Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 13 Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (17 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Obama Needs Congress to Close GTMO, but Not to Use Drones?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 5/16/13

- Advertisement -
In late April of 2013, Congress held a hearing, finally, on Obama's use of drones. Obama, however, oddly declined to send anyone to represent the White House at this hearing. Obama had promised in his February 12, 2013 State of the Union Address to bring more transparency to his drone program.

In his SOTU address, Obama said this:

"We must enlist our values in the fight," Obama said, in a portion of the speech dedicated to the "range of capabilities" the U.S. would deploy against suspected terrorists worldwide. "In the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world."

Note this phrase in particular: "consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances." I learned in grade school that "checks and balances" refers to the interactions between the three major branches of the government, the Legislative (Congress), the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch (White House). Despite promising once again to be "transparent" in the months ahead, Obama doesn't think that checks and balances refers to participating in a Senate hearing on one of his most controversial policies two months after he promised to do this in the "months ahead."

Laws, as you all know, refer to procedures that establish, among other things, guilt or innocence. One is, under our legal system, supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Oversight over the legal processes is provided for under the principle that no one is suitable by themselves to be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. That is the law.

Apparently, what Obama means by "consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances" is something radically different than what I learned in the U.S. system of education and what people are taught in our law schools.

The April 2013 Congressional hearing on drones was held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. The committee is chaired by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill). By not coming to the Senate hearing held by a committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, apparently Obama thinks that "I will continue to engage with Congress" means not sending a White House spokesperson to discuss his drone policy. By "our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world" he means "I and my people will use the word 'transparency' a lot but we won't actually be 'transparent' in our actions."

- Advertisement -

Evidently, when he promises to do something, like to be transparent and follow the law and engage Congress, this promise is as meaningful as his promise in his recent press conference that he wants to close Guantanamo.

Because there has been resistance in Congress to closing Guantanamo, Obama says his hands are tied. "I want to close it, I do, but I just can't you see. It's Congress' fault." But when it comes to Congressional resistance to his growing use of drones to kill thousands of people abroad, including even some American citizens, and including hundreds of children, he as Commander-in-Chief can go ahead and just do it.

Mr. Obama, what is the difference between your need to get Congressional permission to close GTMO, but your not needing Congressional approval to assassinate thousands with drones?


Close Guantanamo Now! Join Glenn Greenwald, Cornel West, Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Wallace Shawn, Bianca Jagger, Laura Flanders, John Cusack, Mark Ruffalo, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Dave Eggers, Ron Kovic, Denis Haliday... Sign the Statement to be published in a full-page NYT's ad. Donate generously to fund this important statement! Help to create a political in which Obama feels that he has no choice but to shut down the prison.

First published at

- Advertisement -

Cal Poly Pomona Sociology Professor. Author of "Globalization and the Demolition of Society," co-editor/author (with Peter Phillips) of "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney." National Steering Committee Member of the World Can't (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

On Naomi Wolf's Sounding the Alarm

Is Voting a Solution?

How Bad Has Bush Been? How Deep is the Ocean? How High is the Sky?

Who is Barack Obama Really? An Examination of Obama's Domestic Policies

If You're Still an Obama Fan...

Is the GOP's "Southern Strategy" Over?


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments