I think this is wrong. More than that I think it's dismissive, silly and
bordering on insult to any literate human being. In point of fact "spending our
time and energy laying blame for the past" is exactly what the justice system
does. By Obama's logic murderers would go free in the streets. The real question
is not whether you're going to lay blame for the past, but who your going to lay
it on, and for which past. What Obama is really saying in this statement is he
won't hold this particular group accountable, for this particular past. This is
a dangerous course because it doesn't simply not "lay blame for the past," it
shrugs off arguably the solemn responsibility of safeguarding the future. The
price of doing nothing, of not enforcing laws, is the implicit statement that it
really is OK to torture, that the most you'll face is a wag of the finger.
Friday, April 17, 2009
No One Accountable
Ta-Nehisti Coates reacts against Obama's statement about opposition to 'laying blame for the past', and this is my reaction as well:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand Obama's reluctance to begin the process of prosecution. In a time when he is battling limited yet caustic opposition on every reform he tries to make, including weird tea-laden crowds on the streets, he knows how divisive this action would be if HE began it, in a time when the country is ultra-sensitive. To personally begin the lynching of the opposite side (although they deserve it) is not what he would consider appropriate in a "revolutionary" time. But with that, he is not withholding any evidence, allowing the populace to rise up and demand the action... grassroots style, if they want it. To say it is bordering on insult to any literate human being is, well, insulting my reading ability.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts on your comment.
ReplyDelete1. It's not 'lynching' to demand justice. In fact, it's the opposite of lynching.
2. There will never be a better time than now. He will never be more popular than now. There will never be fewer issues than now.
3. What kind of justice is it that reflects on crime, but doesn't do anything about it? If someone comes and steals my car, I don't want reflection on it, I want someone to find the criminal, arrest them, and provide justice for me and for them. If that's 'laying blame', so be it. It's the way it has to be if we're not to have anarchy and a lawless society.
I think you're right to say that it's not lynching to demand justice, and I am not suggesting that WE should not demand it. In fact, I think that is what Obama either expects, or is waiting for. With most controversial and socially divisible issues (I think abortion, same sex marriage, gun rights) Obama takes or will take the centrist route of not making the first step, but allowing the legislature or populace make the first progressive push, then he will back it up. I know, that torture is not or should not be controversial. But convicting your own, very recent, past leaders of War Crimes is controversial. This is true to a large bloc of the country who simply believe that the Bushies were only trying to protect the country, and while doing that, it got out of hand. So, the stealing a car analogy will not work with them. I only believe that Obama understands this divide in the country and is not risking himself as a single target for the crazy right, who really want someone to hate right now, but yet waiting for the legislature or some other more democratic body to begin the push. You may call that weak, or being especially sensitive to the public's disparity. I believe justice will come, especially the way people have been reacting to these memos.
ReplyDelete