Obama Waffles on School of the Americas (gasp)

http://counterpunch.com/kozloff06262008.html


Kinder and Gentler Techniques of Torture and Assassination?


For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA).

-snip-

In the early stages of the presidential race, Kucinich pledged to close the school if he were elected. A longtime foe of WHINSEC who had voted repeatedly to close the institution while serving in Congress, Kucinich even attended a political protest held at the gates of the school in late 2007.

-snip-

Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.

What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.

-snip-

Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like, Obama’s meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror. Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they’d prefer to close the facility.

Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.

No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the military-industrial complex. Closing WHINSEC would demonstrate that the United States has no interest in dominating the peoples of Latin America by military means. Obama however is reluctant to make a clean break from the United States’ imperialist past.
-snip-
---------------------------------


I suggest you read the whole article

how can Obama not want to close WHINSEC/School of the Americas? is he also afraid of the neo cons?

this is disappointing.

I like mine with blueberries

SOA is an evil place. It needs to be closed.

jesus.

are ya?

supports state terrorism, torture and tin-pot dictatorships in South America. Yes, it's that simple.

On edit: Whether or not Obama counts as a supporter is another matter. But his feet should absolutely be held to the fire on this issue (only one of many, but an important one)

basically a breeding ground for our proxy wars.

"the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.
<>
In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too would shutter WHINSEC).

An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." "

Obama is not President yet.
McCain will grow the SOA.

I'll leave that for "Counterpunch" to ponder.
Not that I have ever really take what they write seriously.
They will be defending Ralph Nader's statements about Obama tomorrow.
They have attacked every single Democratic Nominee while leaving the Republican nominee alone for as long as I can remember.

you wouldn't be voting for any candidate at all unless Kucinich was the nominee.

A Google shows nothing but negative articles about every single Democratic candidate that has ever run for President.

Sampling of titles:

John Walsh: The Lies of John Edwards

Corporate Crime Reporter: John Edwards' Big Lie

Professor Smartass: COUNTERPUNCH: What did the Democrats Know ...

Jeffrey St. Clair: The Gothic Politics of Hillary Clinton

and it goes on and on and on......

They are idiots who know no shame.

They despise the Democratic Party as much as the posters at freerepublic do. (I wonder again why Counterpuke articles are allowed to be posted at DU?)

Is Obama running against anyone?

Almost like we are running against Obama.

holding his feet to the fire. If the nominee caves this quickly prior to the GE , his "bipartisanship" may be more than is acceptable. Our only choice is Democratic and we need to make sure that he is held to those standards.

I still see a pretty good Democrat when I look at him.
:shrug:

Penalty and defending the SCOTUS position on the DC gun ban is okay? Not supporting the Fairness in Media Doctrine and baling on a promise to take federal funding. ? Doesn't sound "liberal " or a change to me but whatever you say. I say hold his feet to the fire and "make " him the candidate we want.If I have no other choice, I want it to be a good one.We will have zero influence after he is elected. NOW is the time to exert pressure. If he sacrifices us to political expedience now, we have no power afterwords.

other.

it would be political suicide to be on record as "against the death penalty for those who rape children", you must know that.

Fairness in Media, or the School of Two Americas? Why not run as a Repug then?:sarcasm: Seriously, I "almost" understand the point about the death penalty for child rape but once we start down that slope, we are justifying it all. And as for the other recent stances of the nominee, as a constitutional scholar he should know better. I expect our nominee to defend and protect the constitution not sacrifice it to political expediency.

once he is elected; he is leaving the door wide open so perhaps the 'change' may come at that later date. His stance on some of the issues has been disconcerting to many voters; many believe he should now, not later, be taking a strong stance on these important issues to better his chances of winning the WH. To some people this gives the impression that he is weak or unknowledgeable on the issues. Most of us assume that he is quite knowledgeable, but to many it is confusing. There are many people wondering why he hasn't made himself clear how he stands regarding issues such as the SofA.

wolves for "politcal expediency NOW, when he needs our votes, what reason do we have to believe he will be any different when he "reaches across the aisle" after he is elected?

harder at this issue and apparently other issues. I believe this approach is not going to help get the votes. Many people really want to have him make a solid stand on the issues NOW. This is bound to send the negative message that he is not properly prepared on the issues or that he hasn't made up his mind, for instance, whether or not SofA is operating in the best interest of US integrity.

Obama was a virtual unknown before this nomination process. He's now revealing himself.

At least then we didn't have an actual Republican to beat. Sheesh.

I am a little amazed by this sudden return to the "bamabashing" as if some believe something will change and when everyone gets to the convention floor the superdelegates will have changed their minds and will override the party and the people and select Hillary Clinton.

Either support Obama or shut the fuck up. Pardon my french. There is no one else to vote for but McCain. You want to talk about lesser of two evils? Then do so. But accept that McCain is the greater evil.

I'm sorry but Clinton versus McCain would have been a matter of the lesser of two evils. Not Obama versus McCain.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. No one can please everyone. But for the most part, Obama has pleased a majority of Americans. Including a growing number of Republicans who simply cannot bear the thought of John McCain destroying what's left of this country.

They apparently are smarter than some Democrats.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough....:shrug:

I am astounded by the amount of bashing of Obama I am seeing on what is supposed to be a board to support the Democratic nominee. And while we are bashing away on our own, I have to search high and low to find a post about McCain and his flaws.

I know people want to push the Presidential candidate to a stronger position on their top issue. It gets old when people stretch the truth and try their hardest to make the candidate look bad.

We know Obama stands for human rights. Its a shame the writer tries to diminish that fact in order to push his agenda.

Obama not speak out for its closing.

.

of he came right out and stated that he has a plan to alter or even close down the corrupt SofA. He knows he has to deal with the powers that are entrenched in those programs and that will take a lot of doing, not to mention the Dems in Congress that are willing to go along with those agencies. It would be nice to have a potential leader who is willing to take chances by speaking out in the strongest words possible against the corrupt powers that have taken over our government.

that Obama is not more decisive on the issues. It would be helpful if he would at least acknowledge or show concern regarding the covert and unethical actions/policies by SofA. I guess he fears the GOP using a sound bite against him for being 'soft' on national defense. I doubt there are very many voters who know anything about the evils of the SofA. The bulk of public interest goes very little past political sound bites and certainly not in depth.

as well as DOdd, Biden, and Richardson.

I don't. Do you?

.

this thread is about Obama's opinion of the School of Americas. close it or not.

:eyes:

because I say it is.

nice try...
:rofl:

nt

but straw does pose a risk of spontaneous concernbustion!

Not the dreaded...SPONTANEOUS CONCERN-BUSTION! :)

democratic candidate we have ever had.

Carter nor Clinton closed the school. Al Gore nor John Kerry supported its closure during their run.

let us not forget one very important fact; Latin America has transformed itself since the 1990s and is much more to the left and Democratic since.......perhaps more Democratic than the United States, in some countries.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on. The skills that these people were taught at the SOA were not torture, murder and mayhem but strategy and martial expertise. How these folks become twisted is not happening at SOA but in their own countries.

As General Wes Clark had said, the corporate executives pillaging our economy went to Yale, Harvard, etc. Should we shut down those institutions? Now I agree, it's not the same thing, but, think of a more likely parallel and ask yourself should the institution be closed due to the actions of a small minority of students/attendees? You've listed 18 people out of 63,000 graduates. That's .03%. As General Clark said, a small minority.
----------------------------
There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.


Posted by Du's Tom Rinaldo a while ago on this subject....

The School of the Americas (now known by the touchy feely name of Western Hemisphere Institute for Cooperation and Security) is a terror training camp run by the Us government, whos graduates go on to organize death squads in Central America, rightwing paramilitary units to overthrow democratic regimes, and commit other terroristic atrocities."

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

Just curious :eyes:

Why don't we hold his feet to the fire for every single issue he doesn't take a stand on during the campaign.

They tried this same tack with Wes Clark.

No one is for torture and the School of the Americas is not the same as it was in the past. Hasn't been in many, many, many years.

this writer's liking. Sounds like another disgruntled guy trying to take his own small bite out of Obama and hoping to elect McCain.

Key word...."till elected".

But can we get there? That's the real issue and should continue to be.

I am not surprised that Obama is reluctant to make a clean break from the United States' imperial past. I certainly noticed during the months of the campaign that he is not a Counterpunch leftist.

I also think the fact that the public doesn't really understand what the School is makes the issue subject to manipulation. Wounded soldier John Sidney McCain III would indeed use the issue to claim that Obama was weakening our national defense.

As in "what's next? Caving in on torture?"

The sad thing is, 8 years ago if you accused any Democrat of being so weak that they would fail to uphold the 4th amendment, you'd have been laughed at.

wouldn't that achieve the goals of the SOA Watch? Obama has a clear stand for human rights. Pushing to close the SOA doesn't require unfairly sliming Obama.

I can has relevance?

Today, Yoo stated that he didn't see anything wrong with burying people alive. The world is upside down.

THEN you push him.

THEN you vote out your bad senators and reps.

But let him get elected first.

I'll be trying to knock McCain down.

will not win elections.

We push our luck as it is. You hear 50 times a day that Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress but want to hold his feet to the fire to veer further to the left?