Obama's flip-flops on preventive detention and secrecy raises a disturbing question.

[caseymoz]

Given that Obama has in action totally reversed his positions on rights, detention due to suspicion, denial of habeus corpus could this indicate something even more disturbing than Obama lying or changing his mind. Unlike his predecessor, Barrack Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, he understands the Constitution and Rights, while George W. Bush could at least be understood as incompetent and ignorant of the rights he had sworn to uphold.

His background, law degree and community action work indicates that Obama is astute and very aware, and can hold his own in any discussion of the Constitution and rights. This makes his reversals on these issues ever more shocking and disheartening. His excuses for these reversals sound as bad as the worst Bushista, and even more unnerving coming from him. As Gary Trudeau's Presidential Adviser in "Doonesbury" advised the Obama character: "say something arrogant, brusque or witless. We may become cynical with confirmation that all politicians lie, or there may be an even more disturbing conjecture. Obama's behavior and his explanations do not make sense. One possibility has been unexplored, it would be difficult to verify, and extremely frightening if it is the case.

Maybe Obama is scared for his life.

Think of this, sometime before the election when it was clear that Obama could win, suppose he received a visit by a government spook, who explained to Obama that his life is in danger from a deranged "lone gunman," who harbors some kind of insane resentment toward him, and that the Secret Service and other investigative arms of the Fed might be able to protect him. But given all the deranged racists like James Earl Ray out there, and the Secret Service but there's no telling how they can restrain a crazed, racist lunatic. . .

The next words: "you get the idea Mr. Obama. Oh, and your wife and kids are adorable!"


We know very well that the government has many trained killers and operatives at its disposal, and our intelligence agencies have used them, and that the CIA has overthrown other governments. But, of course, it couldn't happen here. We wouldn't import the crimes of Pinochet, would we?

Oh, couldn't we just! The problem with trained killers and assassins is that they get their own agendas, and no one should naive enough to think that they are all committed patriots that do nothing but good for the country. Even if so, it would be easy for many to become corrupted and reach a cooperative agenda, or have some ideas of patriotism that they know the rest of us would not understand. Secrecy would give them the cover needed to carry this off.

Now, suppose they want the Presidency to have certain powers. They don't plan to use them much, mind you, but they need certain Presidential powers at their disposal sometimes. I was horrified by the case of Jose Padilla because I knew it was a test of Presidential abuse. Unfortunately, people turned apathetic, but are we actually apathetic or on some level frightened? Such a thing as the JFK assassination, especially when followed by the RFK assassination can send a message that doesn't need repeating that often. It would be enough to show ruthlessness just sometimes.

Congress members would feel just enough fear to know that certain questions will not be answered. Maybe just a few of them received such a visit. If you threaten them, it is one thing, but threaten their families, and you could control them.

It is easy to see what would be at stake. The suburbs of Washington have grown steadily opulent since the time of Reagan (no surprise), and several of them are among the wealthiest suburbs in the country. This wasn't always the fact about Washington. The money to be had for the people in the military/industrial complex can corrupt a million souls. When you threaten somebodies' cash cow, things turn very ugly. It is certainly believable that operatives would be protecting these interests. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned citizens of the corruption of the military industrial complex. He might have understated things, as his successor was assassinated.

I'll warn readers: conspiracy theories can drive you insane with paranoia just by themselves. You automatically begin to question the most obvious, and that's a very bad habit of thought, with which you begin to traumatize yourself with your own suspicions. In fact, the simplest explanation is usually correct, but once you're looking for the cover-ups, and you notice how little it takes it manufacture evidence, then everything in life becomes a trick.

A conspiracy like what I've described would actually be a shadow government. Occasionally somebody would mess up and we'd get a scandal like Iran-Contra, but for the most part, ordinary citizens wouldn't see it, the secrecy would be so thick. It would have to terrorize key members of the government, intimidate them.

The worst thing about what I've suggested would be that if it exists, we don't have a chance to find out about it. There would be indications, dots with imagined lines between them, hypotheses, however, a team of investigative reporters would be no match, as the shadow government would have resources and expertise far beyond them, and beyond most publishers. It is certain that the shadow government would know more about the reporters and investigators then they do about it.

I am afraid that such a conspiracy cannot be exposed by any citizen. Forget it. If it's there, we're not going to know. There is some hope out of the public's control: that is, investigative work or spying by foreign powers, which can bring many things to light. The second thing is the shadow government might break into factions. We would notice it then as the factions try to undercut one another.

Now I may be wrong totally. Maybe Obama has just changed his mind, or lied to begin with about his stands on rights issues. It is damn peculiar, that It's still the simplest explanation. Otherwise the stands his administrations has taken are such an outrage that I'd rather believe the whole government is corrupt to the core than believe he is so deceptive and manipulative.

[Chemisse]

1. The simplest explanation

I was just thinking he reversed because he doesn't want to be seen as weak on national security, which is what Cheney and others are trying so hard to pin on him. He is nothing if not politically agile.

[CJCRANE]

2. I think it's simpler than that.

He is now part of the system. As much as he wants to change the system he will feel a greater sympathy for those under his command and a responsibility to protect the integrity of the system. That could be why for instance he reversed his view on releasing the photos.

His responsibilities as a President are much greater than as a Senator and his view from the inside and the pressures will be different than he expected. I think he will change as much as he can but like he said it's more a process of gradually changing the course of an ocean liner by a few degrees than doing a 180 turn in a speedboat.

[lamp_shade]

3. Ahhhh... I love early mornings on DU. It's the best time of day to find rational thinking here.

:hi:

[Butch350]

5. Psssssssssst what is an american idol fan doing up this early?

[lamp_shade]

6. Sorry Butch350, but I don't understand what you mean?

:hi: Maybe you meant to respond to another poster? I've never watched american idol.

[Butch350]

4. I stopped reading your post at...

"Maybe Obama is scared for his life"

I am not a big conspircy theory fan but in the World where greed, power and MUCHO MONEY is involved, then what
is one mans life worth that stands in the way of it?

[caseymoz]

9. Too bad, you might have read this.:

"I'll warn readers: conspiracy theories can drive you insane with paranoia just by themselves. You automatically begin to question the most obvious, and that's a very bad habit of thought, with which you begin to traumatize yourself with your own suspicions. In fact, the simplest explanation is usually correct, but once you're looking for the cover-ups, and you notice how little it takes it manufacture evidence, then everything in life becomes a trick."

Another point I made was, in fact, exactly the point you made:

"It is easy to see what would be at stake. The suburbs of Washington have grown steadily opulent since the time of Reagan (no surprise), and several of them are among the wealthiest suburbs in the country. This wasn't always the fact about Washington. The money to be had for the people in the military/industrial complex can corrupt a million souls. When you threaten somebodies' cash cow, things turn very ugly. It is certainly believable that operatives would be protecting these interests. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned citizens of the corruption of the military industrial complex. He might have understated things, as his successor was assassinated."

With corporate lobbyist and defense contractors et. al making so much money from our government, for those who greed doesn't corrupt, threats are enough to silence, and terror are enough to force complicity. With so much money there, it wouldn't take too much terror, just enough that people know it's there but don't talk about it. And it would be more rewarding from a materialist point of view. Those who fear the stick and don't want the carrot will still get the carrot.

[Demeter]

7. And the Question Is: Whose Side Are You On, Barack?

[Igel]

8. There are other explanations.

Odd, that you could write, 'His background, law degree and community action work indicates that Obama is astute and very aware, and can hold his own in any discussion of the Constitution and rights' and then say that since he disagrees with you it must because of some external pressure.

Perhaps he merely disagrees with you, either because he thinks the arguments hold water, or because, while thinking that the arguments are wrong, he'll leave it up to judges to decide at this point.

Then we don't have to assume that he fears for his life and is dissembling on the issue. Granted, it means that he thinks we're wrong, and that's a heinous and horrible thing to contemplate (both that we could be wrong, and that he might think so). Still, it happens, I'm sure.

[natrat]

10. doubtful, he's a scumbag to the core

look at his right hand man emanuel, as horrible as it gets
next look at geitner and the unaccounted trillions right from the start
they started out scummy and didn't look back