EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, the ICRC Report and Ongoing Suppression
Following up on the latest extremist Cheney/Addington/Yoo arguments advanced by the Obama DOJ in order to shield Bush lawbreaking from disclosure and judicial review -- an episode I wrote about in detail yesterday, here -- it's worthwhile to underscore the implications of Barack Obama's conduct. When Obama sought to placate his angry supporters after he voted for the Bush/Cheney FISA-telecom immunity bill last June (after vowing the prior December to support a filibuster of any such legislation), this is what he said (h/t notavailable):
[The FISA bill] also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
So candidate Obama unambiguously vowed to his supporters that he would work to ensure "full accountability" for "past offenses" in surveillance lawbreaking. President Obama, however, has now become the prime impediment to precisely that accountability, repeatedly engaging in extraordinary legal maneuvers to ensure that "past offenses" -- both in the surveillance and torture/rendition realm -- remain secret and forever immunized from judicial review. Put another way, Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do: rather than "seek full accountability for past offenses," he has been working feverishly to block such accountability, by embracing the same radical Bush/Cheney views and rhetoric regarding presidential secrecy powers that caused so much controversy and anger for the last several years.
And note the pure deceit on the part of Senate Democrats who justified telecom immunity by continuously assuring the public that the Bush officials who ordered the illegal surveillance (as opposed to the telecoms who broke the law by enabling it) would still be subject to legal accountability. It was obvious at the time (as was often pointed out) that they were outright lying when they said this -- because all sorts of legal instruments had been invoked (such as "state secrets" and "standing" arguments) to protect those government officials from that accountability (legal instruments Democrats knowingly left in place), and now it is Barack Obama who is leading the way in ensuring that the assurances given by Senate Democrats -- don't worry that we immunized the phone companies because Bush officials, who were the truly guilty parties in the illegal spying, will still be subject to legal accountability -- never materialize.
On a very related note: last night, The New York Review of Books published the full report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (.pdf), which documented in detail the brutal torture to which the 14 "high-value" detainees whom we disappeared into our CIA "black sites" were subjected and demanded "that the US authorities investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and take steps to punish the perpetrators, where appropriate." As Scott Horton notes, the ICRC does not call for investigations and prosecutions easily, but rather, "only where the evidence of criminal conduct is manifest." Yet Obama's handpicked CIA Director, Leon Panetta, continues to demand that there be no investigations of any kind, let alone prosecutions. As a CIA spokesperson told the New York Times yesterday in response to the ICRC report:
Mr. Panetta "has stated repeatedly that no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished." The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush.
Accompanying the ICRC report was an article by Mark Danner, the superb journalist who obtained the ICRC Report and disclosed it. In his article, Danner describes the grave dangers from preserving ongoing secrecy surrouding Bush/Cheney crimes (h/t bystander; emphasis added):
Barack Obama may well assert that "the facts don't bear [Cheney] out," but as long as the "details of it" cannot be revealed "without violating classification," as long as secrecy can be wielded as the dark and potent weapon it remains, Cheney's politics of torture will remain a powerful if half-submerged counter-story, waiting for the next attack to spark it into vibrant life.
As Danner explains, it is simply impossible for Obama to "turn the page" on (let alone reverse) the dark Bush/Cheney era of war crimes while he simultaneously turns himself into the prime agent suppressing the facts surrounding those crimes and vigorously shielding the criminals from all investigation and accountability.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
60 Comments so far
Show AllObama is extremely authoritarian and militaristic.
It is taking his supporters much too long to clear the stardust from their eyes.
Yes he slowed down moutain top removal,a little more money for middle class and poor, loosened FOIA, and is talking disarmanment; but otherwise pretty straightline neocon policies.
Bankster heist ,carbon copy of neocons.
Afghanistan same or worse.
State secrets same.
European missle shield.
Silence on Gazan Slaughter.
Looks like Iraq is unraveling again thanks to the USA invasion.
Obama is a Trojan horse put in office to accrete all the plenary powers a boob like McCain could've never accomplished.
When Obama hands the reins to Jeb in 2012 the unitary executive will be unchallenged.
Obama's approval ratings are sky-high right now, America loves the man.
Of course less than 1/10th of 1% probably have any clue whatsoever of the frightening information contained in this superb article.
So stand up and cheer for president I speak in long beautifully structured sentences!
You don't want to have to explain to your friends why you don't support this great progressive leader. Do you?
Constitutional issues are so tedious and messy anyway. Best to just go with the flow.
USA! USA! USA!
You got that right. We're on the 6th term of the Bush Presidency. Pappy - 1 term. First son Bill - 2 terms. W - 2 terms. O-blah-blah - 1 term (so far)
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Bush has Obama eating out of his hands, he always did. Obama can't do a thing about it: if Bush goes down, so do a number of Democrats, including Obama. They were aiders, abettors, accomplices, accessories and coconspirators to each and every of Bush's crimes of the last 8 years, including illegal wiretapping.
I wonder if the Obama disciples are having second thoughts?
It depends what you mean by disciples. Many people who favored him over the other candidates a year ago are very worried/angry/sad about some of his positions since taking office, especially those which directly contradict his assertions before he took office. But there is a hard core that doesn't pick candidates based on their positions or chance of doing the right things. They pick a "leader" the way they pick a football team and no matter how badly he betrays them, they still cheer him on, denounce those who don't as "traitors" and keep asking, "So, you'd rather have John McCain?".
This is a strange idea of "democracy" that some Americans have, and I'm not talking about kids, either. It's part of the reason our government is so disfunctional. Too many among us make the Fascist demand for a "Leader" they can fall in behind rather than a member of a democratic government who will do what is right under the Constitution.
Rainborowe
I'd rather not have McCain or Obama mostly for the reasons Greenwald names, or Chris Hedges further down CD site. I'd rather not have a president married to the dirty coal industry and mis characterizing coal as "clean" or advocating bio fuels, and nuclear fuels both inimical to the environment. I'd rather have a president not interested in escalating the war in Afghanistan, or conducting covert activities in Pakistan or authorizing drone strikes killing innocent children. I would rather see an investigation and indictments of the Bush administration rather than burying it. I'd rather see a president who appoints visionary voices like David Korten, Hedges, or Greenwald, instead of recycled corporate 'yes' men like Summers and Geithner the two chief proponents of deregulation, now apparently born again populists - not! I'd rather have a president who is against FISA and government snooping without warrant, or the fleecing of the treasury via TARP funds to prop up millionaires without oversight or accountability, to name a few.
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: Me, too.
I wish ! None of my friends and family who voted for him are having second thoughts. They still believe in that "hope and change" mantra. Try to bring up the issue of surveillance powers and they and the Limbaugh dittoheads surpringly agree on the flawed claim that giving the president unlimited powers is somehow necessary to winning the "war on terrorism".
Another disappointing and annoying trend I'm encountering is Obama apologists who have discreetly backed off their over-the-top claims about his genius and political superpowers, and are now espousing weak, "half-full" opinions-- e.g. well, OK, I don't really know what he's up to with the bailout and the Homeland Security stuff and the militarism, but he still IS Change We Can Believe In for about 90% of his agenda... he supported SCHIP.
I really want to give these die-hards a Dope Slap for claiming that Obama is "90% on track", so we'll just have to hold his cloven hooves to the fire and work on the remaining 10%.
Obama's administration supports a Unitary Executive without calling it that, has turned our financial future over to the banksters, and is continuing bloody mayhem abroad. But hey-- he's thumbs-up about SCHIP!
This is why they say "dope springs eternal", I guess.
· Yr Obd't Servant
And of course SCHIP wouldn't be needed if we had universal single-payer healthcare.
Well said. I sent my two senators and congressman my letter asking that they pass HR 676. Good for both businesses and people. Plus, holding government accountable couldn't get any easier. :)
Obedient Servant
Let me add you to my list of Mea Culpa letters. I never "believed" in Obama, but I voted for him. I still believe he may turn out to be better than McCain which is why I choose him in the end. Any other suggestion of anyone else winning is just watering the wind.
BUT....so far he has done one good thing, signed the equal pay bill. I disagree that SCHIPS was a good idea. Any bill that gives money to non citizens when wwe have so many of our own citizens in need is a bad bill.
Bail Outs, Omnibus bill, his budget......all disasters. Ditching campaign promises like ridding us of NAFTA, bad trade policies, disengagement from conflict in Iraq, etc.........betrayals of his voters.
By trying to do everything at once he has killed any chance for a number of programs. Some I'm pleased will be defeated, others we needed and by their foolishness have killed.....if I'm right.
He seems as bad as the Democratic Congress to me at this time. My apologies.
I didn't know SCHIP was that bad. I need to read that bill in full detail. Maybe that's why Dennis Kucinich didn't support it in the end.
"Bail Outs, Omnibus bill, his budget......all disasters. Ditching campaign promises like ridding us of NAFTA, bad trade policies, disengagement from conflict in Iraq, etc.........betrayals of his voters."
That's what I'm upset about as well. The thing is though Obama made it clear that he intended to do it all. Maybe the system is too far rigged to the point of manipulating people into thinking that 3rd parties have no place at all that the Democrats and Republicans are "free" to rob us as much as they please.
"I still believe he may turn out to be better than McCain which is why I choose him in the end. Any other suggestion of anyone else winning is just watering the wind."
I think Palin would have already taken his place had he won. He's conservative enough but the conservatives would have pushed him off the cliff to put that Cheney-in-a-skirt she-devil to power. Still, I don't know because Obama's actions seem to strengthen my fears about his intentions than easen them.
JenniferBedingfield
I didn't mean it was that bad a bill, the House version was fine in my opinion. I just feel that the Senate stripping citizenship requirements out of the bill which allows non-citizens to access the program and use money sorely needed by our own citizens is stupidity squared.
A family here from India under H1B can get funds from this program and thats just not fair or equitable to our own citizens that will be left out. The funding is limited.
Hmmm, I'm not sure what to make of it. On the one hand, I do agree that we citizens shouldn't keep losing out and yet on the other hand, knowing what really pushes these people here, I feel bad for them. I've come across Indians who have VISAs and don't plan on staying here in the country forever or they are willing to exploit their VISAs as much as they can. It seems that it used to be that going to school in America or even working in an American multinational or even government agency would bring them prestige when they returned. I think that all that will change as the global economic depression keeps coming. You are correct. Some immigrants can really act like showoffs and even abuse our generosity but some of them aren't so mean. But not all of them are bad and many are forced to do like we do. If I didn't want to earn a living or better educate myself for the job market, I could have stayed an unemployed housewife in the countryside where there are very few job opportunities available instead of get a masters degree and move to St Louis to work. A lot of immigrants I came across have been in similar situations so I don't feel like saying no to them either. As for funding the bills, I think we'll have to cut back on war spending and bailouts to Wall $treet to offset the costs.
Jennifer, You will quickly learn of Thomas' Achilles heel should you remain here. Anything to do with immigrants receiving humane and necessary assistance meets with Mr. More's stern disapproval. I hope that some 'illegal' child doesnt spread germs to any of his relatives because they had no access to health care.
He's also a bit of an arrogant US militarist too.
I believe Thomas More actually served. Wished I could ask my friend JWVerez who used to discuss Vietnam with Thomas. I asked him in another post today in a reply which wars he served in and what life was like since I assumed he served in the first Iraq war. But I'm only guessing. Maybe he'll explain and we might learn what he's been through. JWVerez himself confessed to being a militarist until after he came back from Vietnam.
Serving is more likely to make a human heart abhor war rather than embrace it--unless one is one sick fuck.
I've seen a lot of Thomas's posts from the archives where he discusses the issue. I have a mixed thinking on the issue but because of what I've found out about the worst living hell Mexican women and children go through, I feel bad for them and strongly support humanitarian aid for them. I do take issue to the exploitation of misusing immigrant labor to lower wages to near-slave. The immigration issue is a delicate issue that I'm not sure where to draw the line myself.
Wise words, Ms. Bedingfield, and illustrative of the complexities of this issue. When it is US business interests that make it impossible for so many to earn a living in their own nations it might seem the humane thing to do to allow a bit of compassion for those who go through the expensive and dangerous ordeal of entering this nation illegally and working quite hard to send a few bucks back to feed your family.
I believe the Mr. More is a Viet Nam veteran and, like most of us, has complex and conflicting views on many issues. I believe him to be a good and decent man who has certain gaps in his education. That is what this forum is for.
Thank you Red Rick for your thoughts. I rarely met an immigrant who grew up in the city life before coming to the country. The vast majority of them had virtually no jobs or even much of a life in their countryside home towns and had to move to the big cities to find any chance at getting anywhere in life. When that didn't work out thanks to their rotten government and our own rotten government aiding their rotten government, getting dumped or crossing the border desperately into the country was their own choice. All I can say is the only difference between a lot of us young native born Americans who grew up in small town America and then had to move into the city life to get anywhere in life and the immigrants is we haven't crossed any country borders yet though that could change. I won't be moving out of the country though since I'm hell bent on improving this one even as the odds are stacked against those of us who try.
"Any other suggestion of anyone else winning is just watering the wind"
With all due respect my American cyberfriend, winning has nothing to do with it. I dont' always vote for the winner. But the winner, always sees how many people voted for the other parties and the winner sees what the other parties stand for. They adjust their policies accordingly.
In your system, this doesn't happen. There is no feedback. no learning. You vote for Rs and Ds, they both deliver the same thing and if people want something else, they never see it because the votes are never in the Green column or whatever party's column that supports peace or healthcare or balanced budgets or whatever.
jlocke
"With all due respect my American cyberfriend, winning has nothing to do with it. I dont' always vote for the winner."
I take your point my friend and its a good one. I haven't always voted for the winner even while voting for one or the other (Rep or Dem) for President. And I was speaking specifically of the Presidential election when I mentioned the wind.
Perhaps I should make a distinction between Federal races and State and local races where my vote is spread all over the board because I pick the best for the job in my opinion (just as I do in Federal elections) but my selection is far wider.
So let me return to a point I was trying to make last year. Concentrate on local and state elections is where the possibility of real change lies. There a victory can be won. I would say that if you can't get elected you can't do too much, so the best place to start is locally. But I believe the appeal must be wide and not too specific.
"You vote for Rs and Ds, they both deliver the same thing and if people want something else"
There is the truth spoken out loud. Thanks for the thoughts.
With all due respect, the current American political system is not like any Western European political system.
Even in the British system, votes for an alternative candidate will matter more, since if s/he wins a seat, s/he has a seat, a voice and a presence in parliament.
None of the alternative candidates in the US presidential elections have had any real alternative base. None of them are members from a party that can win elections in state legislatures, in congress. Their candidacies were all built around themselves. Not their parties. It wasn't, candidate for the Green party, Ralph Nader. It was, Ralph Nader, who happens to be a candidate for the Green party this time. I'm not belittling Nader, but like it or not, top down movements built on individuals are not going to work.
Hmmmm, Jennifer... second thoughts....
I caught Bill Ayers on FSTV Keynote last night; Obama's ol' toilet-bombing terrorist Palin-pal offered two strong, somber pieces of advice: be active in pressing your beliefs, then ever doubt and re-evaluate those convictions.
"I wonder if the Obama disciples are having second thoughts?"
If they're true disciples then they never had FIRST thoughts, just blind chanting; O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma. If they never had first thoughts how could they be having second ones?
Some of us weren't fooled by O-blah-blah just like we weren't fooled by W and his claims of WMD in Iraq. The saddest thing is that it's not that hard to stay above the BS. First, don't put ANY stock in anything any politician says. How do you tell if a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving, and that includes O-blah-blah. Second, don't put ANY stock in anything the MSM reports - that includes National PR (N PR) and Public BS (P BS). They don't report, they just parrot what the politicians tell them. Refer to the first point for what happens when politicians speak. These two things will put you head and shoulders above the crowd in respect to not getting fooled.
Change smoking hope fiends.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
So what are you doing to build a revolutionary movement?
If you really want some change, vote for 3rd party candidates. You won't get it from the Republicrats, that's for sure.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Yes.
Another way to say it: "If you want to keep getting what you're getting, keep doing what you're doing."
A disappointed "realist" downthread seems to have come belatedly to this same conclusion, but will he vote his hopes or fears next time?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Remember that next time you're tempted to vote for a Democrat to bring change.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
You won't get it from third-party candidates either, because a third party will have to work with either the Republi or the Mocrat part. It's representatives would not have the power either to move forward any legislation, obstruct any, or do anything of its own.
But what they would have , should the electorate put enough of them in the Senate or the House, is the ability to demand specific inclusions or exclusions in proposed bills in order to vote up or down.
I fail to see any other way to put forth campaign finance reform, raise the issues of changes to voting ( IRV), push single payer care than to have a bloc of votes not wedded to the interests of the few over the needs of the many.
Here's your effing " State Secret "; I'm following through my lawsuit for all that scratchy-scratchy on my phone done by ATT. I will be a rich mo-fo when these elite panzies finally run out of tricks, which apparently was a few weeks ago. World ain't gonna have it, Barry. Pay up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Does anyone remember the 'Obama plane incident', forced to land in St. Louis?(It's googleable) Things really started changing in his actions about that time(FISA vote, Biden pick...), maybe threatened , ala Ross Perot...if only the truth was known...too scarey to speculate...
Government secrecy. What a tangled web they weave.
"Put another way, Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do"
Obama is a total fraud so stop singing his praises people. If you are a working stiff Obama is your enemy just as George Bush was. Your security and future will be enhanced locally in spite of Washington's hatred of working people. Get active locally now.
Ex-Peruvian leader sentenced to 25 years in prison
Now for Darth Cheney and his obedient sock puppet, George.
As for the Spy_on_We_the_People_Bill (FISA) I'll never vote for anyone who voted in favor of this insult.
"The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department"
This is hilarious. All the dear leader has to do is "declare" something legal, and presto, it is!
You guys have really screwed yourselves again haven't you? Maybe you should write Green party or Nader on your sleave or something so that your memory won't fail the next time you go to cast a ballot.
Maybe you should realise voting Nader in a presidential election would do nothing, not unless his party, his party, not him, has a notable presence at other levels of government?
The small-d democratic left wants to be nothing more than a colloquy of Stepan Verkhovenskys, standing reproaches to the shame of things, and never anything more. Their third party illusions are as realistic as French monarchism -- probably less realistic, when it comes to it.
Once one accepts the fundamental fact that "our" government is corporate-controlled, the rest of the "BO did this," "BO didn't do that" talk is nothing but a waste of f@#king time.
BO will do what he is told. Period. Every so often, a bone will be tossed to quell the already passive masses - a few thousand acres of wilderness protection here, some angry words about greedy banksters there - but y'all know the bottom line: he wouldn't be where he is if he was even a teeny tiny pubic hair of a threat to "the system."
Y'all want "change?" Then stop whining and start raising serious hell.
Bush is gone. Obushma reigns.
Obama is a total fraud so stop singing his praises people. If you are a working stiff Obama is your enemy just as George Bush was. Your security and future will be enhanced locally in spite of Washington's hatred of working people. Get active locally now.Pay Per Click Management
Ken Ward
Obama seems to believe that commitments he made campaigning need only be implemented if tested as against post-election reality. For example, he has just distanced himself in Turkey from his campaign attitude to the Armenian genocide on the grounds that his 'personal' views shouldn't get in the way of possible concrete reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. Steps towards reconciliation had in fact already begun before Obama made his eloquent campaign commitment. Turkish and Armenian historians can meet to discuss the facts of the genocide endlessly for the rest of Obama's term, making any action by him unhelpful in his own mind. Let's give him some credit. He brings remarkable ingenuity to the defence of hypocrisy and opportunism.
read Obama's new book "The Audacity of Protecting War Criminals"
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I recently had a dream along these lines:
http://www.cloudbyte.com/dream.html
suck⋅er
/ˈsʌkər/ [suhk-er]
–noun
1. a person or thing that sucks.
2. someone that believed anything Obama told them, then proceeded to elect him
Whattayamean!!!! Obama's doin a great job protecting the country from Democracy and ensuring the word of law has no meaning here. That's the president's primary function, didn't ya know!!
I say it's time to start impeachment procedings against Obama for abetting the Bush/Cheney war crimes and grossly obstructing justice, along with his own war crimes.