squashed:
thecheekylibertarian feels that Obama is a fascist because:
[He] didn’t repeal DADT on the first day (he could have easily repealed it, but waited for it to happen, instead—people were dishonorably discharged for innocuous characteristics of their sexuality while he took no action)”
and
has failed to close Guantanamo (which he promised to do).
So respecting a balance of powers, even when you don’t want to, is not a fascist thing to do. You might be able to make a case for spineless, if you really stretched it. But not fascist. When Congress passes a bill with a sufficient majority to override a veto, it’s not fascism to sign the bill into law. She’s also upset that Obama has:
DADT was put in place as an executive order and could have been repealed with an executive order. He could have also excused those soldiers who were affected by DADT of their ‘crimes’. Obama plays the constitutionality card when it’s convenient, but the claim that he respects the balance of powers becomes increasingly ludicrous, as he puts the US’ military intervention into over-drive.
Obama had the political capital to move mountains when it comes to healthcare reform; if Guantanamo were an important issue to him, it’s difficult for me to believe he couldn’t lobby Congress enough to get it closed. He only brought the issue up once in his first two years in office. When he took office, there was bipartisan support for closing Guantanamo and the . The initial executive order was ambiguous about the treatment of detainees and didn’t rule out military commissions; the administrations subsequent treatment of the issue was ambivalent and after halting everything over a single congressman’s objection to transfers to Virgina, did very little to help establish any sort of specific action plan, besides ‘reevaluation’ of the cases and a five-pronged approach, which included indefinite detention. He has also prevented the transfer of detainees to other prisons, which only makes the situation worse. When told by the AG that they’d be returning Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s case to the Department of Defense, rather than trying him in federal court, Obama not only failed to object, but he also called it a ‘pragmatic decision’. Obama was told no more than 36 of the detainees could be tried, because “in many cases, the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence.” Why was there no pardon? Sure, Congress voted overwhelmingly against funding $80 million to close Guantanamo, but the administration should have mentioned that keeping Guantanamo open easily outpaces that figure (which, frankly seems ridiculous in the first place): each prisoner costs them approximately $800,000 per year. Last year, Obama signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention for Guantanamo detainees. There’s nothing to indicate that he’s done anything but embrace the Bush Administration’s unconstitutional policies (which completely violate the 5th Amendment).
.has maintained the troops in Iraq
If by “maintained” you mean “drawn down in a steady but controlled manner.”
We’re still there, we’re still armed, we’re still not welcome, and we probably won’t ever leave (see: US occupation in Germany, over 50 years after WWII ended)
signed the NDAA which allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, which hasn’t been ordered since the Civil War
I know we’re more worried about FASCISM than we are about truth—but we ought to at least tip our hat to truth before we trample it. We detained American citizens without trial in World War II. The Bush administration made a practice of it. We detain people indefinitely any time we’re scared about things. Yes, the NDAA has some terrible provisions in it. But there’s no need to make things up to highlight them.
The NDAA codifies it into law, which has institutionalized these human rights abuses. Obama has also exercised the rights the Bush administration reserved, but didn’t actually implement, by ordering the assassinations of two American citizens, one of which was 16; if that isn’t an abuse of power, I don’t know what is.
has started war in Afghanistan
This one always bothers me. Obama embraced, but didn’t start, the war in Afghanistan. There was a war in Afghanistan long before we got there. The facts are bad enough. We can stick to them.
That was an error, on my part (though he did start sending drones to Libya and Iran, which is a whole other story); I meant he’s amped up the number of troops there. We’ve been in Afghanistan for over a decade and with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilians, it’s clear that our presence there is accomplishing nothing positive and Obama’s expansion of our military presence in the area, aside from being immoral, makes absolutely no tactical sense.
detained whistleblower Private Bradley Manning for exposing war crimes (even though during his campaign, Obama claimed to support the role of whistleblowers in keeping institutions honest and accountable).
Being a whistleblower generally means you blow the whistle on specific illegal activity. Manning has been accused of leaking an epic quantity of classified documents. While some of those documents doubtlessly contained some incidental evidence of illegal activity, Manning is hardly in a position to claim “whistleblower” status. He (allegedly) decided that his issue was sufficiently important that he could disregard all sorts of laws regarding handling of classified information. They’re cool and valuable documents, even if they didn’t reveal a whole lot we didn’t already know.
I don’t like war. I don’t like the human rights abuses that inevitably accompany it. It’s worth being angry about. But the reality of war is terrible enough that there is no need to distort it to get the point across.
You said it yourself; he exposed illegal activity. Whistleblowers are not whistleblowers unless the information has been illegitimately concealed, which is precisely what the military did. Legality does not equate to morality; the crimes Private Manning exposed were wrong, were not appropriately punished, and were in complete violation with this administration’s claims to ‘transparency’.
thecheekylibertarian 