What's behind Obama's recent reversals: Torture Photos, DADT, Military tribunals.

[edhopper]

Just raw speculation on my part, but I feel he is wary of antagonizing the Military. He needs the Military to be on board if his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan are to succeed. With these three things, the photos, the tribunals and don't ask don't tell, he has taken the side of the Military against what he campaigned for. I think that he saw how Clinton was disliked by the Military early in his Presidency, and does not want to repeat that. He's trying to curry favor with them and maybe thinks the wars are just more important, and therefore is sacrificing these issues.
Unfortunately Obama, and the Military are wrong on all three.

[villager]

1. not that I agree with those decisions either, but maybe he needs some of the "shadow government"

to still be on his side, if he really is thinking about taking on at least some of that malign apparatus.

I mean, as long as we're speculating... ;-)

[edhopper]

9. I don't know what you mean by

shadow government or malign apparatus?

[villager]

14. the parts of the military and intelligence communities that do what they want

regardless of who is actually President.

The "black ops" folks.

In other words, these guys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/americas-shadow-governmen_b_131218.html

[polichick]

2. Yup - to hell with the anti-war supporters who gave him this gig. He's all about...

...kissing military ass now.

[Fresh_Start]

3. Its not like its new news that the MIC is running the country

not just the military but the intelligence community have their claws out

[Metta]

4. In trying to not have drama, he forces it into the process. Plus, he has no courage.

And is losing his integrity or else is just a liar with a smile. It looks to me like he's being Republican lite which Clinton did and which gave us GATT, NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and DADT.

Clinton was a coward, too.

[polichick]

5. I truly wish I could argue with your post.

[Metta]

23. Yes, I agree it wasn't so. So sad.

It really detracts from everything else he's doing, for me.

[stillcool]

11. sounds like a personal problem..

I suggest looking in the mirror. There's a coward there too.

[Metta]

24. I've always found that name calling a total stranger is an effective way of clarifying the narrative

(irony)

[stillcool]

32. you mean like coward?

[readmoreoften]

38. Obama's not a "total stranger".

Any random poster knows far more about him than an anonymous poster. Political cowardice is pretty obvious.

[stillcool]

39. Oh believe me.. I know how ..

all-seeing, and all-knowing random posters are....But why use personal attacks if it's not personal? Cowardice?

[stillcool]

6. I don't know why I think this..

it is based on no fact whatsoever..but I think there is something about keeping those prisoners off U.S. soil. It's the only reason why I can see Dick Cheney and the rest of the crew freaking out over these people being released in the United States..even in the prison system. I don't think they want these people anywhere near a United States Court. DADT..I think is a matter of timing. That is not a good enough excuse, and it is no excuse, but it's the only thing I can think of. I'm hoping that the more states that provide gay marriage, the easier it will be to pass DADT. As it is, I can't imagine there is that much opposition..but then I never thought California would pass Prop 8. The photos? Who knows? Maybe Dawn Johnsen will get confirmed now.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. I noticed today that all the torture talk is about Gitmo

for the most part.
No one is talking about the stories circulating concerning the children benig tortured, the women being raped and torutured in other places.
The recent hearings on the Hill were all about who should be respoinsible for "torture/interrogation"
and nothing about innocent people who were grabbed up, esp. in Abu Grahib.

Maybe once a Gitmo "detainee" gets on American soil he can request "sanctuary"?

[stillcool]

35. Sounds like they're afraid of more than that..

so much so that they want to scare the American people into believing any appearance of these detainee's in this country would be totally unacceptable. The other day I read, where some member of Congress said they would be open to allowing these detainee's to be transported to American prisons if they were tried elsewhere and convicted of crimes. And the government is doing it's damndest to keep those two suits that are now on-going to proceed any further. I don't know much about law, but it seems to me like this could be new territory.

[alarimer]

43. Most of those people have done nothing wrong.

They are not terrorists. Some are (or were when captured) children. Some were turned in by people even worse for the reward money.

Now, of course, after having been beaten and tortured,they WILL be terrorists and I can't say that I blame them.

[stillcool]

44. I remember a few years ago..

there was a whole slew of documents released about the tribunals. Do you remember that? It was a project where you were given x amount of individuals, and went through the documents making like a synopsis of whatever was there. There were loads of acronyms, and redacted sections, and the names were difficult to pronounce, making it difficult for me to differentiate, but each name became a real person. Forget about the torture...I felt so alone in the world, reading about them. I just can't imagine.

[billyoc]

7. What is this, Argentina in the '70s?

Those generals will do whatever the fuck they're told or they'll lose their pensions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Obama has not reversed his position on DADT or tribunals.

[edhopper]

13. He called for the end of both

Now he says, it isn't the time to end DADT (and won't say if it ever will be) and he wants to restart the tribunals, how is that not a reversal?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Obama is still calling for an end to DADT.

It'll take an act of congress, and Obama will be happy to sign the bill when it crosses the desk.

What a repeal of DADT? Call your congressman.

As for military tribunals, Obama has completely reversed the policies which Bush enacted that made those tribunals so criminal in the first place. Are there still tribunals? Sure, and there always have been. But now they're being run properly and in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

If you want to find some way to attack Obama, find a criticism that's actually honest.

[scheming daemons]

19. He didn't call for the end of tribunals... he said they were flawed and needed to be fixed

..and he has now done that.

[G_j]

15. well that's news!

link?

[edhopper]

17. Read DU

it's all over the place!

[G_j]

21. well, that's news too

and a poor answer

[incapsulated]

16. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[napi21]

10. I take him at his word on the photos. The military said releasing the pics

would endanger the troops, and if that's the case, the release should be postponed.We'vew known about their existance for years, and waiting longer isn't going to hurt anybody!

I think DADT WILL be repealed, but it is Obama's style to get agreement. The military officers WILL come around to his side.

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know why, but apparently regular court room trials can't be done for a lot of the detainees in Gitmo. I've heard lots of reasons from miranda to making sources & methods public.

[atreides1]

26. I won't take the word of anyone who flips this easily.

"would endanger the troops, and if that's the case, the release should be postponed.We'vew known about their existance for years, and waiting longer isn't going to hurt anybody!"

If that's the case the photos will never be officially released, because even if the Taliban is defeated, the release of those photos will still stir up resentment and in some cases hatred of the United States, and will put military personnel in that part of the world in constant danger.

"I think DADT WILL be repealed, but it is Obama's style to get agreement. The military officers WILL come around to his side."

It's a good thing to get a concensus, but it doesn't happen all the time. No matter what, there will always be those in the military chain of command who will resist the repeal of DADT, and then there's those in the Congress who will never agree to repeal the law as it stands now.


"I'm not an attorney, so I don't know why, but apparently regular court room trials can't be done for a lot of the detainees in Gitmo. I've heard lots of reasons from miranda to making sources & methods public."

As you stated you're not an attorney, but any trial is already tainted by the use of torture and hearsay evidence. Even if they are tried under the military tribunal system that's been modified, there is no guarantee they will be found guilty, then what? Do you believe that anyone should be locked away forever if acquited, just because no country will take them?

It's about the rule of law that President Obama liked to bring up during the campaign, only now we find out that he was being a politician and not a man with a vision to raise the US up out of the muck that the Bush administration put us. I don't take anyone at there word especially after they pull a 180 on a decision by using the same excuse/reason that the Bush cabal used for not releasing the photos.

It really doesn't matter, don't release them and the troops are still facing IED's, suicide bombers, car bombs, truck bombs, bullets,
RPG's, etc., etc., etc. Release them and they'll still be facing all of those things, either way they are endangered, and the US once again shows that when it comes to justice, we're great when it's the losing side, but we look the other way when we do the same evil things that we sanction other countries for.

In one word, "HYPOCRITE"!!!

[G_j]

12. that sounds like bullying,

happened to JFK, didn't it?

W didn't care, he just fired anyone who wasn't on-board with him.

[Mari333]

20. its too bad hes playing warman

I voted for him hoping he might change his mind about the occupations. instead, its just same-o-stuff with some of his choices.
if Lieberman and Cheney agree with him, that speaks volumes to me.

[stillcool]

31. How did you think our foreign policy..

would have changed at this time? And what are your expectations for the future?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Middle_East/USFP_MiddleEast.html
Causes and Consequences of Our Foreign Policy in the Middle East and What It Means for Americans
by Karen Kwiatkowski
www.lewrockwell.com/, February 22, 2008
Our foreign policy may seem disorganized, but in the Middle East it has been deliberate and in many ways, well thought out. It has not shifted dramatically from president to president. Jimmy Carter is often seen as a very different political person than a Dick Cheney, a George Bush, or even a Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. Yet events in the late 1970s under Carter's executive watch were both a maturation of the actions of previous Republican and Democratic presidents, and set the foundations for our present-day policies. Do we remember the Carter Doctrine, and the establishment of Central Command? This history was made in my lifetime, and for many of you, only a few years before you were born. Carter set a direction, followed by Reagan and Bush. Clinton left his mark with a pseudo-war that gave us brand new bases in Bosnia and Kosovo - not outposts of southern Europe, but rather forward bases for the Middle East and Caspian Sea theaters.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chalmers_Johnson/AmericaBroke_FantasyWars.html

America Is Completely Broke, And Here We Are Funding Fantasy Wars at the Pentagon
by Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com
www.alternet.org/, February 3, 2009

[Mari333]

34. I was seriously hoping we could stop playing military empire.

alas, it will take more wake up calls for it to stop. I suppose we will have to have riots in the streets before we stop being the World Bully. see : Spain, England, Germany, France. it took them hundreds of years to stop being world bullies.

[stillcool]

36. I think it will stop..when it can no longer..

be sustained. Now, it seems like the Pentagon is a country of it's own. Sometimes I wonder if any person has a clue as to what is going on in all of those agencies. How could they?

[Individualist]

22. DLC

They love the military industrial complex. :puke:

[Captain Hilts]

27. FISA, DC gun ban, etc.

Politics is complicated.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Wasn't the DC gun ban ruled unconstitutional by the USSC?

[Vidar]

28. Rahn & the DLC are running the show, & apparently Obama is OK with that.

[edhopper]

30. It's Rahm

but otherwise you're probably right.

[marlakay]

41. I was thinking the same thing

and I think the only person who can stop Obama from being like this and remind him he is a man of the people is Michelle. Don't know how any of us can speak to her but she is the one he will listen to over everyone else, she knows how to remind him that he isn't God but one of us.

If you really think about it, all the attention he has got the last two years it would go to anyone's head no matter how stable they are and his parents and now gramma are gone, the people who always grounded him in respect for your fellow man.

[Vidar]

42. I'm aware of that. My eyesight is failing.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[readmoreoften]

37. A large portion of "the military" are desperate for him to get their asses out of Iraq

and Afghanistan.

[leftofthedial]

40. he has them right where he wants them

in his masterful chess game!

Dontcha know....