Mr. President,
There is no doubt that your presidency began unlike any other in recent history. In some respects, like none other period. For starters, many people (myself included) thought they had a pretty good read on you from the reading of your two books. This seemingly brought to life by the man who stood tall in his call for “real” change “that we can believe in” and the promise of a transparent government.
...more »
Mr. President,
There is no doubt that your presidency began unlike any other in recent history. In some respects, like none other period. For starters, many people (myself included) thought they had a pretty good read on you from the reading of your two books. This seemingly brought to life by the man who stood tall in his call for “real” change “that we can believe in” and the promise of a transparent government.
What I, and many others, are beginning to see is a person who feels he is usually very grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge the gaps. The problem is what you give up and the contradictions that make this possible.
I will not dare to make interpretations of who you are, but rather just speak from my feel based on recent actions and lack thereof. You make the call.
Transparency has only been partial and then only on the things that are less controversial. There are now chips and nicks in the persuasive and appealing character that was visible during the campaign to the White House. As time goes by though, the “feel” of you is less and less satisfying. While your “numbers” are still riding high, there seems to be some emerging themes that appear to be contradictions and back-peddling.
It is becoming more and more apparent, based on the “news” talk shows and blogs, that I am not the only one with a critical but still positive view. And, remember, most of the people I am talking about are supporters like myself who very vocally tooted your horn in support of your campaign. You asked us to hold your feet to the fire....I am doing just that.
Your recent speech with a graphic display of the Constitution of the United States as a backdrop left many dismayed. You mentioned that one of the things you had done since taking office was to “ban the use of (so called) enhanced interrogation techniques.” The fact is, those techniques are torture and torture has always been banned by the anti-torture statute, the war crimes statute, and the Eighth Amendment. Something else to consider by your statement, “banned,” is that presidents do not have the Constitutional power to make laws but rather are bound to uphold them.
In your speech, you stated that you ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantanamo and in that vein, you mentioned the few (3) convictions and that the Supreme Court had invalidated the entire system. You said that the idea behind Guantanamo was to be beyond the law. All that being true, my question is what good is your talking about a return to law if the present laws aren’t being enforced?
You then went into all the various actions regarding the movement (or non-movement) of prisoners. At some point, you stated that in the past, detainees released had returned to the battlefield. Strange since I don’t remember the Congress ever declaring war that would make such a battlefield a reality. My understanding of the rules of war is that they apply to actual battlefields not overseas contingency operations. And, if the areas of conflict are defined as battlefields, the detainees must then be considered “prisoners of war,” not some so called “enemy combatant or even terrorists. The distinction needs to be made that not all those currently imprisoned were captured on the “battlefield.” The other missing thought was in the backdrop behind you called the 8th amendment to the Constitution.....”Due Process.” The question becomes how do you, the Attorney General, the courts or the Congress, consistent with our values and our Constitution, find someone deserving of incarceration but neither guilty nor innocent, and to do so without a trial or even telling those persons what acts they are imprisoned for?
This sounds a lot like Bush/Cheney revived! Worse yet, in violation of the Constitution and law of the land.
Sir, I have heard you mention on several occasions with regard to being in concert with the law. However, I have not heard you mention once that it means enforcing the law with regard to the Convention Against Torture, the Anti-torture Act, the War Crimes Act, the UN Charter, the Freedom of Information Act, the Geneva Conventions as laws you are bound to enforce as well as obey. And certainly the U.S. Constitution as it applies to torture. You have sworn to uphold (preserve, protect and defend) and failing to do so, Sir, makes you subject to penalty under these same laws, treaties and acts.
Preventive detention goes against every principle our nation was founded on. We have courts and laws in place that we are all bound to respect and rely on. We have been a nation of laws for hundreds of years, and we should not simply discard them when they are inconvenient or maybe just potentially politically explosive.
It seems our new president is looking a lot like the old. Sir, you promised change. Change we can believe in! Change that would put us back in line with the Constitution and the law of the land. Yet, there is something strangely familiar with previous attempts to circumvent or sidestep the law.
First, in your speech, you did not mention the justice department's recent assertions of "state secrets" power but instead asserted principles exactly contrary to those actions. You said, the state secrets power “should” not be abused merely because information reveals violation of laws or embarrasses the government. You declared that the administration was doing a "review" and would follow "a formal process" before asserting the privilege, at least in the future, and would tell Congress why, in each case, it had done so. Unfortunately, this is not what the Constitution requires. What is required is for the courts and the congress to see the information in closed session and overrule a decision. The administration telling congress (or the public) what you did is not the same as Congress making the decision. You have on several occasions discussed the fact that the other branches of government are "co-equal," but you ignored the fact that congress in the Constitution is far and away the most powerful branch of our government. You also didn’t mention that the State Secrets Protection Act, is a bill in congress now that would give courts the power to review and reverse state secrets claims.
Secondly, what is also being missed by many and not mentioned is the Attorney General’s refusal to tell the House Judiciary Committee whether you, as president, could throw out an entire case, not just block one piece of evidence, by claiming "state secrets". He also refused to say that you (the president) cannot hold people indefinitely without charge.
Third, this same action of prisoner detention is being done in Bagram (unmentioned in your speech) and elsewhere, including Guantanamo, and you did not turn away from that power in your speech.
I have my own personal reasons for wanting you to be the best President ever. However, I see you sliding down a slippery slope and looking more and more like those that (most recently) came before you.
Respectfully,
Andrew R. Jackson
U.S. Navy Retired
Virginia Beach, VA
« less
full details »
Social Web