"Mr.
Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his
predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush's extravagant
claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those
abuses. (This week he stated his
intention to sign into law the terrible new measures that will make indefinite
detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.)
"The
measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, will strip the F.B.I.,
federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest
and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made clear
that it doesn't want the job. The legislation could also give future presidents
the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges
or a trial. The bill, championed by Republicans in the House and Senate, was
attached to the military budget bill to make it harder for Mr. Obama to veto
it.
"Nearly
every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the
provisions, including the attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of
the F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of intelligence agencies.
And, for weeks, the White House vowed that Mr. Obama would veto the military
budget if the provisions were left in. On Wednesday, the White House reversed
field, declaring that the bill had been improved enough for the president to
sign it now that it had passed the Senate.
"This
is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a
fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian
prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists,
while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.
And
the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, his spokesman said, is
prepared to sign this law because it allows the executive to grant a waiver for
a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the
legislation's ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused
terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless."
Will
the "journalists" who operate our mainstream media even try to protect us from this continuing takeover by the
military-industrial complex? Quite
unlikely. Consider the following example
of why I say that:
A
friend of mine was recently annoyed with an ad from 'The Plastics Council' on
TV:
"Do
they think this will make us buy more plastic?"
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).