Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Holder Trial Balloon: Abu Ghraib Redux
Any criminal inquiry could face challenges, including potent legal defenses by CIA employees who could argue that attorneys in the Bush Justice Department authorized a wide range of harsh conduct. But the sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the "four corners" of the legal memos. . . . The actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.
Balloon-Juice's Tim F. is absolutely right that such an approach -- targeting low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy-makers from prosecution -- would be "something close to the worst of both worlds." That's true not only because it would replicate the disgraceful whitewashing of the Abu Ghraib prosecutions. It would do that, but even worse, it would bolster the principal instrument of executive lawlessness -- the Beltway orthodoxy that any time a President can find a low-level DOJ functionary to authorize what he wants to do, then it is, by definition, "legal" and he's immune from prosecution when he does it, no matter how blatantly criminal it is. As Tim put it:
Hard to believe as it may seem, Holder’s probe will take John Yoo’s work . . . and treat them as the settled law of the time. Already clear and public evidence that DOJ lawyers drafted those memos entirely in bad faith, on orders from Bush officials who literally dictated what they wanted the memos to say, will be similarly ignored.
It's worth emphasizing here that all of these reports are preliminary and from anonymous DOJ sources, so it's a bit premature to get too worked up over a prosecution approach which Holder hasn't even announced yet. Still, given how many DOJ sources went to multiple newspapers at the same time to disclose Holder's plans, it seems clear that this was a coordinated, approved effort to disseminate Holder's intentions as a "trial balloon" to gauge public reaction. If this is the approach Holder takes -- one that, yet again, shields high-level Bush officials while targeting low-level "rogue" agents -- one can make a strong argument that it is worse than doing nothing, that this will actually further subvert the rule of law rather than strengthen it.
Yesterday, in the context of discussing John Yoo's painfully frivolous justifications for Bush's illegal surveillance programs, I wrote at length of the dangers of this prevailing view that a President is free to do whatever he wants as long he finds some DOJ employee somewhere willing to say it's legal (see point 4). Digby elaborated yesterday on that point:
If it is the case that the president can designate an Office of Legal Counsel functionary to immunize government officials and employees against criminal behavior, then it is true, to all intents and purposes, that "if the president does it it's not illegal."
One could make the argument that the political fallout would be so huge if it were ever revealed that no president would ever attempt it, but we are proving right now that this is a very remote possibility. Ever since Nixon, the political class has reaffirmed the idea that anything the president does as a political leader or in his official capacity is unpunishable. And more recently we've seen that anyone who carries out his orders is also immune, which wasn't always the case. Nixon's people did do time.
If that was the intention of the revolutionaries who broke away from despotic monarchical rule, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. At this point, both political parties agree that if the president has a low level lawyer in the Justice Department write a secret memo authorizing him to break the law then all those who broke those laws are legally immunized from any punishment . . . .
All other things being equal, individual CIA agents who brutalized detainees, using unapproved methods, ought to be prosecuted. If nothing else, our treaty obligations compel that. Even for a country that has rejected the idea of accountability as resoundingly as we have, it seems inconceivable to decide to prosecute nobody in the face of scores of detainee deaths. How can we know that we tortured to death numerous detainees and do nothing? If you were Eric Holder, would you want that decision attached to your name by history?
But just as was true for the Abu Ghraib abuses, many of the worst instances of detainee abuse cannot be extricated from -- but rather are directly attributable to -- the torture policies authorized at the highest levels of the government. To target low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy makers would further bolster America's two-tiered system of justice, in which ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless punishment while the most powerful elites are vested with virtual immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking. As Hilzoy put it:
I'd give up all hope of any prosecutions of CIA officials for prosecution of the people who set policy -- people like Cheney and Addington. They created the Bush administration's interrogation policy. They decided to set aside law, morality, and basic humanity. They should bear the consequences.
Prosecuting only obscure "rogue" interrogators while immunizing powerful, high-level officials would not be an act of courage but of cowardice. It would not strengthen the rule of law but would pervert it further. And rather than deter future lawbreaking, it would signal -- yet again -- that our most powerful political officials are free to break the law with impunity. If Holder is too frightened to include the parties truly responsible for America's torture regime in the scope of the investigation he orders, then he ought simply to appoint a strong and independent prosecutor with the mandate to investigate anyone and everyone who might have broken our nation's torture laws, and leave it to the prosecutor to make all decisions without interference (and if a well-regarded prosecutor decided based on standard factors of prosecutorial discretion, rather than as a matter of pre-ordained DOJ "fairness" policy, that the DOJ memos made prosecution too difficult as a practical matter, then so be it). But whatever else is true, the tactics authorized by George Bush and Dick Cheney were patently criminal regardless of how many memos they directed John Yoo to write.
UPDATE: Harper's Scott Horton, who has been working on this story for a couple of weeks using DOJ sources of his, now reports at The Daily Beast that Holder's investigation would be broader than suggested by other reports today:
As he read through the latter two documents, my sources said, Holder came to realize the focal and instrumental role that Department of Justice lawyers had played in constructing the torture regime and in pushing it through when career lawyers raised objection. He also took note of how the entire process was orchestrated from within the Bush White House—so that more-senior lawyers in Justice, sometimes even the attorney general, did not know what was being done. And he noted the fact that the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, requires that a criminal inquiry be undertaken whenever credible allegations of torture are presented. . . .
For now, however, it appears that Holder’s current decision focuses only on the development of new interrogation techniques and their use at the direction of the Bush administration. Under these terms, the prosecutor would be tasked to look at the role played by Justice Department figures and other government lawyers at various stages of the process; but criminal investigations usually target specific crimes, not individuals, and this would be no exception. The regulations require a "specific factual statement” concerning the matter to be investigated, but drafting such a statement may be difficult. One major issue would be whether the ultimate policy-making echelons in the White House would be affected. One source told me that he would be surprised if Holder “set blinders” on the special prosecutor. Still, the scope of the investigation would clearly be limited to the authorization and use of Bush-era “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, longtime standing, stress positions, and prolonged sleep deprivation. Moreover, President Obama’s assurance to CIA officials who relied on the opinions of government lawyers in implementing these programs, an assurance that Holder himself repeated, would have to be worked in. That suggests that the focus would likely be on the lawyers and policymakers who authorized use of the new techniques.
That is virtually the opposite of the reports today suggesting that the DOJ lawyers and policymakers would be excluded from the investigation, which would focus only on rogue interrogators. That's why I cautioned that these preliminary, anonymous reports not be assumed to be the final truth (and the conflicting reports could reflect that the scope of the investigation is still unclear and could be shaped by public reaction). Still, given our political culture, I'll believe that there is a real criminal investigation underway that includes high-level, lawbreaking political leaders only when I see it.
65 Comments so far
Show AllCD doesn't add the updates to the original article as they come out. This is the latest set of two updates from the article at Salon.com:
UPDATE II: The New York Times article on this topic is in line with the Post that the investigation Holder is contemplating would be confined to "rogue" interrogators, and would not extend to policy-makers or DOJ lawyers:
The Justice Department official who confirmed the likelihood of an inquiry said it was not likely to focus on those legal opinions, the lawyers who wrote them or anyone who acted within the boundaries they set, even though the ground rules for interrogations have shifted.
If an inquiry moves forward, it will attempt mainly to determine whether any interrogators acted outside the rules that were in place, and if so, whether they should be prosecuted. Some such excesses are thought to have occurred.
It should go without saying that I have no sympathy for CIA agents who tortured detainees, but prosecutions aimed at them, while immunizing the high-level officials who implemented the torture regime, would be -- in addition to the harms described above -- grotesquely unfair.
UPDATE III: Digby notes:
Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.
So it seems to be a consensus (i.e., most everyone reporting it other than Scott Horton) that Holder's plan, at least at the moment, is -- from the start -- to confine the prosecutors' authority to investigate to CIA agents who went beyond what John Yoo and George Bush decreed could be done ("he used more water than Yoo said he could"; "he tied him up for longer than Yoo authorized"; "the room was colder and the freezing water icier than Yoo allowed"). At least if these reports are accurate (and, for several reasons, that's unclear), anyone who "merely" did what John Yoo said was legal -- meaning everyone who matters -- will be shielded and immunized.
Digby's description of how Stephanopoulos' fresh and vibrant panel -- Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, Bob Woodward, George Will and Donna Brazile -- discussed the Holder report is well worth reading, as it reflects how establishment media figures view accountability for lawbreaking by political elites. That's a major reason why we have such a depraved and lawless political class.
Along those lines, CNN's Ed Henry today twittered this piece of banal Beltway conventional wisdom on the topic: "If Attorney General Holder launches criminal probe of Bush torture allegations, it seems likely to complicate Obama agenda big time." Aside from the irrelevance of this observation -- partisan advantage is obviously not a legitimate basis for making prosecutorial decisions in an apoliticized justice system (that was supposedly the whole lesson of the Gonzales era) -- I'd really like to know the mechanism by which this is supposed to happen. How -- exactly -- would Holder's decision to prosecute torture "complicate Obama's agenda big time"? With a filibuster-proof Senate majority, a huge Democratic House majority, and a GOP that is always angry and obstructionist anyway, what -- specifically -- will happen in the event of those prosecutions that won't happen in their absence that will "complicate Obama's agenda big time"?
Until John Yoo is indicted, no one can take any of this seriously.
Hope that once they start to pull the thread, the whole thing comes unraveled....
Obama is ratifying War Crimes as the new legal standard.
It is not merely unlawful torture that stands at the heart of this matter. As per the US Army's Schlesinger Report, there were tens, if not hundreds, of un-investigated cases of outright murder of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Cheney, Yoo, et al., stand culpable of murder. This affair is a flat-out murder investigation.
And anyone who dares argue for the immunity of "any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance" ought to be reminded that the defense of "only following orders" has been attempted before, but was universally rejected, at Nuremberg.
Abu Ghraib was a slope made slippery with the blood of innocents. Not prosecuting Cheney, Yoo, et al. is a slide into a far darker shadow for we, the people, than any terrorist could ever hope to cast.
I just watched a segment on CNN, hosted by Wolf Blitzer, w/Jim Carville representing the Obomba team "debating" a woman who gave off all the appearance and demeanor of one of Hitler's lieutenants on the Repug team. The Repug rep was adamant that the Dems are destroying US national security for the political purpose of deflecting public awareness from Obama's problems getting legislation passed. Carville, in his typical Gollum-like fashion, squirmed and wiggled and made no strong defense for persuing the Bush admin crimes. He asked that his "debate" opponent please not blame Obama because he does not favor pursuing these matters. He apologetically explained that Holder must feel that in his position he must do what he can to see that the law is upheld.
I got reminded why I so rarely watch CNN.
The July 12th 6:57 p.m. post is a bull's-eye.
We will know the Wind of Change we can count on
has arrived when all the perps are slowly twisting in it.
I just thought of something that I'd like to share.
Could this be a PR effort to distance the apparent Obama policies from the Bush policies in the public's perception?
Could it be that the similarity of the OBUSHA regime be creating difficulties so they have to appear to be antagonostic of the Bushes?
If so, the next thing is a media full court press from the right wing screaming about how Obama "hates" Bush, etc.
Get some popcorn folks. Some great theater coming this week.
I think we're going to need even more popcorn when the Obamabots on the net flood the sites and try to save his bacon. Well, make that a lot of tylenol when the Internet traffic is slow due to Obamabot congestion.
"Could this be a PR effort to distance the apparent Obama policies from the Bush policies in the public's perception?"
of course it is, friend.
the two parties only bicker to give the public the illusion of choice come election time.
they simply take turns at being the lesser evil.
GG is the best as always.
But never in the history of crime have the underlings not given up their higher-ups if they feel deserted and attacked,
And never in the history of crime have the higher-ups not given up the overlords if hung out on a line.
These guys know the game and literally where the bodies are buried. They go down, watch the vertical indictments, enditements and prosecutions. You can't knock a few cards out of a house of cards w/o dropping all of it.
myhumblepov. obama sucks, a fact....the most interesting line in the article to me was Holder's declartion that his decision was irrespective to any repercussions it would have on the White House.
If the investigation is limited to small fry and the illegal memos are accepted as legal,as the article suggests, then only a few small fish will be fried.
Glen, in case there is, how would you like your crow, fried, grilled or broiled?
In perhaps the perfect representation of what's wrong with our Big Media on the question of torture was this morning's little confab on CNN featuring Wolf Blitzer, Ed Henry, Candy Crowley, and alleged lawyer Jeffrey Toobin.
All of them clearly believed that DOJ memos made torture legal, and only debated whether certain low-level 'CIA or contract' (read Blackwater, et al) agents went beyond what was authorized by Bush and Cheney. I'm glad I was not drinking anything at the time -- its contents would have been spewed all over the TV screen. By their logic, Bush could enter your home and rape your daughter, as long as he had a Bybee memo telling him it was legal; Cheney could shoot someone in the face while drunk and get away with it as long as he had a Bybee memo -- oh, wait, that already happened.
These 'pillars of Constitutional law' apparently don't realize -- or don't want to -- that waterboarding, which they mentioned in passing as an 'enhanced interrogation technique' legalized by Cheney's DOJ memo-makers, is specifically cited in both our international treaties and our own law as torture, and the demented legal ideas of Bybee and Yoo can't change that fact. Henry, Crowley and Blitzer are certified court stenographers, regurgitating the RNC conventional wisdom, but Toobin's performance was especially galling, since in other venues he has offered a different opinion than he did today in this gaggle of idiots.
To the best of my knowledge it is only MSNBC's Keith Olberman who brings on people like Professor Turley who state clearly that all crimes must be investigated and if warranted prosecuted. I also believe that "Oddball" is not "Small Media". RSJ, please be fair.
Hey RSJ,
Does it surprise you Obama is using George W. Bush's legal arguments in several cases? He has maintained he can indefinitely detain suspects even if acquitted and he is also citing Bush's "state secrets" rationale in stonewalling an investigation into illegal wiretapping. How do you like Obama now? Barak Bush?
Hey, Ric Tailcap July 13th, 2009 12:49 am, does it ever occur to you that those defenses are being made by DOJ lawyers who DO NOT, and are not supposed to, take direct orders from the White House? Do you ever stop to think of how many Bush hires there are in the DOJ and, since they are civil service employees, they can't be dismissed due to their political or religious ideas? Do you have any idea of the mountain of cases Holder has to review? And do you realize that the cases you cite have not been determined yet, and the DOJ could drop their defense at any moment?
I think everyone should have their voice, even if it's from their pants seat, but your unflagging ignorance and arrogance is just plain dumb. You complain about 'Obamabots' -- what about those of you who have a blind hatred for him?
Dear RSJ,
The Attorney General is a member of President’s Cabinet, serves at his pleasure and can be removed by the President at any time.
So if Holder “revolted” against the President as you suggested in an earlier post, Obama could simply fire him. Therefore suggesting that Holder's "revolt" against Obama makes Obama "look good" is frankly, absurd.
You got backwards my friend, it would make Obama look bad because it would demonstrate that even his own people don't follow him. Got it?
Ric--
Funny how Janet Reno investigated Bill Clinton over Whitewater and ended up uncovering the Monica scandal. The A-G, in fact, is in a peculiar position in relation to the President. The president appoints him/her but he belongs to the Justice Dept which is part of the 3rd branch of government--not the executive branch and not the legislative branch.
Rainborowe
RSJ you are defending the indefensible. Obama is making Bush arguments and continuing his policies in many areas. Do you deny it?
"Do you have any idea of the mountain of cases Holder has to review?"
-The cases of alleged trampling on the Constitution are of paramount importance. Seems the Republicans found time to try Clinton over a blowjob. Your bunch of excuses for failure to go after Bush are just plain lame and one a typical dyed-in-the-wool DPA like you would make.
"...but your unflagging ignorance and arrogance is just plain dumb."
-seems I was right about Obama and you were the sap, oh, but wait, you haven't realized that yet, that's right, you like any good DPA are busy dreaming up justification after justification for each Obama/Democrat sellout so you haven't had time to realize you've been duped by the Democrats- again.
Never mind, scratch that last paragraph, you (probably) aren't a sap and you (probably) haven't been duped, you are (probably)far worse, I'll bet you actually agree with Obama and what the Democrats are doing/been doing:
1) Didn't even try to impeach
2) FISA
3) Funded the war
4) won't prosecute Bush & Co.(mark my words)
5) surge Afghanistan/drone kill Pakistanis
6) assert right to indefinite detention/ state secrets etc
7) massive bank bailouts/screw GM (unions)
8) _________________________ (fill in the blank)
We've been down this road before. I already know what you are going to say: That no you don't agree with it all but you have an explanation as to why it had to be done, why it isn't a sellout or some variation of the two. Right?
As usual RSJ it's been fun, thanks.
Obama has the right, as is past custom, to fire all the Bush appointees, but it is illegal to fire an appointee in response to the appointees actions or position on an individual case, as we saw in pre-election firings by the Bush syndicate.
It would be perfectly legal for Obama to fire all the federal state attorneys generals and replace them with ACLU attorneys.
Even though Obama can not order the DOJ, the DOJ takes cues from Obama's statements.
I also cannot believe the incredible stupidity, but almost universal acceptance of this false legal premise. How on Earth could any reasonable person with an IQ above 90 believe that a memo saying you can torture and abuse people is legal? I don't think a reasonable person with normal intelligence could fail to understand that no lawyer and no government official including the President of the United States can simply authorize people to break well recognized international legal standards.
There is no such thing as "good faith" reliance on a memo saying you should abuse and torture people. These things are mutually exclusive. Yet, the highest level dems, some with DOJ experience act like they believe the Nuremberg defense is valid. Make no mistake this is the Nuremberg defense, it is shameful and disgusting than anyone, including Obama can suggest that Yoo memorandum endorsed "enhanced interrogation techniques" meaning torture, can ever be legal under any circumstances. Obama is a liar and slimy liar who has illegally interfered for purely political reasons with the administration of justice. And this is different from the Bush Administration how exactly?
Sioux Rose
WILLIAM: It's not about intellect, it's about a dearth of moral turpitude. The types of persons who have taken control of the U.S. government take the attitude that THEY can do as they will until a power emerges that can stop them. They have shown utter disregard, depraved indifference, for the lives of others. They have put on suits to effectively become the banks that now make use of this ingenious cover to turn the very notion of theft upside down (and nearly impossible to prove). War on fixed cause? Torture as policy of state? To the type of mind capable of these devolutionary acts it's all about power. The only thing that will give them pause is a force strong enough to truly stop them in their tainted tracks.
We look at these actions and project our own moral judgment onto them. For most in this forum it is impossible to conceive of that type of being that truly holds a vacuum where the slightest show of empathy ought dwell. The dark side has attained dominion in the U.S. It is sheer evil, and has masterfully taken over all 4 branches (I count the press as the "4th estate"). I am not sure how Light returns, but I believe that fate to be inevitable, yet not painless.
"There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen
wise words from a wisecracker.
I brought this article up on another supposedly progressive site where most of the posters were too busy lionizing Obama and shouting down those of us who admitted to voting 3rd party progressives while saying nothing against the rightwing troll posts. Their response was nothing but flames and even DEATH THREATS ! I am shocked that despite all the numerous progressive blogs out there, very few of them are not filled with violent talking Obama cultists. Am I looking at this wrong or is it true that if there are more Obama cultists blindly defending the man's actions even when it's what they railed against when Bush was in office than there are those of us who can see through all this that our country is doomed? Why is it ok if Obama and Holder do the same thing that they'd oppose Bush and Gonzolas doing? it just doesn't add up.
If former governor Huey Lang were alive today, he would most certainly not be a Democrat or Republican and he would have to be bulletproof upon speaking out against Obama's crimes.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Bennett, unfortunately this is true. I take it that you have been to Alternet and/or Huffpost. If that's the case, those two progressive sites have turned out to be the worst in being flooded with Obamabot posts. I saw your posts on Alternet under an article posted on Saturday where you posted a response to me and tennismom. The Obamabots on that site are getting worse without a doubt. Just going back there to even make a point and it's an Obamabot mafia shooting on that site. Maybe Alternet is desperately in need of money and wants traffic so badly. By the way, no matter what the Obamabot trolls there pelted you with, I like your patience and understanding despite those cheesy rants. I hope your wife does well and I think she'll love you even more when you show her what a brave and patient man you've been despite the odds. :)
PS: I think you meant to say Huey Long, not Lang but don't worry. I won't bite. :)
Benn_Miller,
Actually, it does add up. Yes it seems counterintuitive but you have to remember that their PR people have their ears to the ground and it is shaking with anger at Obama's betrayal. So they bring out several hundred paid trolls to flood the progressive sites. They know any really scientific poll would show Obama's approval numbers in the toilet so what do they do? Publish the "fact" that, "amazingly", Obama's poll numbers are holding up well! Cognitive dissonance in action. It causes thinking paralysis. That's what they want. We won't be gamed this time.
AGG,
I thought about your post and it finally hit me of all people that sometimes, I have been forgetting one of George Lakoff's famous advices:
If the game is "fixed", don't play it.
This and your comment would remind me that some of these supposedly "progressive" or "liberal" blogs are rigged to be slanted towards favoring Obama. Since Huffpost attracts the most posters, the site is rigged so that mainly the Obamabots are given their say while truly progressive dissenters are censored or even banned. At least this site is completely open-minded and people will put rightwing trolls to shame to the point that shame will force them to go away. Sometimes, Obama's PR people will do anything sinister to make Obama look artificially "popular". A few of my friends were wise to leave Alternet while I'd get tempted on and off but since I now remember the quote and can confirm that fighting too many Obama trolls on those kinds of sites is a "fixed" game that I would be destined to lose, I would think that it's best to leave the site at least until there's some indication that it has returned to progressive tolerance.
Thank you AGG. :)
Eric Holder is "leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices" . . .
And I am leaning toward drinking a White Russian, even though it's ten o'clock on a Sunday morning (PDT) and I'm still in bed and too lazy to get up. So the hell with it. I will drink WHITE WASH instead!
Mordechai Shiblikov
Right on! The Newsweek article on Holder stank to high heaven as a puff piece where they glorify his "integrity and independence" so that we can sympathize with him when he lamentably has to follow the old calculus of political viability and strangle the investigation. Cheney is pretty radioactive right now, though. It might not work because the elite are fixing to shaft us big time on the health plan and the gamed CPI. People want blood and the bone we get tossed at us may be some arrogant fuck like Addington. We'll see.
Yeah: Eric Holder, might possibly lean toward, if the conditions are right, could be inclined to, if he feels like it, if the wind is at his back, with not too much political opposition, will perhaps consider enforcing the law and the Constitution.
It is now 10.39 AM in Oakland and I just might possibly be leaning toward cracking open a nice Orval with my breakfast, or perhaps leaning over to partake in a puff or two (for medicinal purposes only, of course)
socialist,
Naturaly. You see, law and the enforcement of the laws depends on Holder's auditory canals. If his balance is altered in a certain direction, he "leans" that way. Now since he is on Obama's basketball team, it may be a fake but you aren't supposed to know that.
You know, these PR bullshit artists are getting awfully easy to read. Either they are getting dumber or just bolder because they don't give a shit what we think anymore.
AGG,
"Either they are getting dumber or just bolder because they don't give a shit what we think anymore." Good one!; it is probably a bit of both.
I'll also believe it when I see it, but I believe the route to prosecution is through the enabling lawyers. At a minimum it will discourage such future activity and ideally the lawyers will finger the administration and also drag them down.
Sioux Rose
Mr. Greenwald's conclusions were evident to me all along, and I have no legal training. By hiring those with proven allegiance to authority (the Harriet Miers TYPES) a quid pro quo was orchestrated wherein the Bush lawyers set up the appearance of legality while knowing what this corrupt adminstration intended to do. These functionaries were morally defunct enough to do their masters' bidding just to be close to the throne.
As for Holder's cowardice (along with Obama's), there are 2 likely influences. The first is that as insiders, they know which toes they'd dare not step on. Others have died. The second is racially based. Just as women joke that we must do better work than men to get half the credit, I suppose the Black male must be impeccable at what he does in order to gain status in a still quite racist society. Of course loyalty often trumps talent and ability as has been made so glaringly obvious by the previous administration. Ultimately, they all work for the same owners, and owners they are.
It still stuns me how many persons hear what they want to hear. The policies all sound GOOD. It SEEMS Obama wants to help the economy (but gives $ to those who created the heist); and it seems he wants to reform health care, but only allows those who skim 30% of profits off the top for acting as unnecessary middlemen to the table. It seems his justice department, gosh darn really wants to do something about the stain of torture. So it will punish the little people, not the TRUE evil architects.
One can hope that the CIA itself will mutiny and take a portion of the military (those that have awakened to how much they have been used and abused in "war" that only serves specific corporate masters, hardly are these in the best interests of the nation!) along. Deliverance can come from unexpected places, and this nation (this world!) requires it!
S. Rose: "I suppose the Black male must be impeccable at what he does in order to gain status in a still quite racist society."
O My God! I don't doubt what you say, but I'm horrified. If this is, indeed, what they are doing, they are making a huge, insane mistake. I volunteer in a community soup kitchen and most of my fellow volunteers are good Christians (and I mean that seriously)--and right wingers who HATE Obama, no matter what he does. They are the tea-party morons who earn nothing like the quarter million dollars at which their taxes would be raised but still are convinced Obama is raising their taxes. And on and on. I overhear their conspiratorial arrangements for more demonstations all the time. And they are all racists, to boot.
If the Obama people think they can ameliorate this kind of hatred, fed as it is by Fox News and Limbaugh and his ilk on radio (to whom all those people I work with are tuned in all the time), somebody needs to hit them upside the head with a two-by-four. If they keep going on this course Obama will be a one-term president; he's pissed off his most committed base already. Who do they think will vote for him next time?
Rainborowe
Sioux
RAIN: I recall some pretty astute discussions in this forum revolving around the premise that Obama would be let in so that somebody other than the typical Republican "presidential type" would be blamed for things like the failing wars, failing economy/dollar, and failing natural world. How convenient to blame the "Black liberal."
As for the upping of the ante on hatred (thanks to the echo chamber of right wing radio), with the pie getting cut into smaller and smaller chunks and crumbs (fewer jobs, higher costs of energy, many rendered homeless) and guns all over the streets, "our numbers" (as a national population) may end up culled.
Hate groups and their memberships are once again growing. Morris Dees ("The Southern Poverty Center") publishes a map that uses colored dots to show where the various groups are located. My area is a favorite. In any case, some of these like Aryan nation WANT a race war. In some ways Obama can serve as a new target of their misplaced anger and hatred.
As you know I honor the time-tested realm of the astro-logos and Aries is considered the sign (ruled by Mars) of war. Next year two of the five outer planets enter that sign and their pairing suggests something unique, unprecedented or unexpected. I do NOT rule out domestic eruptions. It will be a very hot summer (2010) indeed.
Sioux-- I hope you are wrong. I remember some long hot summers in the 1960s, especially the one in which 3 civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, MS, and buried in a levee. I still see their faces as their pictures were posted for weeks on the TV news while they were still reported as "missing."
Rainborowe
"It still stuns me how many persons hear what they want to hear. The policies all sound GOOD. It SEEMS Obama wants to help the economy (but gives $ to those who created the heist); and it seems he wants to reform health care, but only allows those who skim 30% of profits off the top for acting as unnecessary middlemen to the table. It seems his justice department, gosh darn really wants to do something about the stain of torture. So it will punish the little people, not the TRUE evil architects."
Sioux, haven't you visited other progressive blogs on the Internet or even met a lot of unusual behavior in your local places lately ? Unlike this site, most posters on most of those sites generally go out of their way to defend Obama regardless of the fact that he's doing the same thing Bush did before. The people you are referring to who hear what they want to hear care nothing about the actual positions. If Obama says it, then they simply agree with it. If Mccain were in Obama's place, then they would loudly oppose it. This is no different from the die-hard Bush supporters. There are way too many Obama koolaid drinkers pervading most of the progressive blogosphere. I don't know about Florida but out here in Louisiana, I have come across crazy people from both the Republican camp and the Obama camp. Yesterday, I discussed about the way I was not only pied by a rightwing hick but then when I told an Obama supporter about it, she said that she hadn't heard of single payer healthcare and blamed me for being too liberal of all things. Ric Tailcap and I had a discussion trying to help me decide which is worse, the rightwing hicks or the Obama cultists. I have also met hardliner Obama cultists who spoke as violently as the rabid rightwingers. These are the same followers of Obama who kept chanting hope, peace, change, etc ... but notice the pattern? I don't like to say this but I think that we are stuck with violent and ignorant people around us enlightened ones doing all that they can to defend the wealthy and the powerful.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Hi Bennett,
"Ric Tailcap and I had a discussion trying to help me decide which is worse, the rightwing hicks or the Obama cultists."
-you neglected to tell her our conclusion: The Obama shills are worse because Republicans will stab you in the eye, Democrats will stab you in the back.
It's preferable to fight someone head on than to trust them, let your guard down, and then get done in.
Hi Ric,
I apologize for forgetting to mention the conclusion. No doubt about it. Again today, I got whacked by the Obama shills and some of them even said that the rightwing hick who threw the pie in my face was "cool" to them. I just stumbled across an interesting note Jennifer wrote on avoiding trying to play a fixed game that is doomed to be lost from the start. Your last sentence along with JB's note on fixed games gave me an idea. I think that the Obama shills are capable of fixing the trust and then after trapping the victim into a lulled sense, stab them. No wonder I'm even calling them Obama cultists.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Benn, your last sentence sums it all up. As for other sites, I go to this one and Glenn Greenwald, Hullabaloo, Juan Cole, TPM, Kos, Atrios, and a few others, and I find very few people there who have drunk the Obama Koolaid. However I have a friend who is a total Obamabot. It's just impossible to deal with her so I stay off anything critical of Obama; it's not worth it. Sadly, I think she is one of a large number of voters who pick a "team" and take a blood oath to support it. It's just high school football to her and those like her. Like the Red Queen she can believe half a dozen stupid things before breakfast every day as long as it's tagged "Obama."
Rainborowe
Kos and Atrios ? Aren't they the same sites that say "vote Democrat or else" ? Last year, even when Obama would do another goof-up, they'd get mad for a minute and then go back to resuming their GOTV efforts. Can I say I voted for Nader thrice on the issues and not face persecution? The worst site filled with Obamabots is Huffpost and Alternet appears to be trying to catch up to them.
Jennifer--If they do I ignore it. In fact I go for the stuff they reprint and the links. I don't bother with all they post.
Rainborowe
Sioux Rose
BENN: Actually I do not go to other progressive sites. I receive Truth out and I read CD regularly. There is no time for other! I am a writer and need time to also compose!
When you explain the obsessive focus on either team A (Demo) or team B (Repub), a lot of that is based on conditioning via media and/or sports. Just as many persons cannot conceive of forces that exist outside their bodies to wield any effect on them, too many people cannot think outside the box enough to conceive of a 3rd party (or viable other) in America, the land that put brand names on the global map.
That leads to the next step beyond American exceptionalism, "My team, right or wrong." You're correct. Seemingly intelligent persons are either giving Obama a pass for continuing egregious Bush policy, OR the media is so good at obfuscation that these same persons believe the slogans and PR that APPEAR to offer an alternative. Our new thoughtful, well-educated president is believed to be putting his considerable cerebral resources to work to solve the shit load of problems he inherited from a semi-retarded, indisputably morally bankrupt "president." Like those who believe in the tooth fairy, they really do think Obama means well. I'm sorry, by sheer mathematical averages a leader cannot make that many INNOCENT mistakes unless his agenda is promoting the same elites who profit from war, and the ecological sell-out of not only our nation, but the sustainability of the entire global ecosystem(s). A great many equally deadly decisions can be added to the list. It would be funny (almost a living political satire in motion) were not so many being brutalized one way or another from the disastrous "Debacle 2000: A Continuing Presidential Story of More of Same." Unbelievable.
RSJ--I think I have responded to you in this post, as well. You have far more faith in Obama than I do. The comment about Black judges made sense, and I think it could also hold for Sotomayer. I have lived in Puerto Rico and traveled through some of Latin America. Those Latinos that want status tend to support the system AS IS. They do not rock the boat for higher justice ideals. Instead they tend to get smug about their personal achievement within a framework they believe cannot BE changed.
"When you explain the obsessive focus on either team A (Demo) or team B (Repub), a lot of that is based on conditioning via media and/or sports."
Conditioning based on the media I can understand but sports ?? Sports and politics can be two dangerous topics in a typical conversation but I don't understand conditioning via sports. I need some explanation on that one.
"Just as many persons cannot conceive of forces that exist outside their bodies to wield any effect on them, too many people cannot think outside the box enough to conceive of a 3rd party (or viable other) in America, the land that put brand names on the global map."
I've generally voted Democrat in the past but after last year's rather scary Democratic primary where Obama and his team ruthlessly shot Hillary down followed by switching his positions to Republican and his followers becoming cultists and speaking violently, I thought I had enough and decided to just vote Nader. I already had it with Gov. Blanco, Senators Breaux and Landruin, and Congressman Jefferson as it was. I don't want to condescend people and say that they cannot think outside the box because I thought that I was one myself until I felt pushed out of the box. Why did it have to happen to so few of us but not the rest who chose Mccain or Obama?
You are correct about Obama and his crew trying to justify his repeated offenses as "innocent" mistakes. The more he does it, the more violent his followers get. Even the lukewarm Obama supporters still insist that he's different from the previous admin and claim that voting 3rd parties ain't "practical".
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Hi, Sioux Rose, hope you are doing well. You make some good points here, particularly where what I call the 'black judge syndrome' is concerned. The 'BJS' is where a black judge tends to dole out harsher sentences to black people than whites for the same charges to prove they are not favoring their race. Holder and Obama may indeed be avoiding 'going after' white Republicans because it may be interpreted as racist or politically partisan or both by some whites. But I'm willing to wait to see how this plays out before I form an opinion. I'm pretty sure Obama wants to be in the position of saying that he did not order investigations or prosecutions of Bush Republicans to maintain his bipartisan 'let's move on' persona but, behind the scenes, and as a constitutional lawyer, he knows very well what BushCo did was torture and it was illegal. It would have taken a constitutional amendment to reverse our policies on torture, and no amount of paper cover from Bybee or Yoo changes that fact. If Holder appears to revolt against the White House and pursue the Bushites, this is good politically for Obama and the Dems, and proves Holder's independence as an AG. Unfortunately, in Washington, the politics are always a prime consideration, right up there with truth, justice and the American way.
Leave it to Obama supporters to figure out a way to spin just about anything into something good for Obama.
RSJ: "If Holder appears to revolt against the White House and pursue the Bushites, this is good politically for Obama and the Dems, and proves Holder's independence as an AG. Unfortunately, in Washington, the politics are always a prime consideration, right up there with truth, justice and the American way."
-What an absurd comment! Having Obama's own AG revolt against him and actually do the right thing, which is to uphold the Constitution against the wishes of Obama, get this folks: is politically good for Obama!
More like makes him look like the coward that he is.
RSJ: "I'm pretty sure Obama wants to be in the position of saying that he did not order investigations or prosecutions of Bush Republicans to maintain his bipartisan 'let's move on' persona but,..."
-Sure, makes perfect sense to an Obamot. Why bother upholding the law when Obama has more important considerations to worry about like maintaining his 'let's move on' bipartisan persona and protecting guilty Republicans? Before the election an Obama supporter would've typically followed this line of "reasoning" up with a thoroughly unprincipled justification for why Obama did it.
Are you per chance the same RSJ that argued ad nauseam about what a great president Obama was going to make? Same RSJ that defended all of Obama's sell-outs and encouraged others to vote for him? Same RSJ?
And BTW RSJ are you proud you voted for Obama?
@ Ric Tailcap July 13th, 2009 12:17 am. You wrote: "-What an absurd comment! Having Obama's own AG revolt against him and actually do the right thing, which is to uphold the Constitution against the wishes of Obama, get this folks: is politically good for Obama!"
If you knew as much as you pretend to about the way Washington works, it's not absurd at all. And, yes, the Big Media would play it all as partisan politics if Obama appeared to be going after BushCo -- in fact, they already have over lesser matters. Politically, if it appeared Obama was on a partisan witch hunt similar to Ken Starr, yes, that would adversely affect him and the Dems politically. You should pay attention and read carefully before you flame someone else.
Your second comment is answered by the above paragraph.
Ric Tailcap July 13th, 2009 12:17 am wrote: "Are you per chance the same RSJ that argued ad nauseam about what a great president Obama was going to make? Same RSJ that defended all of Obama's sell-outs and encouraged others to vote for him? Same RSJ?"
I said Obama was the best presidential candidate who was electable in 2008; I still have no way of knowing if he'll be a great president, and won't know until his term is finished. I encouraged others to vote for him, but I didn't defend 'all of his sell-outs' whatever you think those might be. (You're short on specifics, so I'm not sure what 'sell-outs' you're referring to here.) I've also criticized Obama, and will do so again when he warrants it. Again, you should pay closer attention before you work yourself up into a lather. I didn't say what Obama was doing was 'good'; in fact, I said it was unfortunate that political considerations are as important in Washington as truth, justice and the American way. You apparently missed that part of my previous post. Incidentally, presidential concern with the political impact of executive decisions didn't start with Obama; it's been part of our history since the founding of the country.
Ric Tailcap July 13th, 2009 12:17 am wrote: "And BTW RSJ are you proud you voted for Obama?"
Yes. If nothing else he made the White House less white. That's a big historic change for this racist country. Do you seriously think we'd be better off with McPalin?
Thanks for the reasoned response. Thanks for answering my questions.
"If you knew as much as you pretend to about the way Washington works,..."
-I don't pretend to know how Washington works.
I KNOW HOW WASHINGTON WORKS: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
It would be silly to try to pawn myself off as a Washington insider, which of course, I'm not, but for the most part you must admit it's money that greases the political wheel that the corporate wagon that rules America rides on. Of course there are social issues like abortion etc that are non-monetary and politically important, but money will, in the end, be the biggest mover and shaker.
"Do you seriously think we'd be better off with McPalin?"
-No, but I doubt things would be radically different if McPalin had won. As you can see, Obama sent more troops into harms way than even Bush. If you are a soldier on your way to Afghanistan because of Obama's surge you could argue we were better off under Bush. Obama is spending almost 6% more on the military than Bush.
What have the Democrats done for us since taking over the Congress and now the White House? To ask the question is to answer it. Not a thing of significant importance have they done for us the people. Of course they have bailed out the banks, continued the wars, tabled single-payer and shielded Republicans.
As in the past, basically, your arguments will boil down to either pragmatism or lesser-evilism. Pragmatism in Washington DC boils down to corruption (we want but "cannot" do the right thing) and lesser-evilism boils down to essentially evil. Welcome back.
Sioux Rose,
Good thoughts.
Your last paragraph certainly is a profound appeal to persons of conscience within the CIA and the military. Their conversion would be "change we can believe in".
Otherwise, it's business as usual for the agency; witness the latest overthrow of a democratically-elected leader in Honduras by generals who received their training in the USA at the School of the Americas. See soaw.org
Sioux Rose
WC652: It's either that or a response from "The Galactic Federation." Divine intervention? Another asteroid hit? A major epiphany that spans the globe shifting the energetic fields of 2.3 billion persons at once (added to the occasioal giraffe). Yeah, I am being sarcastic. I do not know the answer... I see so much waste and deception, so much apathy or an incapacity for many TO see, etc. It's so mortifying I have to ease into my sci-fi imagination to bear with "it."
Soux Rose,
The Galactic Federation is probably our best bet right now. However, they are probably still mired in a heated discussion about whether we are sapient creatures or just clever predators into sapient mimicry. The outcome could be crucial because the Galactic Federation deals with predators who acquire weapons of mass destruction with biological modification. See Below:
BIOLOGICAL MODIFICATION OF PREDATOR SPECIES PROCEDURE
1) Help them to discover DNA and how it works.
2) Encourage them to "modify" cells of other species.
3) Make sure the other species like mice, june bugs, whatever have lots of food to eat.
4) Help the human predators to make ever stronger weapons until "BOOM".
5) Be there for the mice.
Sioux Rose
AGG: You're on my informal list of those from the forum I'd like to have coffee, a drink, or share a joint with. The conversation(s) would really GO places!
Same here.
Sioux Rose,
Good sarcasm! It's humorous!
Do you think readers/posters here want to seriously organize a Third Party, eg, Green Party?
At some point, people have to meet up, locally and at a national level. The Netroots Nation convention is a month away; it's in Pittsburgh, August 13-16, and I would guess there will be a CommonDreams booth. I'm not planning on attending, but is anyone attending?
My attempt at inviting others to the School of Americas Watch last November met with success in my meeting Marie Dennis, who authored the essay, "Shut Down the Disgraced Military School" (11/20/08). I'm guessing this year's will be Nov. 21-22, but more on that later; I'll decide if I'm attending this year's vigil.
Sioux Rose
WC: I think some ARE sincere. I think a lot of us realize that time is NOT on our side if the slow process of developing from the roots up is really the necessary political "recipe" for meaningful change. I happen to think something organic is at work that may speed things considerably.
I wonder if you'd care to post a list of these types of events giving some of us who live at a distance enough time to prepare. I would consider showing up at one of these events. Does CD have a message board specifically oriented towards these events? If not, it should.
CommonDreams encourages grassroots activism in its educational and exhortational commentaries in Headlines, Newswire, and especially Views.
As you note, grassroots activism will be encouraged with a message board specifically oriented to these events. Netroots Nation 2009 and SOA Watch come to mind. Perhaps CD can provide a message board for national and regional grassroots events; readers can contribute the details on these events. Is anyone at CD reading this?
Earlier this evening my wife and I joined a round table discussion here in Dubuque at our Hope House Catholic Worker House. Besides this community, we are fortunate to be close enough to events in Madison and Iowa City.
"Grassroots activism" is a fine phrase but it's meaningless without some organizing effort.
Sioux Rose
Where I live activism of the group-oriented sort would most likely be experienced through:
1. The Ku Klux Klan and its newer equivalents
2. Gator worshippers (football team)
3. Baptist Churches
I am here for nature, not the human folk. Some parts of the nation are spiritual blackholes... I would, however, be mnotivated to travel to participate in an event, and I have previously done so.
How hard can it be to do business as usual when we have violent cultists in both the Republican and Obama camps blindly fighting for the wealthy and the powerful to keep the status quo even when they claim to be against it? Just today, I got off from another supposedly progressive blog where the rightwing posters were given a higher rating but those of us who were honest about the fact that it's not the rightwingers alone but even the fake ones pretending to be liberal and/or progressive also fleecing the poor and lionizing the rich, I get flamed by the Obama cultists. I even brought up this article with them and they issued DEATH THREATS !! With friends like these, who needs enemies ?
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Well, I guess it's no surprise that Obama's attorney general has started doing the Micheal Jackson moonwalk. You remember the little dance step where Micheal appeared to be walking forward, but actually was sliding backward.
As Greenwald says, I will believe any of this when I see Bush, Cheney et al in orange jumpsuits being frog-marched into prison.
Exactly, this sounds like a bunch of public relations BS with no substance as usual.
Bush/Cheney, will not be held accountable.
For example, a clear precedent has been set in the past: Nixon was pardoned and Kissinger was never prosecuted for his many crimes; he still sits on the CFR and is lauded by the MSM and most politicians (D or R) as a venerable, wise and great man to be revered like some sort of god.
Holder has failed to do his job as the Bush three A.G.s before him. Why is he taking pay from the tax payers? What is he afraid of? Bush cant fire him as he would the other yellow dogs. Perhaps he is not qualified. Impeach Eric Holder. He is another Bush/Cheney man.