Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEstablishment View of Obama's Civil Liberties Record
One of the most cherished weapons for dismissing political arguments without having to engage them is to claim they come from "the Far Left" or are confined to "liberal ideologues." For years, that was what was said about withdrawing from Iraq even as majorities of Americans supported that position, and it is how the political and media establishment now demonize the call for investigations into Bush/Cheney crimes, despite large percentages and diverse ideological support for those views . Exactly the same tactic is used to dismiss those who criticize Obama for adopting Bush policies in the areas of civil liberties and secrecy: only people from the Far Left fringe or civil liberties extremists would equate Obama and Bush when it comes to such matters.
From today's Op-Ed page of The Washington Post -- the ultimate establishment organ -- one finds this observation about Obama's use of the state secrets privilege from a Post Editorial:
The second Bush administration took the state secrets doctrine to new heights by arguing that an entire case should be dismissed -- sometimes at its earliest stages -- if it could touch on any information that could conceivably have national security ramifications. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush used this approach to try to quash litigation involving, among other things, domestic surveillance and extraordinary rendition (the forced transfer of detainees to countries where they may be tortured).
President Obama has said that the state secrets doctrine should be reformed, and he has promised to be more measured. Yet when confronted with actual cases the Obama Justice Department has adopted the same legal arguments as the Bush administration.
From a Post Op-Ed today by two of the leading advocates of preventive detention -- former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith and Benjamim Wittes of the right-wing Hoover Institute and neoconservative Brookings Institution -- there is this observation on Obama's possible use of an Executive Order to vest himself with preventive detention powers rather than having Congress do it for him:
Obama, to put it bluntly, seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration's unilateral approach to detention. The attraction is simple, seductive and familiar. The legal arguments for unilateralism are strong in theory; past presidents in shorter, traditional wars did not seek specific congressional input on detention. Securing such input for our current war, it turns out, is still hard. The unilateral approach, by contrast, lets the president define the rules in ways that are convenient for him and then dares the courts to say no.
This seductive logic, however, failed disastrously for Bush -- and it will not serve Obama any better.
That Obama is replicating the Bush/Cheney approach in these areas isn't a by-product of some civil liberties extremist refusal to appreciate the joys of pragmatism or Leftist-purist dissatisfaction with all dogmatic imperfection. That this observation is heard from The Washington Post Editorial Page (of all places), from right-wing advocates such as Wittes and Goldsmith, and from mainstream, liberal and pro-Obama outlets (TPM this weekend: preventive detention approach is "the latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics") demonstrates that rather conclusively. Rather, it's just a blindlingly clear fact that any minimally honest person is compelled to acknowledge. When one combines that with the fact that Bush's actions in the areas of civil liberties, Terrorism and secrecy were (at least ostensibly) central to the widespread anger about the Bush presidency, it's impossible to understand how anyone whose objections over the last eight years were sincere (as opposed to a handy weapon opportunistically used to politically weaken Bush) could be supporting what Obama, in these areas, is doing now.
* * * * *
One last related point: Ever since Obama reversed himself on the question of whether to suppress the torture photos, I've been searching for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos. I haven't found such a person yet, but I'm still looking.
When Obama originally announced he would release the photos, he was attacked on seemingly every television news show by people like Lindsey Graham, Liz Cheney and Joe Lieberman for endangering the Troops, but I don't know of a single Democrats who joined in with those criticisms on the ground that the photos shouldn't be released. But as soon as Obama changed his mind and embraced the Graham/Cheney/Lieberman position, up rose hordes of Obama supporters suddely insisting that those photos must be suppressed because to release them would be to endanger the Troops. I'm still searching for any pro-photo-suppression Democrats who criticized Obama when he triggered controversy by orginally announcing he would release them.
25 Comments so far
Show AllObama is a Constitutional lawyer. There is absolutely no excuse for any of the things he is doing; from refusing to prosecute criminals in the last administration to continuing their policies in his.
Since entering office Obama the Unready seems to have lost the ability to discern and appears to be unable to lead.
He over-reacts to every whine of the right wing and knuckles under to the Pentagon/CIA consortium. He abandoned his base the minute he closed the door on the Oval Office, something the GOPs never did and it kept them office well past their sell by date.
The GOPs cosseted their base and charted their own path, albeit a dangerous, undemocratic one. If they were willing to risk standing up for what is wrong, the least Obama can do is risk standing up for what he knows is right.
He defended himself from the criticism of his highly questionable cabinet choices by saying "change would come from him". His ill chosen advisors have been successful in isolating him from expertise and wisdom he vowed to seek.
Instead of the change he promised we see a man whose actions resemble a deer in the headlights. The rhetoric is still smooth but his actions betray a man frozen with fear.
If he continues as he has begun, not only will his presidency will be a failure but he'll be handing the country back to the American Likud Party on a silver platter.
Chains we can believe in
Obama Pledges to Move on Gay-Rights Agenda
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, under fire from the gay-rights community over slow action on its priorities, promised to deliver by the time he leaves office.
Our 'reward' is in heaven - after he leaves office? Holy Hypocrit, Batman!
George W. Bush was a dimwitted bigot one year ago, five years ago, ten years ago.
But Obama one year ago was running against the very policies he is now implementing. Five or more years ago, he was an unalloyed advocate of things like a right to marry for gays, among several other 'liberal' or 'progressive' policies.
Now all that is gone. He is as conservative or more so than a largely discredited, largely fallen Bill Clinton -- but a Clinton with the benefit of hindsight.
So what do we make of a man who has shown every sign of knowing what justice demands? Bush may have been an awful war criminal, but does he have some defense in his actually believing the vile crap he spewed?
If so, what do we make of Obama, who spews much the same crap and with no such defense?
Obama rolled over to the rightwing media countless number of times in the last two years and yet 70 million fell for it. With Obama further eroding civil liberties and trashing the Constitution, I don't blame those rising guns and ammo sales. Of course the establishment will love Obama as somehow a "saint" until they can find a young Ronnie Raygun to replace Obama. I have no faith that Obama will bother to restore any civil liberties or the Constitution and I'm mad as hell so I think I'll buy a couple more guns and 3-4 dozen bullets for my own civil liberties !
Time to pull our crap together and BE enemy combatants,
"past presidents in shorter, traditional wars did not seek specific congressional input on detention..."
And the present President is presently fighting which officially, Constitutionally declared War again?
Oh, right - no such thing exists.
Guess we must be talking about one of them "un-traditional wars," where Americans can invade and occupy any sovereign nation they choose, as long as we tell really gargantuan lies to justify our un-traditional warring...
As opposed to 'traditional wars,' you see...
"One of the most cherished weapons for dismissing political arguments without having to engage them is to claim they come from "the Far Left" or are confined to "liberal ideologues."
One more reason why we're better off with the MSM dead.
delete
Chris Hedges for President, Glenn Greenwald for Vice-President.
I'll man the new F.B.I. if they want me.
The second sentence, I'm just kidding, the first sentence, I am not kidding!
nedlud
I'll second that, Hedges and Greenwald have been doing some truly exemplary journalism. Glad CD is carrying their articles.
Chris Hedges for President!? Can you imagine how many imaginary earth-shattering crises we'd have to endure? Once a week at least.
I think it was just last week that Chris announced that Russia, China, India, and a bevvy of other nations were meeting to finalize the switch from the USD as international reserve currency to something else, and it would spell the end of the US economy as we know it...... This hasn't happened yet, has it?
At this point, I think better teary-eyes than starry-eyes. Too many people are being killed, tortured and maimed by too many stars. If you get my drift.
Here's a badge for you if you don't. It says: 'I'll pay you to be an optimist and you will think you were born that way'.
After promising to vote against FISA and then voting for it, Obama was there for everyone to see.
I like Greenwald, but he waited for the torture memos?
No, he's been onto all of Obama's dire decisions from the get-go. You might want to check out his blog:
salon.com/opinion/greenwald.
I think that he's probably the best intelligence currently blogging.
Rainborowe
I think you're right. Greenwald ROCKS and has been ROCKING all along- from the get go!
President Obama has said that the state secrets doctrine should be reformed, and he has promised to be more measured. Yet when confronted with actual cases the Obama Justice Department has adopted the same legal arguments as the Bush administration.
Here is Obysmal and Obysmalism summed up neatly and with complere accuracy in one pragraph. "Reformed"? "Measured"? They may be words but they mean not simply next to nothing but absolutely nothing. The sucker suckers the suckers.
Obysmal--that's good. Your performance is definitely abysmal, President Obysmal.
Surprise, surprise!
"Obama, to put it bluntly, seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration's unilateral approach to detention."
-The fact that Obama is carrying out many of Bush's policies, policies he seemed to be against before he became president speaks volumes to the kind of pressure a president must be under to tow the empire's line. I am sure Obama understands his job and the limits of what he can say and do.
To anyone that's been paying attention, none of this is a surprise.
Was Obysmal sincere during the campaign but then did a one eighty after being subjected to overwhelming pressure once assuming power? Or was he lying all along? I think now it was the latter. The people who own him now owned him then.
I think Obysmal has been a sellout a long time. I also believe he said many of the things he said simply to get elected knowing he could change his mind at any time. But I also think he is under intense pressure to do his job: ENRICH BIG BUSINESS & WAR INC.
Perhaps Obysmal really did want to close the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp as a symbolic gesture for sap consumption, but as you can see, he isn't even allowed to do that.
Is he a liar? yes
Is he under right wing pressure? undoubtedly yes
Oregoncharles
Of course. He's not a stupid man. He was hired to do a job and he played his role well.
Isn't it rather naive to think a candidate who was promoted by so much money would simply turn his back on it once in office, as if candidates aren't thoroughly vetted before they're given all that money and attention, as if he isn't going to need their support come 2012?
We may find that Obama may be a greater danger to democratic progress than McCain would have been.
Recall how the greatest triumph's of the Reagan era were under the Clinton Administration. It continues under Obama.
Thank you Glenn.
Humans tend to retreat into denial when their worldview is threatened.
That said, it seems that slowly, slowly, some Obamanuts are beginning to realize that they have been fooled and betrayed.
As best as I can tell the only "far left" point of view offered on CD is offered by Chris Hedges as a contributor, and a growing number of others who are commentators. As far as contributors of articles, the vast majority are all married to corporate nexus power. Chris' article pretty much says it all a couple of clicks up...
Have Obama and the current Congress modified the patriot act?
In Oct. 2006 the enhanced patriot act denied habeas corpus, the most basic civil liberty, to anybody the US Gov. labelled an enemy combatant. Until laws of that nature are changed, anybody can be labelled an enemy combatant and denied due process.