Two Feet In | Writing and the Institution

I received your last letter regarding the detention of terrorist suspects. After the normal party-line fodder, you make the error of claiming that labeling all detainees as members of al Queda. This is not the case, and is easily demonstrated. The very purpose of providing these detainees with some semblance of legal due process is to allow them to prove or disprove their complicity with al Quaeda or associated groups. Denying these basic rights only gives the American people the illusion of safety by claiming that al Quaeda operatives have been caught and detained. Truth is not so easy. Finally, you claim the US is "a compassionate nation, and a civilized one." To claim so either demonstrates a deep ignorance of the history and recent policies of our people and our government, or reflects a complicity in the deception itself. No nation is without crimes and sins, and certainly not the US. A history of racial oppression and genocide, international political assassination,...

Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for contacting me regarding the Obama Administration’s policy on the detention of terrorist suspects. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter. In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced its policy regarding the government's authority to detain terrorist suspects, officially stating in a “Detention Authority Memorandum” that the President has the authority to “detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. According to the memorandum, the President also has the authority to "detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported ho...

(after suggesting I watch an anti-Obama video: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=eAaQNACwaLw ) I stopped after about 35 minutes. It's nothing new, typical of the modern psuedo-journalism of American thinking today. We see the same thing every administration from the disaffected voter -- sound clips out of context to show the best or worse but not any whole story, snazzy video effects (thank you, CNN) without substance, dramatic music (thank you, Disney) to manipulate the emotions instead of engaging the rational, and diatribes from everyone except those who can think. We get quotes from politicians (never to be trusted, since today's politicians have only their own political party in mind, not the welfare of the old/dead republic), celebrities (should always be ignored), out of work former politicians (eager to get their plug in for a new book or a way into a lobbying firm), and other talking heads. Note that few or any historians or true academicians were used. Any level-heade...