A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama's Choice

Tomorrow, Barack Obama will take the oath of office, and the Bush years, for better or for worse, will be behind us.

So far, Obama has done a lot, and more of it right than wrong, to run as inclusive a pre-administration as possible, and the pundits are all wondering whether this signals a new direction in American politics, and the truth is, it probably doesn't, and it probably doesn't regardless of what the Obama administration does.

The truth is that eventually, the excitement will fade. With his first official acts, he will begin making decisions which some will like and some will not, and those who do not like them will begin to cast aspersions, and eventually the bipartisanship will no longer be evident, even if the administration tries to keep the open dialog. I had a CEO at a job once who said "We make products, but we sell stories", which was his way of pointing out that if reality actually had any bearing on perception and ultimate success, Microsoft would not have put several better competing products out of business.

And so the perception will eventually turn. If it isn't Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, then it will be some other, next generation partisan, but someone will gain a soap box and a following and will loudly declare Obama the worst president ever, and some will listen. Heck, he's not even taken office yet, and we're already hearing about "the Obama recession" and there are still groups pushing law-suits claiming that Obama's birth records are in question, when in fact the state of Hawaii has affirmed that everything is in order. So already there are those who are willing to ignore the facts in favor of playing to the conspiracy minded.

Which (and that's probably the longest introduction I've ever written before getting to my point) brings me to Obama's choice.

It becomes ever more clear that we have engaged in torture, and that it was approved from the very top, by Vice President Cheney and President Bush themselves against Kahlid Sheik Mohammad. The President has as much as admitted it, the Vice President has as well, not to mention the recent admission by Susan Crawford, the Bush Administration official charged with deciding which Guantanamo detainees should be brought to trial, that we couldn't bring some of them because the evidence against them was obtained by torture, which would nullify any ability to win a conviction.

Now, President-elect Obama has implied that he is inclined to let the past be the past and not prosecute anyone for the war crimes committed. This is a political move, designed to keep the feeling of bipartisanship for as long as possible, but it is a mistake.

War crimes are serious business, and we as America tell ourselves we're the moral beacon of the world, and we tell ourselves that in our system, no one is above the law. And we get all morally offended when someone tortures one of our citizens.

If any of this is to be true, there have to be prosecutions for these crimes. Torture was committed. In our names, by those we elected to steer our country, and the only way we can remove even some of the stain of that torture from our hands is to hold those people accountable, to say to the world "yes, they did this in our names, but we didn't approve of it, and when we had the opportunity, we held them accountable for it."

Torture doesn't work. By all reports, it produces questionable results (experts have said a bonding scenario with prisoners provides much better results than torture), and it is banned by every civilized nation. It is a slippery slope we simply do not want to set foot upon, and having already trod there, need desperately to get off of, as quickly and decisively as possible.

So, Obama's choice is between risking accusations of a partisan witch hunt in order to prove to the world that we really do mean it when we say no one is above the law, and when we say that we find torture abhorrent, or to take the politically easier route of letting it slide and claiming that simply by stopping the policies of the past, without doing anything to atone for them, we will in any way wash the stain of this chapter of our history from our collective hands.

I hope he makes the harder choice.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I write this, Obama has already taken the oath.

Recently I've thought a lot about some of what you've written here. And like you, I hope he makes the harder choice. I'm hoping that the noises that he made before inauguration day were measured to deflect any last minute things Bush could have done, in the form of granting immunity or whatever to key people, risking any potential litigation towards the guilty (beyond his own obvious guilt).

Yes, I hope Obama makes the harder choice. If he doesn't do it, other countries will, and that would make America's credibility even worse than it already is.

..... Good to see you back!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:53:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Thanks, Linda.

I'm not sure how much I'll be here for a while now, it depends on how much energy I have for it and how much distraction I need.

First off, it's my common post-election lull, that time period when there's really nothing to be gained by adding volume to the void while waiting to see what there is to say, politically, and as the lame duck moves out and the new lawmakers of every stripe get settled into their new offices.

But on top of that, it's been a heck of a few months.

(You may stop reading now and I won't be offended, but now that I've started, I feel the cathartic need to spill it all out here).

First off, there's my Dad. As you may or may not know, over two years ago he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and a year and a half ago with lymphoma. He has (knock on wood) successfully dealt with the second (as successfully as it can be dealt with), but the former is really kicking his ass, and he's fairly quickly deteriorating from the strong, proud, capable man of my youth to an enfeebled and confused and worst-of-all OLD man. In the last couple of days, the news is that he's starting to lose some of his sight, as the PD robs him of his ability to focus his eyes.

Second, there's the economy and its effects on my company. I've lost a good many friends at the company and there's always the concern that they could call another round of "cost cutting" that will put me also out on the street, in an economy in which there aren't a lot of jobs to be had.

Third, Liam's autism symptoms are mostly under control with this milk-and-wheat free diet he's on (casein and gluten free, technically), but he's still about 12 months developmentally delayed even after having made up some ground from the 18 months he was pretty badly autistic. It's a stress trying to constantly check everything he eats to make sure it has no dairy or gluten containing ingredients, and trying to help him to make up as much lost time as possible.

Fourth, on the day before Liam's third birthday, Janet's grandmother (her mother's mother), who has been in failing health for years but who had clung tenaciously to life, finally passed away, so we spent Christmas in Louisiana for the funeral.

But all of that pales in comparison to the last thing... While we were down there for the funeral, Janet's mom, generally one of the healthier individuals you might know, complained about a few pains that she thought might be a gall bladder attack (not an unreasonable assumption, both of her daughters have had to have their gall bladders out). She got through the funeral and was starting to come to grips with the hole in her life that her mother had filled, both in terms of the presence of one's mother, but also in that she spent a couple of hours a day, on average, caring for her Mom, and now suddenly she had that burden lifted.

Then, a week later, she developed a fever and went to the hospital... and three days later, she knew she had liver cancer and was not likely to see another Christmas, and it was even odds whether she'd see another summer.

Since then, it's been a downhill slope, and each time Janet starts to come to grips with the new, grimmer outlook, something happens to make it look even worse.

So, in all of this, you can imaging that blogging is not my top priority. The humor blog has been entirely idle for months as I've simply been unable to find much funny to write. This one, where I can kind of rant more, may be subject to slightly more activity, or it may not have any at all.

It's just hard to watch good people go through this. It's enough to make one question the basic goodness of life on earth, when such bad things happen to people who never did anything to deserve them, while people who really deserve some karmic retribution (such as our newly departed POTUS and VPOTUS, just to bring this back to something like on-topic) continue to live healthy, happy lives.

It's just not cool.

And on a day which should be one for celebration, even for those who don't agree with Obama's politics, that we continue to be a country that A) strives for equality, and B) has an orderly transfer of power even between leaderships of vastly opposing ideologies, we can't even enjoy the day, because today Janet's mother is back in the hospital with a fever that seems to resist all medications and pain that isn't properly responding either.

It's gonna be a long however-long-she-has-left, and while I still fervently wish for that rare-but-not-impossible miracle of a remission of her cancer, there's really not a whole lot of hope for it to happen.

That's it, I'm done ranting for now.

Liam.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:36:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Liam,

I'm glad you described this, and I read every word. You and Janet are going through an horrendous time, my heart goes out to you.

I remember when I first came to know about you, and how stunned I was at the articulate frankness you wrote about your depression. You may have seen that and this as only a cathartic effort, but I saw it as someone with the gift of the word who can remind or warn us all that life can hit us hard. We all need to be reminded or warned because bad things happen to good people.

Much of that bad is from acts of nature. But if bad happens with deliberateness from our leaders, they have to be held accountable. If you or I break the law, we won't get a free ride. Nor should they.

Thanks for telling this.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:11:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi there,
Your blog usually gives me the willies, not tears. Today is different though isn't it? I just heard from Janet with good news about Mom though. So I'm trying very hard to smile. Good to see you are indeed blogging again.

With that said, What the heck Liam?
You strongly feel that we hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes, but not the actual terrorists? I was reading this without a lot of focus thinking "yep hold them accountable, crimes deserve punishment" .. when I suddenly realized you were talking about the President and not the men that killed thousands of innocent Americans and changed our way of life forever. How do justify this train of thought?
Cindy-in-law

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:21:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:21:00 PM

 
Blogger Cynthia Wilkinson said...

Did you mean to post my post twice? Cindy

Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:04:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

It came through twice, and I was too busy to read through them at the time, I just saw two, so I hit "confirm" on two figuring I'd go back and look at them later. So either Blogger double posted it or you accidentally double-hit the submit button. I can delete one of them.

Now, I've never said I don't think actual terrorists shouldn't be held accountable, and I defy you to find any place where I have said that.

I DO believe we should have a higher standard of proof than "they're in Guantanamo, therefore they MUST be terrorists". And I do believe we should live up to our principles and the accepted rules of war.

Is it a problem that our people have been tortured and even murdered? Absolutely. Should we do everything we can to get those who did it and bring them to justice? Yes.

But how can we have the moral authority to punish someone else for doing something we ourselves do? The beauty of the United States is when we accept that we may have to give up on bringing some people to justice in order to maintain our principles and have the moral standing to BE outraged at what is done to us.

And by the way, in the process of torturing Kalid Sheik Mohammad for what is reported to be not much usable information, we have given up BOTH our firm moral ground to condemn others for torturing, and also our ability to see that justice is done in his case, because as I've mentioned, the Bush Administration official in charge of determining who can be successfully prosecuted at Guantanamo has said that because we tortured him, none of the evidence is admissable, so we won't be able to convict him.

And I do not believe we should just say "Oh, well, we know he's guilty, so we'll just do away with that whole "due process" thing in his case".

It's a slippery slope, and I, for one, don't want to find myself in a prison cell because we started sliding down the slope of whether due process is really an absolute right.

I feel extremely dirty when I know that people were tortured in my name. Not because in the case I've mentioned the man isn't a bad man, but because torture is beneath us as a people. Torture should not be applied even as a punishment for the convicted (cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions and the like), it certainly shouldn't be applied to someone whom we've not yet proven in a court of law to BE guilty of anything.

It's a moral issue, Cindy. I do not believe it's OK that we tortured people just because our goal was to protect American lives. If even one of the people we tortured was actually innocent (and by some reports there are far more than just a few) then everything we stand for as a country, all platitudes about 10 guilty men going free lest one innocent man be improperly convicted, are built upon a foundation of sand.

Liam.

Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:29:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Wow. Holy double negative, Batman.

I meant to say "Now, I've never said I don't think actual terrorists should be held accountable, and I defy you to find any place where I have said that."

Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:31:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we really do mean it when we say no one is above the law"

Does this apply to the tax-cheaters as well?

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:48:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Yeah, it probably does, but do you honestly mean to suggest that there's some parity between high crimes such as torture and more common crimes such as tax cheating or mistakes (depending on which you believe happened)?

Do you also believe in the death penalty for speeding violations along with murders?

C'mon, if you want me to take you seriously you have to at least pay attention to relative scope.

Can you not see how this comment is about as ridiculous as if I'd said "We need to do something about the serial rapists" and you came back with "But what about all those unpaid parking tickets, does that apply to them, too?"

Liam.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:57:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't imply any of those things you've suggested, nor did I offer my opinions. Why are your claws out?

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:17:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Sure you did. With Tom Daschle and... I just lost his name, the Treasury Secretary pick...

Anyway, with both of them right now, the clear implication of your earlier comment was to try to set me up with a charge of "double standard" because I want Bush Administration officials held accountable, but that I was somehow going to let it pass for Obama's Administration.

But in order to make that implication, that such a difference in treatment of the two cases creates a double standard, you have to equate the two things, and that's what I was responding to, the implication that tax issues and torture are somehow equivalent.

Yes, there are tax cheats. There are a lot of them. There are also, thanks to our hugely over-complicated tax code, people who make mistakes every year. When caught (or when they realize their mistake) people correct their taxes, pay them along with any fines which may be levied, and move on, and in both Daschle and Geitner's cases, they have since paid their taxes and fines, which means that they HAVE been "brought to justice", meaning that already there's a difference in the two cases.

But ultimately, you fight the more important battles. Believe me, if I find out later from credible sources that the torture continued under Obama, with his approval (either tacit or overt), I'll be calling for him to face charges for it as well.

Tax cheats generally don't get away with it forever (or at least, not large scale ones), and when caught they generally are held accountable. Who is holding anyone accountable for the war crimes committed by this nation? No one. And they seem so convinced that they're safe that they're not even denying that they did it any more.

Liam.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:54:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If there's any fairness in the world, Bush will end up in one of our black sites, being tortured for the rest of his natural life."

Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:14:00 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Career Education