The National Geographic channel this past week aired a documentary about Guatanomo, and near the end a military officer and JAG lawyer asked, rhetorically and (to my perception) somewhat contemptuously: "They say Guantanamo should be closed. That's a fine idea, but what are you gonna do with the people inside?" (This is not verbatim, but he said words to this effect.)

The Obama administration's actions in this matter reveal the rank posturing in his having signed an order to close Guantanamo "within 12 months." First, we'll see if this really happens, or if some exigent circumstances arise that "require" the nullification or postponement of the term of that order. Second, IF Guantanamo IS closed within the year, I think we can assume that the prisoners still held there will simply be transferred to Bagram. Obama hasn't promised or even suggested the closing of the Bagram prison, and he won't have to deal with the howls of faux outrage that we're "putting terrorists inside American borders!" A tidy solutioni to an untidy problem.

I do not think we can any longer expend even a shred of admiration for Mr. Obama, who by his own words has revealed his awareness of the lawlessness of our detainee policies, not to mention the sheer inhumanity of these policies, our laws aside. With Bush and his crew of thugs, we can condemn them while also seeing that they believed in the necessity and propriety of their criminal acts; Obama obviously knows better and has promised better, making his actions here perhaps more contemptible than his predecessor's. That Obama may in some respects represent an improvement over Bush--and in the long term, this still remains to be seen--does not mitigate his disgraceful conduct and perpetuation of our criminal policies in our terror war against the world. A tyrant who periodically graces his subjects with the mercy of his noblesse oblige is not less a tyrant. While Obama is not a tyrant, his criminality can be no less denied because he may similarly grace us with his noblesse oblige.

"The country is still celebrating the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer in power."

And yet they are, or might as well be, as long as Obama attempts to continue and even extend their policies.

I have to wonder the unanswerable: why do Presidents feel they have to avoid "alienating" factions in Washington and therefore compromise on their stated beliefs and intentions expressed prior to taking office...why do they feel they have to step back from their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution? Is it to insure they get a second term, another measly four years in the White House? A second term is guaranteed to no one, and, assuming they are not merely cynical opportunists mouthing platitudes in which they hold no belief simply to pander to a constituency and win office, assuming they really mean or think they mean what they say, why don't they enter office with the assumption, "This is my one shot to do as much as I can to improve things," and simply get to business? Forget about triangulation so that "in their second term" they can do all the good things they promised to do, (and which rarely do get done even then), and just go full bore from the start. If they are turned out after one term, but have accomplished at least something of what they promised, something of substance...that's enough of a success for any President!

To date, the failings of the Obama administration are egregious enough to outweigh any good they may end up doing. Allowing the foundation to crumble (violating the Constitution) cannot be ameliorated by doing fixes here and there to the plumbing or fixtures. The house must stand true or not at all.

"Have we reached the point where Obama is not just disappointing but an accessory?"

Yes.

Boy, these Tea Baggers sure are stalwart in their protest of the government's "Mussolini" styled "fascism." Not. A little rain and they disperse, and they waste an opportunity to dump teabags in the bay because they lack a permit! Protesters with the courage of their convictions would shout, "We don't need no stinking permit!" and dump away.

Would they be arrested and taken to jail for such an action? Almost surely. But hey, who ever thought "Don't Tread On Me" really meant "Don't Tread On Me Because I'm Not Doing Anything?"

What pissants.

I saw last night's segment with Professor Warren and I enjoyed her succinct description of the history of financial panics and boom-and-bust cycles in America from our beginnings to now, but her prescription for how to prevent such panics in future has not been enacted yet. She pointed out that this was a choice we would have to make.

Given other areas in which the Obama administration is revealing its business-as-usual model, and given that Obama's Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner is one of those who have enabled the thieving by the big banks, I am not at all sanguine that Congress will, in fact, pass the appropriate and necessary legislation to rescue and stabilize our economy.