Legalized assassination, drones, a secret prison known as the black jail, practices known as torture loopholes such as Appendix M, and now Obama has won, he needn’t apply Habeas Corpus at Bagram. As Glen Greenwald writes,
“… in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.”
Well, since that doesn’t apply to Bragram…it’s Bush all over again, but it’s not; because progressives like Obama, and Obama does a lot of things we like, progressives want to protect Obama, so progressives are largely, and in essence, protecting Obama abuses, many are; far, far more than would tolerate this from Bush, and since the right is surely not going to oppose such practices we have a real problem here, we are faced with a mirror, we have to look at ourselves and ask ourselves just how much we really do value the Constitutional principles we claim to value? The principles of due process of law, of the accused being charged, principles such as these, principles we began learning about in elementary school.
Are our school books going to ultimately be changed? Are we going to one day stop teaching our children about these principles? Are they becoming an archaic thing of the past? Only we can preserve them, it is our outspokenness which claims our value of them, our silence depicts a society which has abandoned these principles in favor of a political figure, if we desire to preserve these principles we must speak up about them regardless of the political risk for this is a government of, by, and for the people, it is up to us, we the people, to claim them as a strongly held value!
Greenwald goes on to write about moves the Obama administration took last February which shocked civil libertarians but which seemed to pass by without serious opposition from many progressives, some have objected, but it’s not enough, it hasn’t been enough push back to stem the flow. Greenwald writes:
‘One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, 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 former President Bush’s legal team.” ‘
If we do not object now, what is our defense should another Bush get into office? If we qualify Obama, how can we object should someone like Cheney get elected to office? We have to object NOW!
The intrigue goes on as Greenwald offers yet another extremely valid observation,
“One other point: this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be. If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General’s office that argued the administration’s position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed. More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama’s executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat. Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?”
We have to be paying attention, to look away now is to look away while a train is headed for the American Experiment.
Please read Greenwald’s entire article: