So much for change you can believe in: the torture continues at Gitmo and will continue at least another year. And nary a word about the NSA’s despicable warrantless wiretapping and espionage program against American citizens.
New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
54 Comments. Leave new
You know Ted, you seriously have to wonder. The people who in the 80's who were bashing hammer and sickles and carrying banners USSR out of Afghanistan. How do they feel now?
The American people are honestly full of shit. If another country does something we don't like or consider immoral then it's a war crime. But G-d forbid we consider it the same when we do the exact same thing.
I was watching the True Story of the Charlie Wilson's War on the History Channel the other day. And Charlie Wilson was talking about it and so was that stupid c*nt who was waging a holy war against the Soviets and Communism. How do they feel about it now? All the money, training, aid, etc. they gave to them is now killing American soldiers.
If the USSR had won in Afghanistan I can pretty much guarantee 9/11 would never have happened. 9/11 happened because of a vacuum in power. If the USSR had not fallen and we were in this ridiculous vacuum we would not be fighting any of the wars we are fighting now. The economy would probably be doing a hell of a lot better. And all politicians would have to do is go on T.V. and talk crap about the USSR.
I guess it doesn't surprise me the American people are not only stupid but extremely shortsighted. Like with Gitmo; they would be happy just to jail people for life in secret prison ships as long as they never hear anything about it. The Bush administration and potentially this administration have kept up the lack of rule of law. That is what this country is founded on. If you take out the rule of law our country is no better than Zimbabwe. And honestly, it isn't apart from the inflation.
When will the American people realize that these alleged terrorists have rights the same as we do. Rule of law break it and make exemptions and you just lost all credibility in the entire world. Also, how does it make sense that the people we have in Gitmo are going to be a danger to us afar? Gitmo and our lack of rule of law is a danger to every American. Simply because now the fighters will pretty much not surrender. Why should they? I wouldn't want to be jailed for eternity either. So why not take out a few more Yankees before they kill you? It's a much better plan in the long run than surrendering.
Pretty soon this country even with the change (or lack thereof) will be a shell of its former self. The shell will more than likely collapse under the weight of the outer layers of bull. Let's hope it doesn't take too long so we can start rebuilding America the way it was supposed to be. The beacon of freedom and rule of law.
Tell you what Ted: we'll shut it down, and send all the detainees to your house. Problem solved.
To anonymous above:
Why do foreign (alleged) terrorists have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens?
Come on Ted, give him a break.
I hope Ted has a big house. There are supposedly 35,000 "detainees" in our worldwide collection. Of course, that's an estimate of classified (since 2005) information. Because, obviously, if the terrorists knew how many people we had kidnapped, then the war on terror would be lost.
Just curious: Why should *I* take the detainees? I didn't kidnap them or torture them. Not my problem.
Alleged criminals, and terrorists, have the same rights to due process as US citizens because that's what the Constitution says.
Alleged criminals, and terrorists, have the same rights to due process as US citizens because that's what the Constitution says.
Yes. I so often hear the idiot right argue against this point. Where in the Bill of Rights does it specify that these rights are limited to certain people in certain places? Besides our Constitution, there's also a slew of international laws that apply–the Constitution says ratified treaties are also our laws!
The disturbing thing is that the idiot right wants to deny anyone these rights, and musters half-baked legal arguments to do so. Who's "un-American"?
In response to Ted's question about my post:
If you're too ignorant to understand that closing the place down does have logistical issues, including what to do with the detainees, then there's nothing I can do for you. And don't tell me we should just cut them loose and give each $100,000 for their troubles.
What issues?
I think $10 million each would be fairer. It's a fraction of what we gave the banks, and they might actually use the dough to stimulate the economy.
There are no "logistical issues." We brought them here. If we can't send them home, then we let them live anywhere in the U.S. they feel like. After all, every single one of them is innocent, never having been convicted of (or charged with) a crime.
Whoa, this cartoon was released today, on the 22nd? It wins the DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN award.
I love the "logistical issues" claim by people who think a slow, measured approach is somehow appropriate or a reasonable way to correct this abortion of justice. Presumably, they reached the island from their home country by plane. Let's reverse that process right now. Buy them boarding passes, open the gates. Bon Voyage.
Hmmmmmm, Anon 2:00PM apparently hasn't read the fine print at the bottom of the bottle.
"The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States."
Okay, well, those four options for "individuals remaining" are the exact reason why the war hawks say it's not "practicable" right now. None of those options are, apparently, "consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States". So even if the Executive Order is sincere, we just have this exact same debate one year from now, probably resulting in "further studies" and "seeking new options".
If we're unlucky, of course, a lot can happen in a year, after we hit 15% unemployment in a gigantic recession, and the story falls out of the newspapers because Democrats erroneously believe Obama kept his promise. Also note that the order seems to cover only the detention facilities for the specific prisoners already there. Some may argue that we could fill up the facility again after we dispose of the specific 800 people currently locked up. The base itself is apparently not going to close.
P.S. it is heartening, however, to see Anon 2:00PM's arrival as the first of the new wave of "reasonable liberals" who will soon be criticizing Ted for picking on the Democrat unjustly. Kind-of marks the changing of the guard, a snapshot of a pivotal moment in time. I'm sure Ted looks forward to receiving more of his hate mail from the "progressive" side, if only because it's usually better punctuated and more grammatically correct than the "patriot" side.
🙂
Seriously has no one in this thread not read Obama's executive order to close down the detention camp and his ban on CIA torture?
After watching Keith Olbermann interview former NSA operative Russel Tice the question must be asked, "What are we defending here?" If what Mr. Tice stated is true, then the Constitution is nothing more than a myth. Dorme bene…
You know when I worry? When you DON'T say stuff like this.
Right Ted. You've just buttressed my argument, hence why they should just come live with you or on your block. Problem solved. Oh …. right. I forgot. Like all liberals, you subscribe to NIMBY.
"Let the detainees live anywhere they want in the US. Just NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!"
LOL!!!
Hilarious.
No, the pro-Gitmo people want a nice "trial" in a kangaroo court, and then off to the shooting gallery, or maybe a nice botched hanging so the "Al-Kaydah terr'ists" can die real slow. They would re-enact the "squashing the Afghan" scene from "The Beast" if you gave them the chance.
– Strelnikov
Ted,
I suggested you come to my university. I hope they select you to come over here…
Hope to see you in the future.
Realizing that Ted Rall can be this hilariously wrong and still make more money than Tim Kreider is like being waterboarded.
Yes. I so often hear the idiot right argue against this point.
No you don't. What you hear some on the right argue: Rights protected by the constitution apply to those in America.
Let's see. The Gitmo-Forever crowd says we can't afford to take a chance that releasing people held at Gitmo without charges or evidence of crimes will go straight to becoming members of Al Quaeda. Therefore, it's perfectly ok for the USA to have and run POLITICAL PRISONS, to put people in cages for the rest of their lives just on suspicion, on physical appearances, on guilt by association. Do they really think this is America speaking for Americans? What gall! Yes, we might turn some bad people loose, but don't we also do that every day with our legal system and regular prisons? It's always a tossup. Either we keep people in cages all their lives or we KILL them. End of story. Yet our society and our world continues to turn out humans who have legitimate reasons to vent their rage, and not everyone has a good advocate to direct them away from violence and terrorism.
Our prison workers, civilian and military and hired thugs, can justify their torture all they want in the name of Homeland Security, but it all comes down to the same thing everywhere else: our prisons attract sadists and perverts who would otherwise have no outlet for their violence and freak acts. Does anyone doubt that George W. Bush and a bunch of his fellow war criminals didn't all come in their pants as they observed, in the safety of the war room, and screamed, "Shock and Awe!" Someone said he feels sorry for George W. Bush's parents. How? Why? They created and raised this criminal PRICK and did all they could to jam him into the White House! There hasn't been one honest expression of remorse for all the acts of home-grown terrorism by the Bush administration. In fact, they are 'shocked and outraged' that President Obama took shots at Bush during his Inaugural Address. Gee, too fucking bad! Like Ari Fleisher, when in the employ of George W. Bush, did't tell us "Watch what your say." Fuck these home-grown terrorists. Someone in federal jurisdiction, please take Bush and his entire circus of criminals into custody and detain them. Let them get waterboarded, then let them say it isn't torture. Rant over but not over. You just don't forget and erase eight years of a criminal incompetent in the Oval Office.
You're like a petulant child, Rall. One who, when promised sweets after dinner, immediately starts whining "but I want them NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
He said he'd close Gitmo, and Gitmo is going to close. The fact that you were delusional enough to believe he'd just shut the doors and let everyone out on day one – when he'd indicated nothing of the sort – is your problem, not his.
That's the crux of the problem I think- you seem to be under the misapprehension that Obama ran as some sort of liberal, when nothing could be farther from the truth. He ran the way he's governing, as a moderate centrist, who was as liberal as you can be and still get elected in this country.
And I will defend his election to the death for no other reason than the other viable choice would've been orders of magnitude worse.
A year seems like a rather long time. But O needs to try to avoid any more situations like this
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?hp
"Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief"
and has to work with politicians who are screaming about this and more than ready to point the figure at him the next time it happens.
Um…how was I wrong? The torture continues today, under Obama. As does the illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
There is no excuse for this. There are no "complicated issues" related to these matters. They needed to stop on Day One.
Obama ran as a centrist, that's true. But that doesn't mean we should be satisfied with a centrist. Politics isn't something that just happens on Election Day. People can and should put pressure on officials to do what they want them to do every single day, regardless of what they promised.
As for the Saudi ex-Gitmo guy, well, I can't say I'm not suspicious of this story. I mean, really, what are the odds that this is true? But even if it is, it isn't a reason not to let these guys go. Even if all 250 of them go out and launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. after we release them, releasing them is the right thing to do. You can't hold people preemptively. Security is not our society's top priority, or at least it never should be. The rule of law and civil liberties should be.
You're like a petulant child, Rall. One who, when promised sweets after dinner, immediately starts whining "but I want them NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!"
Preventing more torture is a hell of a lot different than getting a cookie. It's not a prize for being a good boy.
It's great that closing Gitmo was on Obama's Top Ten List of Things to Do at the New Job, but I can't believe it should take a year to do so. And someone has to raise a huge fuss about the time frame. Did anyone really think Ted wouldn't? Bravo to him.
See, this is the problem with I have with folks on either end of the political spectrum (and please note that I did not use the word "extreme").
Far right AND far left have so much in common. They both, though really being the minority, feel that the majority should bend to their will.
We are a country of centrists (expcept, of course, for those nutbars who call in to hannity and Ted's little choir here), and that should really be the end of it.
Yet the ends of the spectrum both refuse to bend or compromise in any way. And neither understands practical reality at all.
First of all, "practical reality" shouldn't come into play on issues of monumental moral gravity, like torture. There is no room for compromise. It is evil. Torturers are evil. Period.
On a host of issues, Americans are leftists. They value privacy rights. They oppose free trade. They like Social Security, and the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits. Once we have 20% unemployment, I daresay, they'll be radical leftists.
The torture is over. He ordered the CIA to stop it. Sheesh, read a newspaper or something.
Also, Americans aren't very leftist in terms of gay marriage or abortion.
the same people who pretend they care about the Constitution don't read it. Ditto their Bibles. etc. They say "A Republic, Not a Democracy!" on their cars and have been for 40 years, and they're the ones doing legislation by initiative and referendum, which is exactly what you do if you don't want a republic but want a democracy.
but the double standard is their true flag.
To quote Smith-Bowen:
How we would laugh at some foreigner seeking our approval with this kind of initiative. Ahmadinejad: Okay, I'll stop hanging gay guys…. Next year. But this year — hoo-ha! Line 'em up and keep 'em coming!
When Putin says it'll take a year to get his troops out of Tblisi, don't we ask him why he can't hurry up that timetable a bit? If Hugo Chavez said he'd give up dictatorial powers in one year, because of the need for an "orderly transition", we'd ask "What's stoppin' ya right now?"
American Exceptionalism at its best. The same sort of idiocy that makes Americans assume that Iraqis should throw flowers at the foreign troops that bomb their neighborhoods, strafe their cars at checkpoints, and conduct apparently random home invasions. Because everyone knows "we're the good guys," so obviously they should trust us. The Iraqis'll just have to sit on their hands while those things continue for another 16 months, surely they won't mind, y'know, can't make an omelette, etc.
Doesn't make it any less stupid when Democrats say it in 2009 versus Republicans saying it in 2008. It's stunning how facile the two parties change roles.
See, this is the problem with I have with folks on either end of the political spectrum (and please note that I did not use the word "extreme").
[…]
…the ends of the spectrum both refuse to bend or compromise in any way. And neither understands practical reality at all.
Ha!
I guess America is so perfect in every way that no one needs to tenaciously pursue any issue. And no issue is important enough that compromise shouldn't be sought as quickly as possible.
I chuckle when I hear someone proudly proclaim they're a "centrist." Sure, plenty of people are mediocre, and slog through life without challenging the status quo–but being proud of it really takes guts!
Not exactly on point, but I just finished watching Olbermann's interview with the whistleblower, and I've got to ask – is this all the confirmation you need that the NSA as recorded everything you've said for the past eight years?
I recall reading somewhere that Albania said they would take in the detainees. I think that's a wonderful idea. Buy each detainee a house in Albania, and send them a social security check every month.
Why is Albania wonderful? Well it's both Muslim and pro-Western at the same time. And it's not in the Middle East. So why not?
To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.
Substitute Muslim for Jew. Dorme bene…
Hussien Obama killed 20 people in Pakistan yesterday with 2 Predator Drone missles.
What a guy
To all of you whining that Ted is exaggerating, Obama just ordered his first blowup of a wedding in Pakistan.Executive order, indeed.
I take issue with Ted saying that privacy rights are a leftist cause. If anything, leftists are very selective about privacy. Besides the obligatory mention of the Soviet Union, back then, and Cuba right now, in the West you'll find mostly leftists behind smoking ban attempts (even in the privacy of your home) and food policing.
Good, you've admitted Obama ran as a centrist. That's step one.
Now for step two; repeat after me "So far, Obama has done EXACTLY what he said he would do."
Cause here's the thing, Ted; I AGREE that Gitmo should close ASAP, but I'm enough of a realist to know that it isn't as simple as opening up the doors and going "Sorry we tortured you. Have a bag of money."- no matter how much you'd like it to be.
And I have NO problem with pushing the Obama administration to be more progressive. It's worked with the stimulus package (to an extent), and I see no reason it couldn't work elsewhere.
What I have a problem with, and will continue to have a problem with is your denying reality by acting as if by not doing things the way you would like them to be done, Obama has somehow broken a promise to you.
Not only is that not true, and in my opinion, not fair to Obama, I don't think it's a particularly effective way to push the administration to be more progressive either.
Do you honestly think going "You didn't let everybody out of Gitmo 30 seconds after you took the Oath of Office. Wah! You suck! You're not change I can believe in -never mind that you never promised to do the thing I'm pissed about!" is a better motivator than "President Obama, while we're very glad you kept your word and are closing Gitmo, we believe you can get it done in less than a year because…". Really?
That's what irritates me, Ted- your refusal to grant Obama the credit he's due, as well as your rejection of the reality that he is delivering on his promises and governing exactly as he said he would.
I'm not going to even mention the reality that the choices were NEVER between the guy who would close Gitmo on day one and the guy who would close it in a year, but rather the only choices we had were between the guy who would keep his word and close Gitmo, albeit eventually and the guy who would keep it open indefinitely; cause I think it would make your head explode…
I must admit, Ted, I don't understand your cynicism about your new Prez. He's the fuckin' MAN! He is shutting down Gitmo and stopping torture, it will take a while to sort out what to do with all the prisoners but they've already stopped the trials "In the interests of Justice". Haven't heard much about the wiretapping, true, but look – More money for schools 'n 'ospitals just like you said was needed, and green energy and all that good stuff.
I admit that it might not make a gnat's fart worth of difference long term, like with doubling green energy (doubling next-to-nothing still produces hardly anything) but you have to start somewhere.
We're pretty much certain never to get anyone as good as Mr O – I'm jealous!
PS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/
I honestly think Mr. O will need his people's support- the wingers are not going away any time soon, they are regrouping as we speak and they feed on this sort of cynicism. Give the guy a chance!
Inci,
Smoking isn't a privacy issue, because smoking kills non-smokers.
Also, I don't care that Obama was the lesser of two evils. He's still evil. I don't accept the two-party system, so why should I accept the lesser of two evils argument?
BTW Yahoo did not run this cartoon. Dorme bene…
So basically, you reject reality, as I said.
Cause unless and until we get major changes in the way we elect people, denying the two party system is denying reality.
And I've got a major problem with that.
Ted, how about smoking in your own house (in an apartment complex, if you want to make it interesting) or on the premises of a private business whose owner allows it?
I'm with you on arguing against the two-party system, though. It only benefits the two sides of the same coin. Pity that so many in America think there is a whole lot of difference between them.
…you'll find mostly leftists behind smoking ban attempts (even in the privacy of your home)…
Funny, most of my friends are "leftists," and we spend hardly any energy on this issue. I don't know anyone who wants to ban smoking in private stand-alone houses.
…how about smoking in your own house (in an apartment complex, if you want to make it interesting) or on the premises of a private business whose owner allows it?
Smoking in an apartment building exposes other tenets to 2nd-hand smoke. (I once lived in a smoky apartment building and it was hell on my allergies.)
A business owner may choose to allow smoking, and you can argue that if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere (though I remember the times before smoking bans–there were no elsewheres), but his employees shouldn't be forced to spend 8 hour shifts swimming through clouds of vile cancer-causing soup (if you say the single-mom waitress can choose to work elsewhere, you're a real asshole).
I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to drugs–I don't care what you ingest, snort up your nose or pump in your veins, but I've got a BIG problem when you put it into the air and force others to breathe it…
Just got this one off of Red State Son: Torture Ban doesn't ban torture
When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.
Obama's Executive Order bans some — not all — US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.
Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.
The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy — paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed. …
Those forces were and are operating with US military, intelligence, financial or other backing in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, to name some places, not to mention the tortures sans-American-hands by the US-backed Iraqis and Afghans.
…
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.
His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "…an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict…" which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.
And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.
Grouchy,
I doubt that you are so unpleasant as to throw invective and insult when arguing in person, so why do it online? If I'm a "real asshole" for assuming the "single-mom waitress" (always the contrived examples) could look for a job elsewhere, what are you for assuming she's stuck in that job forever?
I doubt that you are so unpleasant as to throw invective and insult when arguing in person, so why do it online? If I'm a "real asshole" for assuming the "single-mom waitress" (always the contrived examples) could look for a job elsewhere, what are you for assuming she's stuck in that job forever?
Seriously? That's your response? I guess I just demolished your original thread about smoking bans, so what more could you say…?
(p.s.: "Single-mom waitresses" exist. I've known plenty of them. Also, some people really are stuck in their profession because of economic circumstance–I've intimately know such people in my own family. Why don't you get out of your house and talk to some of the people who are doing the "shit work"? You might learn something.)