Home / How stupid are we? Ask Obama  
Image of How stupid are we? Ask Obama

Obama has broken many promises. That's par for the course when you're a politician. People know (and sadly accept) that politicians aren't going to do everything they promise.

But then there are moments like this one that make you wonder how stupid they think we really are.

Rachel Maddow is a well-known and highly popular liberal political commentator on NBC. With the stated intent to sound absurd and distinguish herself from others on the left, Maddow said she's a "national security liberal." Whatever she is, one thing is clear based on this video: she's no fan of Obama.

As the Obameter points out, Obama made it very clear during his campaign: he would "close the detention facility at Guantanamo." As he stated: "When I am president... we will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

He didn't. And won't. But it's more than that. In this speech, he is talking about two ideas that directly contradict each other. He thinks we're stupid. And Rachel Maddow is calling him on it, just as other liberals are starting to claim that liberalism, in-and-of-itself, is a contradiction in ideals.

Do you agree with Rachel Maddow that what Obama says here is a direct contradiction? What do you think of Obama's preventive, indefinite detention plans? Do you think what Obama is doing is dangerous? Do you think his plan makes us safer? Does his plan represent your values or American values? Is Maddow's implication correct that Obama is more "creepy" and dangerous here than Bush? If you don't think that preventative, indefinite detention is so bad, would you mind if a Republican president had the power?


But we begin tonight with a tale of two speeches, both from the same man: both from President Obama. One speech that could have been billed as a ballad to the Constitution, a proclamation of American values, a repudiation of the lawless behavior of the last presidential administration, and another speech announcing a radical new claim of presidential power that is not afforded by the Constitution and that has never been attempted in American history, even by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Remarkably, President Obama today made both of those speeches simultaneously.

Standing inside the National Archives, in front of the actual, original Constitution, President Obama delivered a blistering critique of the Bush Administration, in which he called their actions and their legacy, literally, "a mess."

OBAMA: "Our government made a series of hasty decisions... Poorly planned, haphazard approach... Too often, we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. Our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight... The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable."

An ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable. Ouch. Then, moments later, he announced his own. His own ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism.

President Obama today proposed something new: something called prolonged detention. Doesn't sound that bad, right? Prolonged detention? Did you ever see the movie Minority Report? It was based on a Philip K. Dick short story, came out in 2002. It starred Tom Cruise. Remember? He played a police officer in something called the Department of Precrime. Precrime is where people are arrested and incarcerated to prevent crimes that they have not yet committed.

JOHN ANDERTON: "Mr. Marks, by mandate of the District of Columbia Precrime Division, I'm placing you under arrest for the future murder of Sarah Marks and Donald Dubin that was to take place today, April 22 at 0800 hours and four minutes."

MR. MARKS: "No! I didn't do anything."

You didn't do anything. But you're gonna. Future murder. Creepy, right? Putting someone in jail not for what they've done, but for what you're very sure they're going to do?

OBAMA: "There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted. But who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States."

We're not prosecuting them for past crimes, but we need to keep them in prison because of our expectation of their future crimes.

OBAMA: "Al-Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must be prevented from attacking us again."

Prevented. We will incarcerate people preventively. Preventive incarceration. Indefinite detention, without trial. That's what this is. That's what President Obama proposed today if you strip away the euphemisms.

One civil liberties advocate told the New York Times today "We've known this was on the horizon for many years. But we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

And it is stunning. Particularly to hear President Obama claim the power to keep people in prison indefinitely, with no charges against them. No conviction. No sentence. Just imprisonment. It's particularly stunning to hear him make that claim in the middle of a speech that was all about the rule of law.

OBAMA: "But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law... Our government was defending positions that undermine the rule of law... To ensure that they are in-line with the rule of law."

How can a president speak the kind of poetry that President Obama does about the rule of law and call for the power to indefinitely, preventively imprison people because they might commit crimes in the future? How can those two things coexist in the same man? Even in the same speech?

Well, that brings us to the self-consciously, awkward, embarrassing part of this speech today. After condemning the Bush administration for what he called their ad hoc legal strategy, for trying to make things seem legal that patently weren't, this is what President Obama proposed.

OBAMA: "My administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply, to ensure that they are in-line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category... We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified... Our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our Constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

You'll construct a legal regime to make indefinite detention legal. You will - what did he say? - develop an appropriate legal regime, so you can construct a whole new system, outside the courts, even outside the military commissions, so that you can indefinitely imprison people without charges. And you'll build that system from scratch. What's that somebody said about ad hoc legal strategies?

Just for context here, in the United Kingdom, where there isn't even a Bill of Rights, there's been a major debate about whether people can be held in preventive detention. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted three months to be the outer limit for how long anyone could be held. There was a big political fight about it. Parliament ended up limiting that power to twenty-eight days. Twenty-eight days is still the longest period of preventive detention that's allowed under law in any comparable democracy anywhere in the world.

How long would President Obama's proposed preventive, indefinite detention last? Well, he's not saying yet, but here's how he defines the threat that he says makes indefinite detention necessary.

OBAMA: "Right now in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now and, in all probability, ten years from now."

Ten years from now? So you could get arrested today, and locked up, without a trial, without being convicted, without being sentenced, for, say, ten years. Until the threat of your future, criminal behavior passes?

Prolonged detention he's calling it. This was a beautiful speech from President Obama today with patriotic, moving, even poetic language about the rule of law and the Constitution. And one of the most radical proposals for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.

Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians!


Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Aug 29, 2011 at http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=632

You need to be logged in to comment.
search only within braincrave

About braincrave


We all admire beauty, but the mind ultimately must be stimulated for maximum arousal. Longevity in relationships cannot occur without a meeting of the minds. And that is what Braincrave is: a dating venue where minds meet. Learn about the thoughts of your potential match on deeper topics... topics that spawn your own insights around what you think, the choices you make, and the actions you take.

We are a community of men and women who seek beauty and stimulation through our minds. We find ideas, education, and self-improvement sexy. We think intelligence is hot. But Braincrave is more than brains and I.Q. alone. We are curious. We have common sense. We value and offer wisdom. We experiment. We have great imaginations. We devour literacy. We are intellectually honest. We support and encourage each other to be better.

You might be lonely but you aren't alone.

Sep, 2017 update: Although Braincrave resulted in two confirmed marriages, the venture didn't meet financial targets. Rather than updating our outdated code base, we've removed all previous dating profiles and retained the articles that continue to generate interest. Moving to valME.io's platform supports dating profiles (which you are welcome to post) but won't allow typical date-matching functionality (e.g., location proximity, attribute similarity).

The Braincrave.com discussion group on Second Life was a twice-daily intellectual group discussions typically held at 12:00 PM SLT (PST) and 7:00 PM SLT. The discussions took place in Second Life group chat but are no longer formally scheduled or managed. The daily articles were used to encourage the discussions.

Latest Activity