From the Washington Post this morning [1], comes word that the Obama administration is asserting it’s right to hold detainees involved in a wartime situation indefinitely. There are several angles on this, so stay with me here.
Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war.
First of all, that right was not initiated by Mr. Bush since Roosevelt claimed the same right and executed that right during World War two. Do a quick search against the strings “Japanese” and “internment camps” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The fact is every president in history has had that power, and those faced with wartime situations have executed it since the time of Washington. That’s precisely why the rhetoric of candidate Obama was always destined to be overridden by the reality of all Obama as President. For that matter, anyone as President.
Secondly, and on that basis, I’ve already predicted [2] that this would happen [3] I don’t regard this as a negative. Frankly, what we have here is the screaming Liberal rhetoric of the Obama candidacy running square into the face of reality , and reality winning. Now, given that in most other of Obama’s endeavors, (His economc catastrophies come to mind) the outstanding question is whether not the man has any perception of reality whatsoever, this can only be considered a bright spot in what is otherwise an abysmal performance.
Thirdly, James Joyner over OTB this morning [4]calls our attention to the byline of the story in question, which reads: “The authors are bylined as “ProPublica and Washington Post Staff Writer,” respectively. James points to ProPublica’ statement of purpose and wonders what they’re doing writing what is being passed off as a hard news story:
ProPublica’s About [5] page begins:
ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. [emphasis mine]
Now, isn’t this more than a little odd? The Washington Post is teaming up with an advocacy organization with a very particular agenda to do major news stories? Doesn’t that blur the lines just a wee bit?
And that it most certainly does, and more than just a bit. I’ve done some independent investigation into the origins of the group and it’s my judgment that if you pull this weed out of the ground you’re going to find George Soros clinging to its roots. It’s also my take,that they’ve been using such sources without attribution for some time now. Consider that their content really hasn’t changed all that much over the last say, decade, or so.
Now, of course, the complaint of such groups is that Mr. Obama is not leading left far enough on these matters, and is asserting a right that should have never been granted the presidency in the first place. This, of course, is utter nonsense, but such is the content of most leftist newspapers these days including the Washington Post.
Others: Newshoggers.com [6], Hot Air [7], The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room [8], Jules Crittenden [9], TigerHawk [10], Macsmind [11], Outside The Beltway [4], Atlas Shrugs [12], Althouse [13], The Politico [14], Flopping Aces [15], Don Surber [16], Wake up America [17], Swampland [18], Moe Lane [19], Sister Toldjah [20], Patterico’s Pontifications [21], QandO [22], Power Line [23], memeorandum [24]