With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the ‘nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now—before he drags us further into the abyss.
I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.
Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what Orwell called “thoughtcrime”—contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.
Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
“Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”
“Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.
Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.
What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama Administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?
The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”
In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime—an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime—in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.
It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
42 Comments.
Well said. Someday Americans will realize that Democrats and Republicans still have the same fundamental responsibility to defend American capital and protect our global "interests" in equal measure. Democratic presidents have a long history of not just warmongering, but anything else necessary to preserve the status quo of a hegemonic capitalist quasi-republic. What fools the cult were to expect anything different from the first black one.
No, he should conform to the oath of office he took back in January and set things right. He won't resign and we're stuck with him for the rest of his term, at least. The honeymoon is over and so-called progressives need to stop fawning and start applying pressure to force him to govern as the person he presented himself in the campaign. Moveon.org would be an excellent place to start.
I would say that I agree, but I don't know if I can do preventive detention.
This was always the article Ted was going to write, no matter what. The fact is, Ted referred to Obama as "Obama Schlobama" during the primaries – indicating that Obama had no chance against the Clinton machine. Ted was wrong. He never admitted as much, but it's clear that his attacks on Obama are tied to his bitterness at being so wrong.
It's ironic really. Ted criticizes pundits like Bill Kristol for being wrong, but Ted can't admit he's wrong too. He can only attack.
perfect president for this country.
Bread and Circus
Television and Votes
It's all a sham.
Preventive Detention for the "Teabaggers"?? Hmmmm…
You voted for Obama?? Mr. Rall, I thought you were smart enough to not get swindled!
Anon 10:37,
So if Ted admits he was wrong about the primaries, will Obama rescind the un-American policy of preventative detention? Withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Shut down the domestic spying programs? Do we have a deal here?
I agree completely. Up here in Canada, when it became clear the torture had been legally codified by Bush, I took an oath never to enter the U.S. until that was changed. My wife left behind on a couple of trips.
And now I have renewed that vow.
Good on you, Ted for consistency.
This is a worse than useless suggestion – reminiscent of the Japanese approach to corporate crime (scapegoat/sacrificial lamb) or all the moronic libertarians who think the Fed should be a surrogate for the ills of capitalism – and again, no corporations in the US are going to fold, no one is going to wrap up the Israel lobby, etc.; need I go on? Nope, the only people we feel empowered to rag on are the ones in the 2-party duopoly.
Why isn't Ted outside CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. all the time saying RESIGN to them? They gave us this situation far more than Barack Obama ever even dreamed of doing.
We are governed by corporations and lobbies and only incidentally by the state. What the newly-elected president is doing is a symptom, not a cause. And blanket attacks like this serve no purpose – they're not "pressure," they're a declaration that no matter what, you're not going to support anything, so you can be safely ignored.
It also ignores the tremendous inertia in a nation of 300+ million people governed by a 225-year-old system that's up against 20th and 21st century technology and 100 years of accumulated private wealth and elite power.
It's Ted BUYING the hype, not exploding it. I didn't buy the hype positively when I voted for the lesser of two evils and I don't buy it negatively now.
Anyone who agrees with Ted but wants to actually do something should contact the international human rights groups and urge them to bring pressure on the United States – and at least now, you won't go on some no-fly list for doing that (or for being a vegan, or supporting PETA, or being in a peace group). They should also be supported with time and money, now more than ever.
One of the key things I've always agreed with Ted Rall about is that people should not volunteer or contribute to replace proper government social spending as long as they're still being taxed, because that's a sucker's game. But human rights work will never be done by a state anyway; it's volunteerism and charity or it doesn't exist.
Anon. 10:37: How exactly is Ted Rall wrong?
You said it right Ted, just maybe without the "military":
"Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship"
what else is there to analyze?
An analogy from New South Wales, Australia. Recently some rival bikers had a punch-up at Sydney airport, and one bloke died after being hit in the head with one of those pedestrian traffic-tape bollards.
Oh shit, I thought, here comes some new Draconian legislation, and there is not a hope in hell of avoiding it. Sure enough, the resultant rushed laws attack freedom of association, freedom of employment, the independence of the judiciary, the right to an open trial before a jury of your peers, the right to know and answer evidence against you. No terrists in sight.
I hate to call this as I see it, but I suspect the feminisation of spciety has a lot to do with it. The Nazis ran hard on "law and order" and public safety, and for all their seeming macho iconography attracted more female voters than male.
Mr. Rall: retire now.
Anonymous 5/27/09 10:37 AM – Obama technically didn't win the primaries. Somewhere down the memory hole is the fact that Hillary won the popular vote (albeit by a slim margin, but a simple majority is a simple majority) and the only reason that Obama became the nominee was because the game was rigged. He was limping towards the finish line and had to be pushed to make it across.
Of course, I've no doubt that someone will tell me that it is irrelevant how Obama won…I suspect these are the same people who told me it was irrelevant how Bush won too.
Ted, save your anger for when Jimmy Carter the Second [i]really[/i] screws up in a year or two.
Marion Delgado,
You are apparently writing in English, however your words do not express any coherent thoughts. Get some help, dude.
Seth Warren:
Except, of course, that the primaries are decided by the delegates, not the popular vote; and Obama clearly won the delegates.
You don't like the system, try and change it, but to claim that Obama didn't win just makes you look like a whiny child.
And no, it's not the same as the 2000 election: It's already been proven that if the Supreme Court had not unconstitutionally stepped in, Gore would've gotten Florida's electoral vote.
If you've got evidence that some sort of outside interference kept Hillary from winning enough DELEGATES to get the nomination, I expect to see it.
Otherwise I expect you to shut the hell up, learn how the system works, and get over it.
Thanks for this piece, Ted. We are a captive nation!
Marion Delgado,
You are apparently writing in English, however your words do not express any coherent thoughts. Get some help, dude.
Maybe he's trying out for a Maximumrocknroll gig. Sorry, Ted.
Anonymous 5/28/09 12:39 PM–
The only thing you can expect from me is to be disappointed, as I already know how the system "works," have no intention of shutting the hell up, and will certainly not "get over it." If anyone is looking like a whiny child right now, it is you.
If the popular vote doesn't matter why have primaries in the first place? Is it some sort of charade to make it so the sheep think they have some say in who gets picked? That's a rhetorical question – don't bother answering. In any case, I am working to change the system as much as any prole who lacks the money to buy influence in a political party can.
Obama only won more delegates because they were handed to him by the DNC's Ruling Board Committee. In light of the Florida/Michigan fiasco, delegates were capriciously reassigned to different candidates with no regards for actual vote tallies (and before you whine about how Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan allow me to point out that there was no provision from the DNC stating that he had to remove his name, he and all other candidates were merely forbidden from campaigning in the states).
You wanted evidence, I've given you a stepping stone. You can do more research on your own, if you feel so inclined. Otherwise, I suggest you quit trying to insult me as you are not particularly good at it and you lack the testicular fortitude to attach your verbiage to some sort of tangible identity.
STEP AWAY FROM THE COOKIE JAR!
As usual, you messed up the last sentence, which SHOULD read "Still, Obama remains the best of the two choices we had that were electable."
Marion Delgado speaks truth to power and is one of the few here who seems able to see beyond the standardized, media-spoonfed, left/right viewpoints we get on any given issue. The trouble is not that Delgado is writing in English, but that others are reading him in American…
I didn't buy into the hype when I voted for a third party candidate.
I know some of you will say that it was dumb to do so…
"Can you imagine what it would like if John McCain were president!?" And my response, "Well, I have a feeling it would look a hell of a lot like it does right now, except everyone here would have been pissed off before now and the talking heads on the left would have been up in arms from the get go.
Third parties need more support next time around. How many times is it going to take for us to be duped until something happens.
Sadly, I think it will be too late.
Did you know that Ralph Nader is continuing to fight for single payer health insurance.
You can help too at http://www.singlepayeraction.org/
Seth Warren-
So, basically, you have zero evidence that anything untoward/illegal/unconstitutional kept Hillary from getting the proper amount of delegates (especially since even if every single Michigan and Florida delegate went to her she still wouldn't have had enough to win in the end), and instead remain in fantasyland.
Bout what I expected.
Your argument is utter nonsense, as Michigan and Florida were clearly warned what would happen to them if they chose to move their primary, and did so anyway with full knowledge of the consequences. As far as I'm concerned delegates from those states shouldn't have been counted at all, and Hillary should kiss the ring of the DNC chair for getting as many as she did, especially in light of her going back on her promise not to run in those states.
As for my identity, your fantasy based arguments are not worth the effort it would take to jump through Google's hoops in order to post on this blog.
Perhaps someday, if you can put forward a reasoned, grown-up argument supported by actual facts, you might be worth enough of my time for me to deal with said Google hoops and link my identity here.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, however. Enjoy living in fantasyland.
Good piece – thanks for sharing!
"Ted, save your anger for when Jimmy Carter the Second [i]really[/i] screws up in a year or two."
James Carter did more for America than Bush I II or Clinton.
I remember that after Vietnam, the National Liberation movements were very strong, yet they led to widespread abuses, only exceeded by the horrors commited by the facist puppets we previously supported.
Carter changed ALL that. Human Rights became an American Idea and Ideal.
That's what won the cold war for us.
Are you nuts? Geez. Did he promise to meet all of your needs on demands at once? He's done more in 4 months than Bush and Clinton did in all of their terms. And there is more to come. Not only does he have to clean up the big pile of doodoo left by W's fellow torturers, he is also trying to rebuild and add to infrastructure. All of the rightwingnuttery comments are now provided another platform to pass on their ignorance and desire to rant and rave into the ether instead of getting off their butts and creating something positive. I have been a big fan until now. O has to be held accountable like any other politician, especially the prez. He is being strategic about the timing of his battles. Get a grip. And quit your damn whining. I'm as liberal as you can get. But it's time for screeching liberals stop acting like the rightwing fringe and grow up.
Glad to see that the kool-aid is also out of someone else's system. I am ashamed that Obama the Buffoon was actually elected and that many people like me helped him. All we have is a Liar-in-Chief who says one things and does another. Such beautiful speeches to hide his ugly actions. From Sotomayor being a racist (doesn't matter that she is puerto rican) to him dismissing the polling intimidation because it was Black Panthers doing it. Wrong is Wrong regardless of the color or person doing it. He was suppose to be above the fray and the media assured us that Wright and Ayers weren't an issue. What a crock. He is destroying us and we sit back like sheep, waiting for the slaughter.
Marion Delgado wrote:
"What the newly elected president is doing is a symptom, not a cause"
___________________________________
Ted,
I agree with Marion 100%. The real
problem lies in the policies.
Changing presidents will affect nothing. Anyone to get elected has
to follow the policies and lie the
same lies.
For any REAL change, the ruling class has to change the policies.
Great column! I was not an Obama supporter at all (Ron Paul), although I endorsed many of the issues that Obama promised he'd deliver if elected.
So although I have not the "right" that Ted Rall might have with his rant against the man, I cheer Rall on with much enthusiasm. I mean if this country's going to have a liberal for a president, he at least should not be a lying liberal.
Tomsbartoo
Kudos to you, sir. You're an honest thinker and you get what is going on. The fear of not being re-elected is what drives every single consideration for the Obama Administration.
Too bad you're a liberal. We could use a fellow like you in the Republican Party.
Today I am an inquisitor. And hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.
"A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth-century paper shredder.
Has the president committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That is the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
–Barbara Jordan, 1974
Obama is only the tip of the iceberg where the federal government's ongoing, illegal usurpation of state powers is concerned. The problem is that our federal and state government "leaders" have long forgotten that the Founders made the 10th A. to reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. This is evidenced by the ill-conceived 16th and 17th Amendments which were ratified in 1913, severely weakening state sovereignty, the 16th A. giving the feds the power to tax citizens directly.
In fact, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the federal government's power to lay taxes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)The problem with the 16th A. is that it has made it too easy for the corrupt feds to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes, in my opinion. So not only is Obama's stimulus package and proposed health care constitutionally unauthorized, for example, but the feds never had the constitutional authority to lay taxes for such spending programs in the first place.
The bottom line is that the voters need to restore state sovereignty by doing the following. Voters need to elect pro-state power state leaders in 2010 who will immediately repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, essentially putting the constitutional leash back on the corrupt federal government.
And once the 16th A. has been repealed and the federal income tax eliminated, the state governments can finance the feds with higher state taxes. The reason for this is as follows. The states can use their greater constitutional powers to serve the people to fight a downhill battle with the feds, eliminating constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes, keeping as many tax dollars in a given state as possible. (Did you hear that California?)
And when state government "leaders" show their voters that they are more interested in protecting the welfare of the federal government than that of their own state, then they can look for another job.
Anonymous Jesus X. Crutch said…
No, he should conform to the oath of office he took back in January and set things right. He won't resign and we're stuck with him for the rest of his term, at least. The honeymoon is over and so-called progressives need to stop fawning and start applying pressure to force him to govern as the person he presented himself in the campaign. Moveon.org would be an excellent place to start.
===================================
I've got news for you sport, he is governing as the person he presented himself to be.
We tried to warn you but you said we were racists. We were the ones you were calling slanderers because we were pointing out his associations and you were saying we were accusing him of being guilty by association. We were the one's pointing out that he wanted to spread the wealth around and what did you do? Attack Joe the plumber. We were the one's that pointed out that he wanted a civilian security force that was just as powerful, just as well funded, just as strong as the United States Military, And you laughed at us and told us we were crazy when we said that sounded like the Gestapo or the KGB.
Anybody still laughing? Anyone still think were crazy?
Think about it.
Wow, Ted…you really outdid yourself with this one. I keep thinking your unwarranted, 'way too early into the administration to seriously be able to judge anything' 'Obama Attack BS' has gone as low as it can go, and then you write this dreck…bravo!
Seriously…the man has BARELY been in office, and you call for him to resign…gee, that's not ridiculous or unwarranted, is it?
And to state that he is somehow 'useless' and 'dangerous'? Funny, that's exactly how would describe your pathetic, pointless rantings here. Your 'article' did, however, give me insight into an area I was previously unaware of…I had no idea you were actually working for FAUX News.
Hey Ted. Blow us.
There are Republicans. There are Democrats. There are Independents. And then there are people like Ted Rall–incessant, chronic complainers who can never be satisfied and who see themselves as superior to every other human being on the planet. If you work in a Taco Bell Ted Rall is smarter, better and more noble than you and he could do your job better. If you're the President of the United States, Ted Rall is better, smarter and more noble than you and he could do your job better. In every situation, Ted Rall sees himself as your superior. He spends his life boring the hell out of friends, relatives and strangers with his endlessly repetitive rants about what's wrong with the world and everyone who lives in it. Without access to any of the intel Obama is privy to, without ever been a similar situation, Ted Rall just KNOWS that he would be a better President than Obama. Because, in Ted's world, he is a better PERSON than practically everyone.
Ted Rall is, in short, an enormously pompous boor.
"Ted Rall is, in short, an enormously pompous boor."
hahahahhhhaaaahahaha
eat that, Ted!
Anybody still laughing? Anyone still think were crazy?
Think about it.
6/2/09 9:50 PM
You are absolutely right. He is everything that 60 million did NOT vote for.