Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

by Glenn Greenwald




Earlier this week, Kevin Drum said that "nine times out of ten" Obama's policies are "pretty much what expected" but that "the biggest one-time-out-of-ten where he's not doing what expected is in the area of detainee and civil liberties issues." Similarly, Andrew Sullivan cited "accountability for war crimes and civil rights" as among the very few issues on which he finds fault with Obama. Matt Yglesias objects to those observations as follows:

Both Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan say they think most people are too hard on Obama, but express disappointment at his record on civil liberties issues. I agree that the civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted, but I'm continually surprised that people are disappointed in this turn. Of all the things for an incumbent President of the United States to take political risks fighting for, obviously reducing the power of the executive branch is going to be dead last on the list. If you want to see civil liberties championed, that’s going to have to come from congress.



It's interesting how what was once lambasted as "Constitution-shredding" under George Bush is now nothing more than: Obama's "civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted." Also, the premise implicitly embedded in Matt's argument is the standard Beltway dogma that there would be serious political costs from reversing the Bush/Cheney abuses of the Constitution and civil liberties. The success of Obama's campaign -- which emphatically and repeatedly vowed to do exactly that -- ought to have permanently retired that excuse.

Even more important, Matt seems to be implying that he knew all along that Obama never really intended to fulfill his multiple campaign promises to restore civil liberties and dismantle the Bush/Cheney war on the Constitution. So all of those righteous speeches and commitments and campaign positions were nothing more than dishonest instruments for manipulating and placating the people who supported his campaign? I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. I neither believed nor disbelieved what Obama said during the campaign, but instead intended to wait for the evidence before deciding. And particularly once I watched Obama -- once his party's nomination was secure -- flagrantly violate his pledge to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity, I had no expectations that he'd feel at all compelled to adhere to his other promises.

But is it really that surprising that many people did believe that Obama actually meant what he said, given that the entire campaign was predicated on his self-proclaimed uniqueness as a candidate and his over-arching intent to rid our political culture of corroding cynicism and to restore hope and faith in the political process? If Obama ran a campaign which purposely elevated the hopes of so many people -- particularly younger and new voters -- while secretly harboring the knowledge that he did not feel at all bound by what he was promising, isn't that a fairly serious indictment of his character, as well as a dangerous game to play for the Democratic Party? And during the time he was vigorously supporting Obama's candidacy last year, did Matt ever point out that Obama didn't really mean what he was saying when he spoke about these matters -- a fairly significant point to make when commenting on the election? If Obama had no intention of "reducing the power of the executive branch," why did he repeatedly proclaim that he would?

But what strikes me as the most significant aspect of Matt's commentary is that this mitigating analysis was rarely, if ever, applied to Bush. I've been reading many arguments from Obama supporters over the last couple of weeks insisting that Obama can't possibly give civilian trials to all Terrorism suspects because having to free detainees whom they can't convict in court would be politically catastrophic; but doesn't that same reasoning justify Bush's decision to open Guantanamo and hold terrorist suspects without charges? After all, how could Bush afford to risk acquittals any more than Obama?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[IndianaGreen]

1. The record is indefensible!

Last I checked, the torture school at Fort Benning is still cranking out graduates to be returned to Latin America. PATRIOT still in force. Renditions are still ongoing. Guantanamo still open. Torture still standard operating procedure in Afghanistan:

Published on Saturday, November 28, 2009 by Agence France Presse

Afghan Teenagers Claim Abuse at US Military Prison

WASHINGTON - Two Afghan teenagers held in US detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells, The Washington Post reported late Friday.

The newspaper said the teenagers had been held in these cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban.

The accounts could not be independently substantiated, the report said. But in successive, on-the-record interviews, the teenagers presented a detailed, consistent portrait suggesting that the abusive treatment of suspected insurgents has in some cases continued under the administration of President Barack Obama, the paper noted.

Obama has promised to put an end to the harsh interrogation practices authorized by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The two teenagers -- Issa Mohammad, 17, and Abdul Rashid, who said he was younger than 16 -- said that they were punched and slapped in the face by their captors during their time at Bagram air base, where they were held in individual cells, according to The Post.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/28

[spiritual_gunfighter]

2. It is happening at Gitmo as well

Jeremy Scahill: “Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama”

Jeremy Scahill reports the Obama administration is continuing to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and dousing them with chemicals. This force, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force, has been labeled the “Extreme Repression Force” by Guantanamo prisoners, and human rights lawyers call their actions illegal.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug

[pscot]

3. Let's just say

it seems somewhat conflicted; if not downright incoherent. He seems to be trying to have it both ways. He wants to look like a liberal Democrat, while hanging on to the core of Bush/Cheney's policies. So far, nobody in the admistration has tried to explain what their rationalizations are. Probably because they can't.

[pscot]

4. The un-reccing crew

doesn't seem to like this discussion. Wonder why.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

5. Because the truth

is a hard thing to face when you are championing the destruction of the Constitution.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Jim Jones had enforcers like that at Jonestown

Drink your Kool-Aid, or else.

[JonQ]

7. To find fault with obama is wrong

he's doing his best. Even when he mimics policies that were despised when bush did them, he is still right.


Now move along citizen, nothing to see here.