Column: I have never been a Barack Obama supporter
Published March 11, 2011
I have never been a Barack Obama supporter. Ever since the rumors of his proposed presidential campaign, he was just another Democrat to me. Hell, I was in favor of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic primaries, though only for the hilarity of having Big Willy back in the mansion as "first lady." Naturally I had to rationalize living with a president whose platform was radically opposed to my beliefs. Living eight years through the W era, I didn't want take the route of my anti-Bush high school peers.
Despite our differences, I was optimistic about his initiatives to end prosecution of victimless crimes, cease our military presence in the Middle East and close down Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, I figured I could give the president some respect by focusing on the social freedom issues we agreed on. After all the man was a charismatic Harvard Law grad, I didn't see another compromising bureaucratic smeg wad.
As the months went by, Obama procrastinated on social issues in order to give preference to the economic crisis and healthcare. Granted his priorities were reasonable, but his legislation never justified it for me. Straw after straw was burdened on my opinion of the man, accumulating until a few days ago.
On Monday, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on military commissions in Guantanamo Bay and signed an executive order calling for an indefinite detention system for dangerous detainees. Obama banned these military court trials soon after his inauguration in order to move trials to federal courts. While the president said he made changes to ensure commission integrity, military foul play can come from any rank or level. The only way to guarantee a fair trial is to hold them in the United States in federal court. Denying anyone the right to a fair trial is regressive and hypocritical.
But even military trials are more desirable than no trial. There is no reason to hold military prisoners indefinitely. No matter what crime a person has committed, they should be allowed due process. The holding of potential criminals, for as long as you like without the pursuit of conviction, is a dangerous policy. If I were Glenn Beck, I might suggest the policy may someday apply to U.S. citizens if left unchecked. Lucky for you guys, I'm not completely bat shit crazy.
Obama says he is still committed to closing down the Gitmo, and still wants to prosecute prisoners in federal courts. Nevertheless, his decisions to break promises and continue with the Bush status quo makes me question his legitimacy.
Ever since the Republican filibusters, Barry has been in a bi-partisan free fall. He has conceded on tax cuts, budget plans, healthcare, and numerous other issues. I have favored many of those compromises, but sustaining a notorious military prison is unacceptable. Therefore, I can only say the same for leadership under Obama. Don't worry Mr. President. I'm sure you will do well on the speaking tours.
We live in a world requiring sober judgment and probity. In order to accomplish this, we need to treat people like human beings, no matter the crime. Obama has failed to display those values and seems to be promoting an agenda of oppression. There is no doubt those convicted deserve punishment, but our compassion and due process is what sets us above those whom we have imprisoned.
Comments (4)
4:26 p.m., March 11, 2011
John E. A. said:
I agree with you that Gitmo should be shut down, but I don't blame President Obama for it not getting done. Remember the ridiculous fear mongering that occurred when he tried to move the detainees to American soil? People freaked out like he was about to release the plague upon us! Politicians of all stripes decried "NOT IN MY STATE!" even though some communities that had built private prisons welcomed the detainees as it meant more jobs for them. Given the serious political capital it would take to make it happen and the pressing needs of the nation, I agree with his decision to spend the capital on health care and bail outs and other issues. This is an unfortunate turn of events, but maybe the politicians will eventually stop acting like babies and let them come to America for free and fair trials. Wait, who am I kidding?
9:04 p.m., March 12, 2011
Ryan said:
Interesting column. Comments sorely lacking. A president is supposed to provide leadership. Talk of "political capital" and the rest is the sort of silly excuses I expect to hear on the Sunday talk shows. If you tell me you will pick me up and drive me to class Tuesday, you either do or your don't. If you do, you keep your word. If you don't, you're a liar. Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo. It's among the reasons I was proud to vote for him. His refusal to keep his promise is among the reasons I won't vote for him.
9:58 p.m., March 13, 2011
Chris said:
I'll have to agree on indefinitely holding individuals without a right to trial. That's as un-American as denying people religious freedom, or saying the Constitution is based on a fundemental belief in a Christian God. It is also true that since the day President Obama took office, Republicans have done everything but stick their fingers in their ears and go, "Nah, nah, nah...I can't HEAR you!..." They're not above shouting "Liar!," at the President when he speaks in the Senate, so it may not be to long before it happens though. We have seen now how a minority in the House and Senate can effectively block any kind of progress a majority can make, much less a president. We're also mired in a sea of disinformation, ironically in an age when with just a few clicks of a mouse we can find out what color Britney Spears' underwear is for the day (week?), but yet information on what's truly going on in our government is difficult to find. How many "holds" are in place, right now? Is it possible to re-write how a state government makes decisions using a process that allows a governer to only give two hour's notice in writing on a bulletin board in the capital for the vote? Right now we have a system that allows our elected officials to say they haven't had time to go over an arms treaty that was signed 1 1/2 years before, needing only ratification. If a Democrat tried to pull that mess, their fellow Democrats would be rolling in the aisles, holding their sides, laughing uncontrollably. The very idea that they would not have gone over a document relating to the safety of the United States and the rest of the world would be enough to cause them to be the butt of jokes for years to come. Even more ironic is the fact that the treaty in question was nothing more than a continued update of the work done by Ronald Reagan, and the verbage and number of warheads were on par with what George W. Bush promised the Russians we'd have accomplished by the beginning of 2012. I'll definitely agree with the idea that a president should provide leadership. I've been wondering why President Obama hasn't vocally and vociferously called these idiots out for being what they are: Bought and paid for corporate representatives, backed by the Supreme Court ruling by The Gang of Five. As far as trying ALL the prisoners at Guantanamo, I'm for it. Hell, bring'em to Boone County. We've got more guns than the Taliban. The city and county could use the money, and I'd sleep soundly knowing every mid-Missourian was on alert, armed and ready, just in case.
4:08 p.m., March 11, 2011
Ecks said:
3 things. 1) Congress has repeatedly blocked Obama from moving the prisoners to the USA. That limits his options. Severely. 2) If Obama just released some of the prisoners, the GOP and Fox News and talk radio would relentlessly repeat the meme that he "lets terrorists walk free." It wouldn't matter that it isn't true, that there is no evidence at all that the people being released are not terrorists, a plurality or majority of Americans would come to believe it anyway - just as they currently believe patently untrue things like "death panels" or that Obama has raised taxes on most people. The truth is no defense against the lie machine. It would be the single defining move of his presidency in the ill-conceived excuse for an American media. Right or wrongly, he's focused on actually achieving things like starting to approach universal health care instead. 3) Look at everything the Republicans are doing at the state level, and did under Dubya. Missouri's legislature is trying to undo a referendum to re-allow puppy mills. In Michigan they're trying to pass a law that would let the state cut funding to a municipality, declare it in fiscal crisis, and place a corporation or person in charge who could unilaterally break every contract the municipality holds (such as ones for paying teachers - funny how the GOP thinks contracts are sacrosanct only when they are contracts to pay CEO's millions of dollars), disincorporate the city, and remove elected officials from office (remember, the GOP is in favor of small local government, except where those small local governments aren't republican, in which case democracy can go take a running jump). We are currently 4 senators and 1 president from that being our official federal insanity. If there was a grown-up adult sane opposition in the USA right now you'd have a good case, but there isn't. So you don't have to vote for Obama if you don't want to, but you WILL have to live with the person who replaces him.