Written by James and Jean Anton   

We, who voted for Obama, have been reluctant to criticize him.
When we voted for Obama, we expected him to govern like he said he would when he ran for office. We expected him to put up the good fight. We expected him to use his charisma (which mysteriously vanished in the Oval Office) to move this country toward the good of the many, instead of toward the benefit of a few. We expected him to put an end to endless war.

He hasn’t done any of the above but we’re reluctant to criticize, because we’re caught in a trap.

We’re afraid that criticizing Obama would do harm because it would give aid and comfort to the enemy, the Republican Party. We are afraid that criticizing him will somehow make us responsible for the defeat Democrats face this November, and for the looming disaster Obama faces (if he chooses to run again) in 2012. (Rahm Emanuel is reportedly thinking about bailing out already.)
The thought of a president Sarah Palin keeps us in line.

But should it?
We thought that he agreed with us on the need to end endless wars, and to control the military-industrial juggernaut. Instead he imposed an absolute spending freeze on social programs, while increasing the so-called defense budget to $708 billion. This despite the fact that tax cuts for the wealthy, and increased so-called defense spending comprise 38% of this years federal budget deficit.

Obama led us to believe that corporate plunder (oil, gas, copper, lithium) would never be a good enough reason for Americans to go to war. We thought since he voted against the war in Iraq, it would mean that he would stop it. Instead Obama is creating a US military presence in Iraq that is designed to last a thousand years, at a cost of more than fifty billion dollars per year. He is building the biggest embassy in the history of mankind there, and deploying thousands of private “operators” to guard it. He is also deploying thousands of foreign mercenaries to do his killing for him.

Obama has also expanded the war in Afghanistan (where the CIA admits that only about fifty terrorists are hiding). He claims that the “war” is going well. But if al-Qaeda was the enemy to begin with, he never explained why the Taliban is the enemy today. If the war is going well, why do we have to pay protection money to move our troops across “friendly” territories? Why is the greatest military power on earth paying extortion money to Taliban fighters and/or double agents?

We thought that Obama, who taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, would know better than to order the Summary Execution of an American citizen. His excuse is basically that everyone knows that the alleged terrorist-supporter, Anwar al-Awlaki, is guilty. The problem is that once we permit Summary Execution of a single American citizen, for any excuse, we permit the Summary Execution of every American citizen.

Our 5th Amendment is very clear about Summary Execution: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” We thought he respected the Constitution.

When we voted for Obama, we thought that he meant it when he said that war alone could not end terrorism. That the real enemy was not the terrorist but the extremist. We expected him to be creative in defeating extremism, not to become an extremist himself.

We expected Obama to end torture, as he said he would. But upon taking office, he said that ending torture would not be “simple.” He announced that he would not prosecute Bush/Cheney or their attorneys John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury because he “wanted to look forward, not back.” Why? Does he really believe that institutionalized torture should not be the subject of a rigorous scrutiny? That the system of jurisprudence, which Bush/Cheney scorned, should not pass judgment on them?
That torture is not a national disgrace?

Obama has not closed Abu Ghraib as he promised, or any of the other secret American Gulags located in places like Morocco, Afghanistan and who knows where else. Amnesty International reported on 13 September 2010 that tens of thousands of Iraqi prisoners, who have been held in American custody, were transferred to secret prisons such as Muthanna in Morocco, where they routinely suffer severe beatings and other forms of torture.

Obama has never visited any of these gulags. Neither has Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State; or Erik Holder, his Attorney General; or Robert Gates, his Secretary of Defense; or Leon Panetta, his Director of the CIA; or James Clapper, his Director of National Intelligence. Why? What are they afraid of? The rest of the world is saying horrible things about those places. You’d think they’d be curious. They’re not. Maybe they think it’s better “not to see.”
Maybe their stomachs are not strong enough.

Obama doesn’t even bring up the subject of rendition. Rendition means he can send anyone to any of our secret prisons, which the CIA or their paid surrogates use to “render” them. Rendition means that they are held for an indefinite period without legal recourse; they are starved, beaten, burned, deprived of sleep, kept in solitary confinement, water-boarded, or even tortured to death by foreign nationals who have lucrative contracts to do our dirty work. Rendition (the politically-correct term for torture) is an abomination. It is the ultimate hypocrisy. It is cowardly, illegal, unethical, and wrong.
It is un-American.
It is immoral.

When he ran for office, Obama said that openness was essential to democracy. Recently five men who were held without legal recourse for years and tortured in unspeakable ways were freed either because they were innocent or perhaps there was simply no evidence of guilt. Washington hoped they would just kind of disappear. They didn’t. Instead they sued to have their claims heard in open court, and won.
Obama appealed the case.

The United States Court of Appeals heard the case, and Obama won, albeit by a slim margin. The New York Times called it a “major victory for the Obama administration.” The case is being brought to the now-infamous Roberts Supreme Court for final resolution. Obama’s attorneys are continuing the battle for secrecy. As of this moment, in the name of National Security, Obama can deny justice to any citizen by simple executive order.
So much for openness.

A commonly seen bumper sticker reads: “Where’s the Outrage?”
I asked a friend of mine about it. She said: “I think I’m outraged out.” Endless torture, rendition-double-speak, photos of atrocities, images of children being machine-gunned and/or maimed and veiled threats - that the same will happen to you if you complain - does that to people.

Viktor E. Frankl, who wrote about his experiences in Auschwitz in his wonderful book, Man’s Search For Meaning, gives a very clear explanation of what happens when people have to live in a horrible environment in which Summary Execution, torture, cruelty and fear is the norm. In order to survive, the victims become inured to the pain. It’s a survival mechanism.
Where’s the outrage?

We have a choice. If we don’t voice our outrage with Obama, we condone immoral acts. We legitimize torture. We enable endless war. It means that when the dust settles, when the fog of war clears and it’s time to pay the piper, we too will be declared guilty as sin.

One other thing. About the trap we find ourselves in. Obama is a more potent factor for the possible Republican victories than FOX news or Sarah Palin.

By condoning the Bush/Cheney wars, by failing to act against torture, by scorning the constitution, he legitimizes them. I’m sure the extremists who control the Republican Party thank him for this.
He is sleeping with the enemy.

If we don’t protest, so are we.

By James and Jean Anton
www.endendlesswars.org