Let the Show Trials Begin

Welcome to the Obama justice system where you can be found “not guilty” and still stay imprisoned for as long as the president wants. Now it’s hard for me to believe that Obama, with all of his legal training, does not understand the inherent dangers and inconsistencies in this position. But, like with the War in Afghanistan, Obama’s policy is completely based on political expediency — to prove he’s a tough guy and appease American blood lust and childish anxieties — and not on the validity of the policy.



Filed under Essays, Obama 44

10 responses to “Let the Show Trials Begin

  1. ReWrite

    Leave the Constitutional Law Professor alone. The best President Corporations have ever had.

  2. The Constitution has nothing to do with this matter … non-citizens, unlawful combatants, insurgents, terrorists … refuse, garbage, filth, vermin …

    But hey, under Chairman Maobama, they can later be let go in Bermuda, (because their own countries of origin want nothing to do with them, hmmmmm), on the tax payer’s bill and enjoy an easy life of fishing and boating on my dime.

    What’s really sad is you two acting as if all/most of these people are innocent.

    Have fun drinking the Kool-Aid, just remember I told you so: when it all crumbles, and it is, people with your attitude will end up as prey for the violent, the extremist, the blood thirsty … the exact types you think are innocent.

  3. eric

    You have to look at the big picture here. Our president, and actually this was also Bush’s policy, says that he has the authority to detain someone even after that person has been been found “not guilty” at trial. Now we are looking at terrorist suspects, but the standard could be extended to all sorts of other suspected offenders. And on principle, how can Americans defend the notion that someone acquitted at trial shall remain imprisoned?

    Now what is interesting about the present case is that the system of detention has created a scenario where the only way to get out of U.S. custody is to plead guilty and hope to be repatriated because standing trial and being held not guilty don’t mean you get to go to leave.

    Finally, since when do we blindly trust our government? Why should we believe, just because they tell us so, that these detainees are guilty? Come on! If you think that only a small percentage of those released without trial or evidence against them have “returned” to the battlefield, much smaller than the recidivism rate in U.S. jails, then it is hard to sustain the notion that these people were in fact the guilty, let alone the worst of the worst. But believing that a government that has set up secret black sites and interment camps for the specific purposes of avoiding being subject to the law should be given the benefit of the doubt is naive.

  4. ReWrite

    Not just naive, but incorrect. Who are the real terrorists? Who needs protection from whom? The US gov’t and/or its (private) agents terrorize more innocent people on a monthly basis than the so called terrorists did on 9/11 and kill more innocent people every few months or so than were killed on 9/11. Even pre-9/11 the US was killing more Iraqi civilians than were killed on 9/11… in fact about 495,000 more people were killed.

    The logic of incarcerating someone indefinitely who has been found innocent is facially inhumane and not part of a society that I want to be a part of.

    And Eric, we are way past the slippery slope argument… we slid down the slope in November 2001, we are now approaching a cliff.

    If we want to fight terrorism we first must stop terrorizing (meaning get the hell out of the middle east immediately); and instead of trying to exploit natural resources in the middle for our own personal gain, we should either leave the region alone, or if we have to meddle we should assist in efforts that actually curb inequality, in a nonpaternalist and self-interested manner.

  5. eric


    I don’t think that the war is about fighting terrorism or even about U.S. corporate interests. Now it is strictly political. It is about having to prove tough. Americans love our politicians to be warlords. The escalation of the war in Afghanistan has absolutely no real geopolitical or economic justification. The Taliban is completely irrelevant to U.S. national security and keeping an eye on Al Qaeda there does not require the large U.S. troop presence, civilian casualties, or tax payers billions that it presently costs us. We’re there for just one reason: Americans want their presidents to go to war.

  6. ReWrite

    “warlords” I love it. There is that woman on Sarah something that has appeared on Bill Moyers twice, she lives and works in Afghanistan, it would be interesting to review her perspective on our presence in Afghanistan.

  7. eric

    There was a Bill Moyers Journal feature recently on the misinformation about the Taliban in Pakistan that I believe I wrote a post on and referenced above.

  8. Rewrite,

    Try giving a qualifying fact. You are stating one baseless, unproven supposition after another … and by fact I mean referenceable, verifiable, actual data. Not meaning, the opinions of slanted media, opinions of so called experts or other balderdash.


    You can’t find a government outside of the third world holes/minimum population dives that don’t engage in imperialism; Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South America, Europe … etc., it is the nature of the animal.

    I saw the Bill Moyers piece; and I do mean piece ~ no verifiable facts, just more baseless opinion of a slanted mind.

    You still haven’t figured it out; you don’t know the actuality of these people. Let me repeat ~ you … do … not … know; “know” meaning by assimilated facts have a position of actual information to utilise or disseminate.

    Spout the media hype, it’s your football. But, just realise, without facts, you are never, ever correct. To err on the side of caution is prudence, prudence lends wisdom, wisdom comes from critical thinking and experience ~ only from those foundations.

    Problem with America? This crap, a whole lot of opinion and victimisation diatribe, nary a fact to be found.

  9. eric

    I think that is exactly what I am saying. As we don’t know the facts, and in the case of Pakistan it was what the Pakistani military officials were reporting to journalists located outside of the conflict zone, then it is almost impossible to reach the conclusions our media concludes.

    There are a few interesting stories out there about how, for example, the New York Times will write a story based on an “anonymous” government source, never investigate the validity of that source’s claims, and then the government will cite that NY Times story to justify its actions, only later for the NY Times to come up out and say that the story was wrong, (ie, like the case with the 1-7 Guantanamo detainees returning to the battlefield which we now know is false).

    So, yes, as countries go, everyone is self-interested and therefore some what imperialistic. Were we to quantify imperialism, though, by government spending on military both per capita and in real terms, then the U.S. would take the prize. Were we to calculate imperialism by military presence outside of one’s own borders, then once again we take the prize. We have a historically unprecedented military presence in every corner of the globe. We have the largest socialized military in the history of the world. We just turn it outwards, not inwards like the Hondurans and Venezuelans and Iranians.

  10. LMMFAOROTFL. Okay, that’s just hilarious …

    You blame us for our presence outside our borders? Really?

    Well, again, your football, your rules, believe what want, whatever makes you feel comfortable.

    But I’m going to suggest, again, pull your head out of the media, because you aren’t even in the same galaxy as actuality.

    You might want to try facts, and no, I don’t mean “NY Times” version of sourceless facts.

    I could link the information for you, but I think maybe you need to go look for yourself.

    Feel free to come back and tell me about exactly how many countries out there in the big bad world depend on U.S. monies for THEIR national defense.

    Try history. If we weren’t the big dog militarily, you wouldn’t have a blog, because Mother Russia doesn’t play simpleton patsy pansy bullshit with anyone. They either crush you, contain you, or eliminate you; that’s their methodologies, and we were the ONLY thing that stood between them and world dominance since the fall of Hitler.

    You might want to look into diplomatic relations regarding how many of these no name, shitbag, worthless third world dives are still in existence because they have made deals with our government over many decades for military support/supplies/monies for whatever our politicians wanted to take as payback.

    The NY Times lies, our government lies, every government lies, intimidates, tortures, maims, kills … hell, WBO does the same, IMF does the same, what’s the point? … hey, Welcome to Humanity!!! Pakiwhostan? They are one neutron bomb away from “who cares” and India had better watch their step, they aren’t necessary either.

    P.S. “Imperialism” is a genetic strategy, always has been, always will be … it won’t end, until humanity ends.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s