Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?The biggest worry among people BO has chosen to surround himself with is that they won't be able to continue to jail people who they can't prove have done anything wrong.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS BUSH YOU FUCKING OBAMA SUPPORTING MORONS. THIS IS NOT CHANGE. THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING THING, MAYBE MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING.
But liberals don't care about the principles involved. They don't care about justice, human rights, any of that pussy shit. They never did. They just care that someone on their team is the one doing the jailing:
“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.We're a democratic society? Oh, he must have meant "Democratic President."
But particularly inasmuch as the Bush administration invoked that authority as a basis for its much-criticized detention policies, a move by Mr. Obama to seek explicit authorization for indefinite detention without trial would be seen by some of his supporters as a betrayal.Impossible! They're too covered in gooey change juice to perceive anything BO does as betrayal.
But human rights groups have been mounting arguments to counter pressure that they say is building on Mr. Obama to show toughness, perhaps by echoing the Bush administration’s insistence that some detainees may need to be held indefinitely.How the flying fuck is this tough?
“I’m afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things,” Mr. Wittes said in an interview.I'm so tough that I'm going to lock up little boys who might have thrown rocks! And torture them! This shows my toughness! I won't be a pussy and release people who I can't prove have done anything wrong, because I'm scared that they might come back and hurt me. But I'm tough!
I fucking hate everyone.
5 comments:
You really do hate everyone. It must be taxing.
There are many people who are disillusioned about what Obama will do, and then there are people who are glad that Bush is leaving and someone who appears to have superior moral grounding is taking office, though that moral grounding is obviously not perfect. I'd rather have at least that, and support that (though not support that uniquely) than the previous alternative. In brief: no, it's not perfect, but it's better. You never see things that way, and there's your source of hate.
More appropriately, let's see what his administration actually does before we judge him in any way.
isn't picking his advisors and cabinet members doing something? hasn't he done things in the senate? there's plenty to judge him on.
and what is the basis for thinking obama is better, morally or otherwise?
If you want to judge President Bush versus President Obama you should probably wait until President Obama actually does something. Picking the cabinet and advisors is important but the decisions that come from the office are ultimately what should be judged. A group of people is not a single moral actor, the actions of the person at the top is, and thus that is only what we can judge, and no actions have happened yet.
I'm not saying Obama's perfect or he doesn't support policies or ideologies I disagree with, but it's clearly evident to me that he supports more policies and ideologies that I agree with than does Bush. And I think the policies and ideologies that I support are more morally sound than Bush's. Ergo, QED, etc.
As of where we are right now, I think it's ridiculous to say that they are the "the same".
Bush and Obama are effectively the same on a host of the most important issues. Sure they have stylistic differences, and might personally believe different things, but in terms of the outcomes of their actions, I think it is very unlikely that they'll do much different things on the most important issues.
By virtue of his repeated Senate votes to continue funding the illegal occupation of Iraq, Obama is already a war criminal before even moving into the oval office. That's a pretty good start for my comparison.
Post a Comment