There are an infinite number of things one “could” say in an article, but one has to weigh which of those are most directly to the point when writing.

“One thing Obama isn’t changing is the f act that the detainees are considered ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Under the Act, an(d) ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means anyone who has ‘engaged in hostilities’ against the U.S., ‘including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces.’ That pretty much includes anyone who has exercised his right to take up arms against the foreign invading and occupying U.S. forces in Afghanistan – a right protected under the U.N. Charter, which recognizes ‘the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense’ against armed attack. (In this context, and from Obama’s persistent refusal to say the words ‘United Nations’ in his addresses to the American public, another thing the man isn’t going to change is America’s tragic unilateralism on the Asian landmass.) But a ‘lawful enemy combatant’ is a member of a regular, uniformed army, under military commissions.

As for your assertion that my article is unhelpful, well, I disagree with you there, too.

If you think the U.N. should have some mention in this article, I’m all ears for you to explain in what capacity it should be included.

another large block, weak econo-militarily, can only vote for resolutions or cower in fear of being the next in line.
and there is another block of nations which wld earn label “evil empires”

switzerland is a block by itself; it does the right thing by staying away from the snake pit. tnx

Lloyd, if only the United Nations was not poorly constructed it could have real value.

If the UN could be what its charter set out to be, there would be no talk about the corruption of the institution by the likes of the US and its client nation-states. (A good history is presented by Paul Kennedy, The Parliament of Man.

As for my second point, I’m saying words are frequently a pale substitute for action, and as long as “the experts” treat the words “United Nations” like the right wing-nuts do, articles like yours don’t help.

There is a United Nations. And almost the entire world – with the most significant exceptions of American and Israel – takes it seriously.

He says this, does that.

As far as oil in the Middle East, DB is absolutely right there is no oil and now that we have gone totally green, nukes and all, we only fight and die to keep Israel happy.

As for your second point, I still don’t see what it is, unless you’re just trying to say that people speaking out and trying to do something to make a change are wasting their time.

In which case I would just strongly disagree.

Second question: Isn’t it obvious that words are what you’re engaged in, however high-falutin’ and outside “the standard framework” Foreign Policy Journal may be…. And…. yes, we need the words….but Obama can out-wordsmith, out-audience, out-jaw everyone and anyone, and unless we rejoin the world in the UN, us jawboners will keep losing, losing, losing…

And your article’s fifth paragraph in its entirety is:

‘The first problem with Obama’s continuation of Bush’s policy, albeit a “kinder, gentler” version of it, to borrow Glenn Greenwald’s tongue-in-cheek description, is that “the overwhelming bulk of the objections to what the Bush administration did was to the very idea of military commission themselves”, as Greenwald observed last week.’

How can anyone reading these lines continue the article without the nagging suspicion that you’re simply engaged in a debate about what have been ‘the overwhelming bulk of the objections’ to ‘what the Bush administration did’ – and you think so far Greenwald has gotten more comments than you have?

What ever happened to all those “progressives” who said the war on Iraq was a war for Oil? Clearly that can’t use that excuse since Obama never had any ties to oil companies yet he is carrying forward the policies of Bush/Chaney.

Obama’s approach does not materially differ from Bush’s. And he’s willing to to keep people imprisoned indefinitely for the crime of having been tortured.

America no longer even pretends to be sane!