show *before* me, so as not to engage or otherwise interact with
> me, so I was forced to listen to her for 15 minutes and wait until she hung
> up before being able to speak.  The segment can be heard here<http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17910>,
> beginning at the 14:00 mark (though the quality of the recording is poor in
> places).
>
> The most noteworthy point was her explicit statement (at 17:50) that "the
> role of a news organization is to lay out the debate"; rarely is the
> stenographic model of "journalism" -- "we just repeat what each side says
> and leave it at that" -- so expressly advocated (and see Jon Stewart's
> perfect mockery<http://mglo.posterous.com/re-balance-in-the-press-glenn-greenwald-salon>of that view).  She also said -- when the host asked about the recent
> example I cited<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106233270>of NPR's calling what was done to a reporter in Gambia "torture" (at the
> 20:20 mark) -- that NPR will use the word "torture" to describe what *
> other* governments do because *they* do it merely to sadistically inflict
> pain on people while the U.S. did it for a noble reason:  to obtain
> information about Terrorist attacks.  That's really what she said:  that
> when the U.S. did it (as opposed to Evil countries), it was for a good
> reason.  Leaving aside the factual falsity of her claim<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html>about American motives, Shepard actually thinks that "torture" is determined
> by the motive with which the suffering is inflicted.  The connection between
> the Government's ability to get away with these things and the media's
> warped view of its role really cannot be overstated.
>
>  *UPDATE*: The ACLU's Ben Wizner emails to correct one point I made:
> the Bush administration, like Obama is doing now, *did* claim the power of
> post-acquittal detentions.  Ben writes:
>
> Glenn – You’re right that this is disgraceful, but not that it’s new. The
> Bush gang claimed the same authority in connection with Gitmo military
> commissions, which is why, paradoxically, the only way to get out of Gitmo
> if you were charged in a military commission was to plead guilty and strike
> a deal that included repatriation (as David Hicks did).
>
> This is from an *LA Times* op-ed I wrote<http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/05/opinion/oe-wizner5>in 4/07:
>
> Last Friday night, after a jury of senior military officers sentenced Hicks
> to seven years in prison, we all learned the details of that agreement:
> Hicks will serve a mere nine months -- a sentence more in keeping with a
> misdemeanor than with a grave terrorist offense.
>
> This stunning turn of events highlights a cruelly ironic feature of
> detention at Guantanamo. In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be
> acquitted to be released.  *In Guantanamo, the accused must plead guilty
> to be released -- because even if he is acquitted, he remains an "enemy
> combatant" subject to indefinite detention.* Only by striking a deal does
> a detainee stand a chance of getting out.
>
>  So this is (another) one of those cases where Obama is embracing a
> radical Bush theory of power rather than inventing one of his own.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090709/97ba5f78/attachment.html