Obama Presidency

IVNORD wrote: Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?

Closing and investigating Guantanamo Bay is to demonstrate to the world the US respects international conventions.  It was a platform and promise that Obama made.  I also would like to think that it's because Obama genuinely believes in justice and the rule of law (and that he respects due and fair process).  It was important for him to start investigations into the welfare of the prisoners and any allegations of abuse as they are under the US' care.  I don't think it helps the US' case to be seen as a rogue state that is above the law and international conventions, and of course I would expect of my government too to not be in violation of human rights. 

Of course one would not expect Al Qaeda to stick to international conventions, nor has the Al Qaeda organisation signed on to them, but I think it's important to send the message to the world's peoples and nation-states that the US upholds certain standards.   I don't believe, as  a matter of principle, in having double-standards/ being hypocritical.  In terms of future expectations, I was thinking more of the dealings with states (expectations of what is appropriate and rightful behaviour).

Torture and coercion was not only used against him.  I wonder when Bush linked its old ally Iraq to Al Qaeda in his struggle for the minds of Americans if he worried desperately about how many innocent Iraqis could be hurt?   Let's face it, there's a lot of hostility towards the US because of its aggressive foreign policies throughout the years -- that has included supporting groups that have engaged in terrorism over the years, and of course the first strike policy has not sat well.  There has been a feeling of hubris coming from the US, that they would support their interests no matter what, and to hell with you if you don't agree.  "You're either with us or against us."  One could be against the policies without being against the people.  I think that Bush was too inclined towards thinking and expressing himself in black and white: good vs. evil, with or against.....  Perhaps this "black and white" president will look to the grey areas more.  At least he comes across as smarter and less dogmatic.  I'm sure he'll be a more stately and respected statesman -- course he lacks that rather endearing swagger.  

Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means.  And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems.  It's a slippery slope.

Obama wants to improve the US' reputation, and in part, this is a struggle for the hearts and minds of people. 

Anyway, that's pretty much how I feel.  Given more time without distraction, I'm sure I could express myself better and more cogently.

 

 

OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.

Glad you like it.  :)


Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 21:31

A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice.  I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to.

 

As for the "right wing" supposedly never being critical of Bush, come on.  Who kept Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and killed the amnesty bill?  I'm not the only one who has been consistently disappointed in Bush's second term weakness, from the pork spending and not standing up for free market principals to his support of amnesty.  That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea.  And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism.  It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration.