Planning Ahead

As newly inaugurated president of the United States, Barack Obama has already signed off on some policies that will forever change the way our military works. One of those policies recently was the signing of the order to close the terrorist prison found at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now this prison has been the source of much criticism for years because of the reported use of inhumane torture and other techniques that tarnish the reputation of the United States. Along with that same order came the order to follow the military handbook on the proper techniques of acquiring information, which means no more torture: threats of torture, coercion, physical abuse, or water boarding. Now I haven't studied the Army's Field Manual so I don't know what other ways of obtaining information are but I'm sure there are some quite respectable ways. Along with the closing of "Gitmo" and the no more torture Obama has also set up a task force to evaluate how we are to handle the now current residents of Gitmo and the future terrorist that might be taken into custody. He also has organized a task force to investigate new, non-torturous ways of obtaining essential information from terrorist.
Here's where I see the problem. Shouldn't you already have a plan in place ready to begin before you scrub current operations? Why is he closing Gitmo before even coming up with a solution to prosecute it's current residents? I know he promised this during his campaign, however, I feel he should already have a plan in place to compensate for Gitmo's closing. What will happen in a year when Gitmo is supposed to be closed and this task force hasn't quite finished it's suggestions? Once these suggestions are finished then they're going to need to go through the House and Senate for approval (and we all know those things take longer than a year).
Now if this new task force comes up with a great idea to house the now Gitmo prisoners and also new great ways of getting information from the enemy I'm all for it. However, I stand by the fact that you already have a plan ready to be implemented before you even consider stopping the current one. It just doesn't make sense to do it any other way, especially when you're talking about the future of our nations security. Just a thought. I hope his other official acts as president come with a little more thought involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_suspected_terrorists

Priorities

The San Francisco Chronicle released an article this week talking about the amount of money being donated to the upcoming inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama titled "Obama inauguration very much a Hollywood production." As I read through the article I was surprised at how much money would be put into next weeks inauguration, over $42 million. California leads the pack with its citizens donating around $6.4 million with New York following at $3.9 million. Now the Obama campaign has put a cap of $50,000 per individual and has also made public those names who donated. Among them are top Hollywood directors and actors, university professors, physicians, professional athletes, and more. Barred from donating are corporations, labor unions, and registered lobbyist, however, individuals from these groups may donate not representing their organizations.
Isn't it great to see that, in this time of financial crisis, so many "respectable" people are donating their money to a single event that will do absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy? Especially surprising to see is that Californians, who recently have been considering asking for part of the bailout check due to the bankruptcy of their state, are found as the top donors. Wouldn't it be great if those same people would instead put that money into paying off their state's debt instead of helping to fund an event that could easily be televised to the whole world without costing $42 million? ANd why are these people donating? Tax breaks, public recognition, personal gratification, and every other self absorbed reason.
Why does this inauguration, or any for that matter, have to cost so much money? Do people really need to attend in person the swearing in of our elected officials? Why can't the nation just sit at home and watch it on television. I guarantee it is not costing $42 million to broadcast it. But it will cost $42 million to accommodate the more than 2 million that are expected to attend, security to enforce the crowd and calm the masses, and of course, the huge party afterwards.
Now there will be some jobs created for the hosting of this event and some of that money will trickle back into the community but its effects will be short lasting. Maybe instead of limiting each donations to $50,000 or less the Obama campaign should tell its constituents, especially those from California, to donate their money back into their own state to help it out of its own financial crisis. I thought our president-elect had a plan to help the U.S. out of its current financial crisis. This doesn't seem like a step in the right direction to me.