A New Legal "Process"?

OK. I’ve really refrained from saying anything about the upcoming Obama administration since the man hasn’t even been sworn in. However, upon reading Glen Greenwald’s Sunday post about Obama’s position on closing Guantanamo, I have to say something.

Here is what Obama stated (per Mr. Greenwald):

“It (the closing of Guantanamo) is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

You mean to tell me that he is considering creating a whole new set of rules to use evidence that is not admissible in our current legal system? And somehow allowing confessions under torture under this "process" is "adhering to the basic principles of Anglo American legal system"? What the heck is that? Maybe we should set up a new set of court proceedings for anything that can’t be used in our present court system. Hey, I’ve got it! If a person is found not guilty in our legal system, we’ll just create a system where he can be found guilty. To hell with double jeopardy, that only pertains to the current legal system…not if there were two different ones. Cool!

I totally agree with Glen Greenwald and his take on Obama’s scary statement. We must not find any kind of “process” which will allow evidence obtained during torture to be used against anyone. Obama’s posture is not what defines us as “civilized,” “decent” and “fair,” and does not conform to our Constitution’s intent.

Our laws have unfortunately enabled individuals guilty of crimes to be set free because due process was not followed. This is obviously a disagreeable outcome of adhering to our constitutional rights that were established by our forefathers in order to protect the innocent. We must, however, never deviate from these inalienable rights.

Letting one person be convicted by evading these rights can lead to the total obliteration of our fundamental laws by those who wish to have absolute power. A crack in the dike leads to the inevitable flood.

Barack Obama’s position is unacceptable. I hope that’s clear enough.

Breathe Easier...The Economy WILL Be Fixed

This morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” George mentioned that the producers had given the public an opportunity to send in questions for their sole guest President-elect Barack Obama. According to George (easier to type than his last name), the overwhelming question was (I’m paraphrasing all this since I don’t have a transcript – feel free to correct me if I say anything incorrectly) if the economy can be fixed.

Now let’s think about this. Does anyone REALLY think that Obama is going to say “Gee, George, not gonna happen. This economy has been too corrupted in the last thirty-five years and there’s just no way in Hell I can fix the darned thing! I sure hope it can right itself. I’m really crossing my fingers! But thanks for electing me anyway.”

Be real, George. Is that the best you can do? That was a hanging softball question. Does George really think that his audience is that stupid? That when Obama says (I’m paraphrasing again) it can be fixed though it’s going to take a long time, the viewing audience is going to at last sit back and say “Whew! Now I can relax because our Guy says it can be fixed”? I can see the headline now in tomorrow’s papers: “President-elect Barack Obama Says the Economy Can Be Fixed!” That ought to make everyone breathe a HUGE sigh of relief. Time to go back to business as usual…the economy will be fixed…Obama says so…

As far as I’m concerned this is just scripted political theatre by both asker and asked to alleviate the anxiety of the not-so-bright. Both know that they’re catering to an audience that cannot handle the complexities of economics so good old platitudes will keep those poor people from wringing their hands.

On “Democracy Now!” Amy Goodman aired a clip with FDR explaining to the public how the Social Security System that he implemented would work. In the clip, FDR used the word “vicissitudes.” I wonder how many politicians even know what that word means, let alone use it to inform anything to the public. They wouldn’t dare. They are scared it would make them sound “elitist.” Keep it to two syllable words only. Yet 70 some-odd years ago, our President used it as a matter of course when explaining to the public his policies. My, how times have changed.

It always gets me when a politician says on TV that “The people are smart!” Hogwash. That politician is playing to the stupid. Can’t you just see it? Some “smart” person watching the aforesaid pol exclaiming, “Yup! He’s dadgum right! I shur am one smart sumbitch, ain’t I maw? He’s the feller for me! I’ma votin’ fer him!” And THAT’s exactly why the pol says “The people are smart.”

Of course, as I wrote in an earlier post, for me the real number one issue is the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. The economy will one day recover and people will get better quality of lives. Sadly, once dead, always dead. No recovery for that one.