Obama's version of 'upholding values'

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Obama did not mention Guantanamo Bay, nor indefinite detentions of detainees at Gitmo and other prisons despite a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. You know, the basis for incarcerating a human being.

The closest he came was this passage:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

"Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values."

The gall it takes to utter this breathless phrase is pretty appalling when considering his government's policies.

Via Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, one of the most dogged reporters on the issue of Guantanamo Bay:

A yearlong review of evidence against men who are being held as terrorism suspects at Guantanamo has concluded that most of them should be released or transferred to third countries.

The review has angered human rights advocates, however, by concluding that "roughly" 50 of the detainees should be held indefinitely, even though there isn't enough valid evidence to prosecute them.

Only 35 of the men should face trial, either in civilian or military courts, the review concluded. That's far fewer than the 60 or 70 cases that the Pentagon's chief prosecutor has said his unit is preparing to try before military commissions.

The review, whose results have been divulged to a handful of reporters but not publicly announced, provides the first specific numbers for what the Obama administration thinks should be done with the detainees who are still at Guantanamo.

To posture as if he is attempting to uphold American values while endorsing indefinite detention, not to mention advocating the assassination of American citizens overseas, completely void of a trial or verifiable evidence, is insulting, dishonest, shameful and morally bankrupt.

Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg. Obama, quite predictably, refused to mention the legally-dubious program of unleashing Predator and Reaper drones throughout the world.

All this on the day after the death of the great freedom fighter Howard Zinn.

Zinn's last essay in The Nation touched on Obama:

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

Mr. President, the world is not your battlefield.