Two temptations:
I am very tempted to raise my own assessment of Barack Obama’s performance from a C+ to a B-, based on (1) his seeming approval of legislation reigning in, as a matter of law, and not mere regulation, the interest banks can charge on credit cards, and the procedures they take (don’t take) in giving consumers real notice of how the accounts they apply for work (or don’t work), and providing greater protection for college students who have insufficient income compared to credit granted; and (2) more positive statements regarding the ecology, just for a start. However, my continuing concern over Afghanistan, along with retreats (or matters of about-face) regarding past CIA and Bush Administration abuses regarding the War on Terror, keep me from raising my assessment. I fear that simply declaring the past as serious mistakes that we must move on from is not enough to keep future administrations, or even the Obama administration, from repeating or condoning torture, renditions and the like. Anyway, my assessment is intended to be an invitation to dialogue; it clearly has no sway with the current administration as such. I shall note almost up front that I voted for Obama, have no regrets for doing so, contributed monetarily to Obama’s campaign and have no regrets for that either. I am delighted the Bush administration has come to an end after eight years of undermining the U.S. Constitution. However, questions remain, not just of the administration past, but of where the current administration is taking us on a range of matters, top on my own list being military and foreign affairs. I remain pleased with Obama’s rhetoric on many apsects of foreign and affairs and was delighted to read the transcript of Obama’s address to the graduating classes of Notre Dame.
I’m also tempted to blame the Obama administration for the delays on the closing of Gitmo. Senators and Representatives say the President hasn’t presented a coherent plan. True, but irrelevant. The Obama administration probably isn’t going to share details of a Gitmo closing with Congress because the Presdient knows they will attack the details and not the clsoing itself. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be for the closure, but doesn’t want them “around here.” But where to send them? If Obama sends them back to their home countries, he will be attacked for sending “terrorists” back to do us more harm. So, on Gitmo, I place the blame on Congress and the fickleness of the American public.
One Certainty: The idea that sin will disappear if everyone proclaims Christ. Hogwash. The Pew Study on the use of torture (as discussed in so many places, including very many blogs) found that in the United States, the “Christian” faithful were more likely than infrequent attenders to support the use of torture, and that those who attend church the most were the most likely to approve of torture. If any news story were to make me doubt the concept of free will, this almost (”almost causes” isn’t the same as “does make”) causes me to ponder and seriously reflect on the nature of grace and faith. The Certainty is that Christ cannot be reduced to a “label” equivalent to a magic wand. Caution: one needs to look deeply into the Pew Study to draw specific conclusions and not rely on this brief coment.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
J 05.20.09 at 12:40 am
“simply declaring the past as serious mistakes”
It would be much easier to take Obama’s words about mistakes seriously if his deeds didn’t keep saying “W was right about pretty much every aspect of the WOT”.
“So, on Gitmo, I place the blame on Congress and the fickleness of the American public”
Please, please tell me you didn’t seriously think O ever intended to close Gitmo. Also, I’m not sure about this fickleness business; the overwhelming majority of the American public has never had any problem with Gitmo.
Joel 05.20.09 at 3:29 am
First, my apologies on typos. I need to get my bifocals in, I suppose, before I try to post. “Once” in header changed to “One.”
J,
Yes, I believe Obama intends to close Gitmo. I believe negotiations between the President and Congressional leaders will eventually produce that result — not on the time schedule I would like — but still.
We Americans are as we have been for a long time. Americans celebrated the Cuban Mariel Boatlift of 1980 until it dawned on them that some of those allowed out came from prisons and mental institutions. The bitterness, yet, I think, between Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter can be traced to the fact that President Carter placed some of the refugees in Arkansas, Clinton was up for re-election for Arkansas governor. Both Carter and Clinton went down to defeat. There were other reasons Bill Clinton was defeated for re-election in 1980, but Clinton continues to harbor bitterness toward former President Carter.
All of us invite evil to take up residence within; the starting point for repentance is not “the devil made me do it” but a humble acknowledgment that we have opened the door to sin’s effect, which is rarely, if ever, upon just one person, but on all of creation.
Gitmo will be closed — that is a reference not to our Cuban military base, of course, but to both the mistreatment of detainees and a denial of due process.
Just in Obama declaring waterboarding as torture, some step has been taken forward. However, I give Obama a C+ not out of disillusionment but based on an attempt to separate my enthusiasm for his election with my realism of the fact that the moment a president takes office his/her hands aer dirty because nasty stuff is at their feet the moment they are elected or even the moment they are nominated. I’m waiting to see what Obama does with the dung heaps, not just the roses.
I will not be a complacent supporter of Obama, but I will not hide my delight at his election either. I think at some point Obama realizes that he doesn’t want to go down in history as Bill Clinton did — a great mind, with great potential to govern as president but much squandered as well. It took Clinton years to recover from his flip-flop on gays in the military. I salute Clinton, though, for working hard to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and for all the dislike I have for certain elements of Israeli leadership, Clinton was right that Arafat squandered a momentous opportunity. I think Obama knows the risks of his “change” slogan being attached to constantly changing policies. But many presidencies get off to a rocky start, including Ronald Reagan’s. Getting shot and surviving will raise the positive profile of any president — and that is not meant as disparagement of the late president or any of those who were the victims of gunfire that day, for that is violence to be rejected at the least. Bill Clinton’s presidency recovered so quickly after the Democratic disaster of 1994 because of his encouraging the country after the Oklahoma City bombing. However, Obama knows he can’t count on such fate, nor do I believe he seeks it. Yet, Obama sends mixed signals — he will bring the world together but his top priority is national security. What about world security, and by that I don’t mean “one world” government.
Gitmo will be closed. My opinion. Certainty is that Christ is in us as followers (disciples) and kicking our butts (a bad metaphor, I suppose) for all the time we are DINO’s — Disciples in Name Only. But God in Christ is not away from any of us, ever. I’m one who believes in “finding Christ in the culture” so my use of God in Christ is both centered in the church and above and beyond it.
Too long a reply, but I’ll let it stand. Thanks very much for sharing your perspective.
DH 05.20.09 at 3:15 pm
The fickleness of the American public is in voting for Obama when the American public doesn’t want to close Gitmo not the other way around.
Clintons stance of “don’t ask don’t tell” was brilliant. No military person needs to know that someone else is gay. Why shouldn’t they keep it to themselves.
It is interesting that people look at Clinton’s presidency as a success after 1994 when the opposing party controled the Congress from that time on.
I totally abhor your conclusion that the shooting of the President is what perpetuated Reagan being a success or at least implied. It was NOT the shooting of Reagan that “endeared people” to Reagan. It was the fact that from 1982 or he was able to inact policies of lower taxes that helped America achieve one of the greatest economic booms in history.
Carter went down to defeat because he was a wimp on foreign policy, forced governments to give up land for “peace”, had the greatest economic crisis since the depression and has never been as bad since, promoting tarriffs which hurt the economy, etc.
I don’t see “Christ in culture” in the closing of Gitmo. It may appear to some people as being “Christlike” but there is a difference between “Christlike” and “Christ in culture”. If one wants to see “Christ in culture” we need to see revival where people accept Christ as their Savior. If I want our nation and the world to be more “Christlike” then we wouldn’t see abortion allowed, homosexuality promoted, pornography allowed, in Europe drugs allowed, divorce promoted, fornication promoted, drunkeness promoted, fowl language being more prevelent, help for the poor from peoples hearts as opposed to passing the “buck” to government, etc.
Kim 05.20.09 at 3:34 pm
John 11:35.
DH 05.20.09 at 5:43 pm
That’s right. Jesus weeps for people and/or groups where “abortion allowed, homosexuality promoted, adultry promoted, pornography allowed, drugs allowed, divorce promoted, fornication promoted, drunkeness promoted, fowl language being more prevelent, help for the poor doesn’t come from peoples hearts and the passing of the “buck” to government, etc.”, for people and groups who live under murderous regimes, women are treated as second class citizens, etc.
DH 05.20.09 at 7:34 pm
Also Joel, I know no one who supports the use of torture. To me there is a flaw in the Pew study in that the study needs to have additional questions regarding definition as opposed to making such an overgeneralized conclusion that they do.
Beth 05.20.09 at 8:35 pm
DH, the people answering the questionnaire were asked this:
“Torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists is justified…”
and they were given the options “often”, “sometimes”, “rarely”, “never”.
People decide whether they think torture (however they define that) is justified. Where exactly is the methodological problem here? Why is this an overgeneralisation? If someone asked me this question, and I answered “often”, would they be overgeneralising if they then said “Beth supports the use of torture against suspected terrorists”?
Here’s a question: how would you have answered, dh? You say you know no-one who supports the use of torture. So your answer would have been “never”, right?
DH 05.20.09 at 9:44 pm
yes but one first must define what “torture” is. So for me the questionaire just proves its ambiguity.
Maybe the people who answered “often” projected a definition of “torture” that was implied by the author of the questionaire but was not stated by the author of the questionaire.
Here is a logic analogy to make a point: Just because a person happens to believe in the “Big Bang theory” doesn’t mean they believe in an “old earth, so it is with people who answered “often” with regard to the questionaire.
Therefore if someone gave me the questionaire with th0se questions I would reply with a statement “Define torture.” with another statement “I will only answer that question in the questionaire if you define the term. In any discussion one must have proper definitions or there will be “cognitive dissonance” which no one wants in discussions, surveys, questionaires, etc.
Beth 05.20.09 at 11:07 pm
Well, the accepted sense of torture is “the infliction of severe pain”. The questionnaire is asking people, specifically, do they think that using severe pain is an acceptable way to try to get information from suspected terrorists. They’re not debating whether something is, or is not torture. They’re using the general definition of “extreme pain” and asking “is it okay to use extreme pain against suspected terrorists”.
So, again, under this definition, what would your answer be?
J 05.21.09 at 4:02 am
I suspect the Pew numbers are off a little, since I’m reasonably certain the percentage of people who think it’s OK to torture/inlict severe pain under at least some circumstances is much closer to 100% than 75%. I’m not sure whether those claining to be opposed are lying to themselves or the pollster.
fatprophet 05.21.09 at 6:22 am
Dare I ask? What is Gitmo?
Kim 05.21.09 at 6:23 am
If the infliction of severe intellectual and theological pain counts as torture, then DH is the Torquemada of Connexions.
Kim 05.21.09 at 8:01 am
Hi fatprophet,
“Gitmo” is shorthand for the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. (”Gutmo” would be more appropriate semantically and lexicologically, but the American military love their euphemisms - “collateral damage” is my favourite - and military personnel tend to come last in speling bees.) Gitmo is now a famous amusement park that offers free room and (water)board to all tourists - and the white-knuckle rides are said to take your breath away.
Beth 05.21.09 at 8:54 am
J, I hope that you’re wrong. Apart from anything else, studies strongly suggest that information derived from torture is unreliable. So even on a practical level, I don’t see the point in the use of torture. On a humanitarian and theological level, I find it obscene. I really do hope that there are a lot more people out there who agree…
Rachel 05.21.09 at 11:59 am
Beth, assuming your last point was not rhetorical but an invitation - yes, I agree completely.
And I can’t help thinking that, even if the torture in question is carried our outside geographical boundaries or in very extreme cases, the fact that the state agrees to its use brutalises the nation’s sense of itself.
J 05.21.09 at 1:10 pm
“J, I hope that you’re wrong”
I’m sure everybody here hopes I’m wrong, Beth. The question is, do you think I’m wrong?
“studies strongly suggest that information derived from torture is unreliable”
Irrelevant, if torture is morally wrong, and almost certainly not true in all situations. While this is clearly true in the case of strategic information, the veracity of statements about tactical information can in many cases be tested within minutes. A promise that things will get more stressful if those statements are false probably works pretty well.
If you oppose something on moral grounds, it is not a good idea to defend that opposition with practical arguments that could be disproven.
DH 05.21.09 at 1:54 pm
I still stand by the ambiguity of the definition people have with regard to the term torture.
For me the fact that many of the things used for interegations are done to military personel to show that it is NOT torture.
I still can’t answer that question until someone defines what “extreme pain is”. The fact that all of the techniques are practices on military personel for trainning perposes to me show that defining what “extreme pain” is is also ambiguous.
Wood 05.21.09 at 3:39 pm
DH, you might as well say that grass is tartan. To say that it’s not torture because the goodies are doing it is so intellectually dishonest, so utterly moronic — yes, moronic, idiotic, stupid as hell — and so plain evil that it leads to the inevitable question of whether you actually exist or you’re just a troll.
You will, no doubt, protest. In about three posts, containing hundreds and hundreds of words that I will not read.
But again and again, you inspire absolute disgust and contempt — contempt — at your intellectual dishonesty, your apparent complete lack of human compassion and your willingness to say that black is white against all evidence.
Torture is torture, no matter who is doing it, no matter what the circumstances, no matter who the victim is. Torture is torture. The goalposts do not move. There are no goalposts to move.
Is torture justified? I would say never, but I have been known to be wrong. I don’t know. Maybe, under desperate circumstances, sometimes it is. Guantanamo Bay does not seem to me to be a place where the use of it is justified.
But I am not wrong not on this point: in this discussion, you are either lying, horribly misinformed or deluded, plain stupid, or pulling our chains. I have wondered for a while whether you’re some eighteen-year-old Dawkins-style atheist knobhead pretending to be a caricature of the worst kind of kneejerk right-wing anti-intellectual fool. It seems more of an option than ever.
DH 05.21.09 at 4:05 pm
Wood, I agree torture is torture no matter who is doing it. I agree the goalposts don’t move but one still needs to “define” these things or ambibuity will result.
There are many, many more people way more intelligent than I who say and agree with what I’m saying with regard to torture. It is NOT intellectually dishonest to say that there is a difference between torture and interregations.
Wood, you say “But I am not wrong not on this point: in this discussion, you are either lying, horribly misinformed or deluded, plain stupid, or pulling our chains.” To all of these the answer is “no, no, no and no”. Again there are way more people who are extremely intelligent who agree with what I have said, the definition clarifications therein, etc.
Wood, I’m not evil and I’m not a troll and I do exist. Again, with all of the many intelligent people who are intelligent who understand the position I have to make such a “harsh over the top statement as you is really does nothing for discussion. I have never attacked you, attacked anyone who has responded here. I really take issue with the “attitude” you display with regard to discussion.
One must define these things. To me the definition of these things are not as “black and white” as you claim to state. I know you accuse me of being a “black and white” person. Why not feel the same here on this?
I’m not a “knee jerk right-wing” person. I just understand that these issues are much more complex than what you and others are portraying.
There is much evidence shown with regard to the techniques, who, what, where, the extent, how often, etc. and the facts confirm the “complexity” of the issue that makes it not as “black and white” as you state. As one can see these things with regard to torture or even interregations are extremely hard to define and I’m not as foolish, ignorant, etc. to deny the reality of the situations.
I’m not an atheist and I really am mad that you would even suggest such a thing. I’m not 18 years old atheist or pretending to be one. I really want to know why you are so “hostile”. I have never been “hostile” to you or anyone on this particular thread. I really don’t believe my responses deserve this much hostility on something as complex an issue as this.
I really never intended for you to be so “mad” at me nor was I being mad in any way. Come on Wood, you really need to “calm down”.
Joel Betow 05.21.09 at 5:21 pm
Thanks for all the comments. I’m sorry I have so little time to respond.
I supported Obama as what I saw as the best candidate and best opportunity under the circumstances. I strongly disagree with Obama about withholding of mistreatment of detainees photos; I disagree with Obama (and side with Sen. Leahy and House Speaker Pelosi) on needing to do an accounting of past abuses that we might not go there again..
I understand, but disagree, with Obama’s viewpoint that declaring waterboarding as torture is enough. I understand that Obama doesn’t want his domestic agenda scuttled by the distraction of CIA and DOJ past undertakings, but I am not swayed by his concern, either. South Africa couldn’t go forward until there was an accounting for the past. Such accounting rarely included prosecutions. However, Nelson Mandela could not, and did not, simply say, “the past is behind us and we must look forward.”
It is my mere opinion that Gitmo will eventually close. I don’t present it as a certainty. I am aware of the tendency of those elected president, whether Republicans or Democrats, not to want to give up power they attacked as candidates. But this is not exclusive to politicians. Will Willimon changed considerably upn being elected as Bishop, some change coming in good ways, other in bad ways. On the outside, he was a frequent critics of Bishops within the United Methodist Church; as Bishop, Willimon has muted his criticisms in many ways. It is now up to others to keep the heat on.
My pride in Obama’s election will not deter me strong, or even perhaps harsh criticism of some of his policies. In many ways, partisanship is not refusing to compromise with the “other” side; instead it is the defending of practices or policies by your own elected candidate that you disparaged when held by the opposition. I find Barack Obama a huge improvement over “W.” Obama disappointments me in several areas; I am neither shocked nor surprised, however.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been a disaster. Under it, the military forced out more “gays” than ever before, relying on snitching and a wide variety of methods to claim service peronnel had violated the “don’t tell” understanding when those very personnel were often trying to keep a low profile.
Clinton would have lost in getting his campaign position on gays in the military enacted, but had he persevered instead of caved, he would have set the stage for eventual change by the display of character and courage. I’m disappointed, to say the least, that Obama intends to leave “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place.
Clinton also promised Native Americans during the ‘92 primaries that he would get to the bottom of Interior Department mismanagment of Indian trust funds. He did not keep his promise. However, I voted for Clinton in both ‘92 and ‘96 based on my understanding that he was the best choice available.
I like Jimmy Carter, but he set himself up for a difficult presidency by promising not to appoint “cronies” to the Cabinet, and then embarking on that very endeavor for a number of his nominees.
DH,
I could claim that I’m against murder and then go on to define “murder” in a way that would make my viewpoint simply one huge and meaningless escape hatch.
Military personnel are not waterboarded 63 times. Further, though it is a horrific experience, based on the fact of how many U.S. service personnel “wash out” during the course of interrogation school, they at least know they are being put through these drills by friendly forces under controlled situations, where there are very likely steps taken to monitor their mental and physical well-being.
DH 05.21.09 at 6:26 pm
Joel, the fact was that the interregations were under controled situations where there WAS people making sure it was done correctly and appropriately for the very reasons you mentioned. The fact is that it was done at only 20 seconds at a time and done on only 3 people who were involved in planning future attacks.
My view is not some “escape hatch” but an understanding of how these things, concepts, etc. are more complex than what people or yourself are making it out to be.
Joel, if your son was taken by a terrorist and it was proven that this particular knew the terrorist directly and knew that this particular terrorist had your son and all other ways to get information about your son failed would you support waterboarding to get information for the rescue of your son? Remember this is a yes or no question.
I was given a yes or no question and I responded appropriately as “define torture” and got ridiculed for it. Therefore it is only fair that you and others get the same type of “yes or no” questions in return.
As you can see, as proven by the yes or no question, that these issues are much, much more complex than anyone wants to let on. I respect everyone who has responded even Wood but I just cannot go on and deny the reality of the complexity.
fatprophet 05.21.09 at 7:19 pm
Kim thanks for explaining the meaning of gitmo in such a wonderful way - I just love your command of the English language but would hate to play the old card game ‘Lexicon’ with you or even Scrabble.
Kim 05.21.09 at 8:13 pm
Thanks, Joel, for the original post and the subsequent comments, above all for your judicious assessments. It’s all very helpful for an expat this side of the pond. And I hope you will continue to give presidential progress/regress reports in the months ahead.
Cheers,
Kim
DH 05.21.09 at 9:30 pm
Hey Kim, if you would like to receive some judicious assessments and presidential progress/regress reports I will be glad to give mine as well.
I’m tempted to raise my grade from a D to a C- based on him wanting to move forward and and getting away from the past. I also am somewhat pleased with the discussion with Netanyahu in that I’m glad he didn’t rebuke him like I thought he would.
I too am glad that Obama doesn’t have a plan for the closing of Gitmo because Gitmo should not be closed so him not able to come up with a plan gives me a positive grade for Obama.
I kind of support the credit card thing wanting me to raise his grade but how is he going to prevent people who pay on time from paying more for the people who don’t pay? If you get my drift. If he is able to come up with regulations on credit cards like he proposes but without the rising costs to those who have good credit then I would raise my grade.
I agree with his support for Afghanistan’s fight on the war on terror. However, I find it odd that he would rebuke Pres. Karazai when he is doing all he can do.
With regard to Gitmo detainees, “But where to send them?” Leave them where they are.
So therefore I have raised my grade of Obama from a D to a D+.
DH 05.21.09 at 9:33 pm
My rising of a D to a D+ is due to the fact that some of his campaign promises he is beginning to not achieve. I will say that spending $3 trillion dollars extra on the deficit as opposed to the Bush $700 billion is a travesty. While I don’t support deficit spending, seeing Bush spend an extra $700 Billion does not give Obama the right to spend $3 trillion dollars that our country doesn’t have or afford.
Tony Buglass 05.21.09 at 11:24 pm
“…I too am glad that Obama doesn’t have a plan for the closing of Gitmo because Gitmo should not be closed …”
Gitmo will be closed, and should be closed. It was 0pened so that the US could take prisoners to a place outside the law. It was opened so that prisoners coudl be taken somewhere where the normal and legal rules of treatment could be ignored without fear of legal appeal. It was and is an excuse for illegality and immorality. The only argument that can be adduced in support of it is the pragmatic one: evil times demand evil measures. (That, DH, is the argument you are seeking to illustrate by asking whether soeone would resort to torture to rescue his son.)
The point is that the US is a democracy, and wishes to be seen to take the moral high ground in the war against terror. The good guys in the West aren’t the ones who fly airliners full of helpless passengers into targets - that is what the bad guys in Islamofascist terrorism do. We in the West fight by Queensbury rules, we don’t bite, gouge and scratch like the bad guys. Except that Gitmo is the knee in the groin which says the West can be just as bad the bad guys. The US needs to find ways to fight terror without coming down to their level - and in GItmo, they come down to their level.
Beth 05.22.09 at 1:49 am
J, I don’t need lessons from you in argumentation, thanks. If I find something wrong on two separate and unrelated grounds, I will say so. I’m not aiming to win “Rhetorician of the Year” here, but to put forward my thoughts on why torture is a bad thing.
DH 05.22.09 at 4:11 pm
Beth and I agree with you that torture is a bad thing. As I have mentioned one needs to properly define these things because the definitions of these things are way way more difficult than anyone realizes. I don’t want to be naive to the complexity of the issues, definitions therein on what is going on in the world today.