tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post375701259692488488..comments2024-04-09T22:50:43.248-05:00Comments on Horizons: It's not about civil liberties - it's about endless war!Nancy LeTourneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-76396496593644280022012-03-09T12:25:01.524-06:002012-03-09T12:25:01.524-06:00No doubt, no doubt.
I suppose for me--I don't...No doubt, no doubt.<br /><br />I suppose for me--I don't think you're in any disagreement--the focus needs to be on the long arc toward righteousness, as well as an axe I have to grind with the equation in so many people's minds of civil rights with human freedom. The Greenwalds could easily note that millions of people are underfed in this country with terrible consequences to the society broadly, but looking at things from that perspective makes comfort less comfortable.<br /><br />I don't think the issue is that complex, though. It needs to stop, it's fairly clear that's the plan, and the plan involves maximizing the ability to accomplish other goals by minimizing political blowback. I can go with that. I'm of the "it's going to take generations so we have no time to lose" crowd.Billhttp://freeandeasywandering.posterous.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-15621124572766552272012-03-09T12:00:34.688-06:002012-03-09T12:00:34.688-06:00Bill,
What I see is that in prosecuting al Qaeda,...Bill,<br /><br />What I see is that in prosecuting al Qaeda, PBO has been firmly on the side of using judicial processes. He and Holder have both argued very strongly for that. <br /><br />What they have not been willing to do is subject their decisions about fighting al Qaeda to judicial oversight. Perhaps that's an important distinction for a different framing.<br /><br />And when it comes to Guantanamo - as you said, closing it was stopped by Congress. But the issue remains, Obama wanted to move some of them to "indefinite detention" in the U.S. We'd still have to end the "war" to see the possibility of actual release.<br /><br />What happens though is that these issues do get so complex in efforts to both clean up the mess created by Bush and setting the right kind of policy going forward.Nancy LeTourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614317154146836694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-49153904122616605352012-03-09T11:46:44.939-06:002012-03-09T11:46:44.939-06:00Well, I have not ever been accused of being a pout...Well, I have not ever been accused of being a poutrager, so I feel I can say it: it may not be a civil rights issue, but it is a human rights one. The problem to me is inherent in how states operate, and this is ultimately the problem with framing rights in civil rights terminology. Civil rights are those given by a government, and therefore those which can in whatever circumstances be taken away.<br /><br />It's obvious the President understands this, and I'm sure that the idea was that a warring state can't by its own logic--this came up a few minutes ago in a thread on another site--drop its war powers before it drops the war. The President made clear effort to close Guantanamo early in his tenure and was shot down politically. The upshot is that Guantanamo is going to stay open long after the wars end, most likely. If he tries and fails to stop this nonsense while the wars continue, I can't see how he's not toast, politically, which will leave the Bush-era policies intact not only for the moment but for the foreseeable future after the wars actually end. A Republican will not end those policies in peacetime, but a Democrat will.<br /><br />I do not think I'm giving the President too much credit. On the contrary, it's incumbent on the Greenwalds of the world to demonstrate how in the broader context of his behavior the President is someone who really, in his heart, was looking forward to holding people without charge. If they can't, we need to imagine that maybe there's a broader logic at work. Doesn't make the policy OK, though.<br /><br />I'd add that--all this was part of the discussion during the last administration--the gathering of intelligence and prosecution of crime is most effectively done in the aggregate by entirely Constitutional means. There's no functional defence of the adoption of these policies in the aggregate. It's the ending of them that's tricky.Billhttp://freeandeasywandering.posterous.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7163441833245663827.post-15805317518165827922012-03-09T10:53:44.206-06:002012-03-09T10:53:44.206-06:00bang on, Smarty, bang on. And reassuring to read s...bang on, Smarty, bang on. And reassuring to read somebody making that case. Was wondering if I was going mad given that the majority opinion seems to be that this is a civil rights issue.<br /><br />If the US is at war, this is all fair game. So the question should be - how does the US draw back from a War on Abstract Emotion, and what would be a better framework for future issues of this type?sibusisodannoreply@blogger.com