Space Goat

Yes, Obama could be a lot worse. I will give Obama credit where it's due: He demonstrated righteousness and courage when he released the torture memos and made diplomatic overtures to Iran. He showed prudence in avoiding butting into Iran's Green Revolution. And he exudes intelligence, charisma, and respect that helps American diplomacy and burnishes American credibility.

But, considering the entirety of Obama's record so far, he's still not much of an improvement over his predecessor.

Like Bush, Obama makes impetuous statements about countries he doesn't seem to (or chooses not to) understand and commits grave strategic blunders (see this Guardian article on Obama's visit to Russia, and then my blog post about Russia on my old McCain blog).

Like Bush, Obama has embraced military commissions.

Like Bush, Obama has advocated preventative detention without trial, as well as in spite of a trial.

Like Bush, Obama is doubling down on "a dumb war," the strategy for which--"counterinsurgency"--we've little empirical basis for thinking will work.

Like Bush, Obama has abused signing statements. The Hill showcases an example wherein Obama explicitly ignores congressional strings tied around IMF and World Bank aid. Whether Obama has correctly judged the constitutionality of the limitations is irrelevant. If Obama thinks part of a bill is unconstitutional, the Constitution provides him a tool to address that: the veto. Obama, however, by using signing statements as he has, decides for himself--absent congressional or judicial accountability--which laws he'll enforce and which he won't. Sound familiar?

Like Bush, Obama has abused the state secrets privilege in trying to quash litigation over detention, torture, and wiretapping:

• The New York Times describes how Obama stunned several judges by picking up where Bush left off regarding state secrets.
• Talking Points Memo: "Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush on State Secrets"
• Glenn Greenwald describes why Obama didn't have to rush into court using the legal flotsam Bush had left behind: "In each of the cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush state secrets theory, the plaintiffs' lawyers were not only willing, but eager, to grant as much time as the Obama DOJ wanted in order for them to figure out what they should do. In response, Obama DOJ lawyers continuously indicated they needed no time, because they were convinced that they were right about the state secrets argument and had approval for their positions at the highest levels. When asked, Robert Gibbs explicitly said that Obama was consulted on the DOJ's positions in these cases and agreed entirely with them: 'absolutely, absolutely he does.'"

Like Bush, Obama has striven to conceal information about questionable or illegal American activities.

• Obama flip-flopped on the release of torture photos, deciding to cover them up instead, under the insipid rationale that the photos would increase the peril to our troops. CQ indicates no proof exists that would happen. Also, as Greenwald notes in the first linked article, "Obama's claim -- that release of the photographs 'would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger' -- means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us." If evidence of torture would make our troops more of a target, that's reason to pull them out, not to hide the evidence. The latter is what a child or a criminal unwilling to accept responsibility would do.
• Obama's Pentagon has placed "in limbo" a report on a US air strike that killed dozens of people "out of fear that its findings would further enrage the Afghan public."
• Obama's CIA director has argued against the release of documents about CIA interrogations in secret prisons.

Like Bush, Obama has resisted investigation of government officials and agents who approved or committed torture. As Greenwald outlines here and here, and Jonathan Turley does here, Obama's refusal violates multiple laws and treaties, such as the Torture Act, the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg.

Whereas Obama has done good work in office, it unfortunately amounts to little more than a pebble in the avalanche of noxious policies Obama and his administration have embraced as their own. One could argue Obama is worse than Bush because Obama is enshrining his predecessor's disregard for law and justice as bipartisan consensus.

I don't think that postulation works. Obama could have taken the time to formulate policies consistent with his own alleged views. He didn't have to rush to use whatever garbage he found on his desk, the garbage he was elected to toss.

What people might do serves as no legal basis for imprisoning them. And it's not something free societies do.

That we follow the law. We cannot be said to have law at all if we disregard it whenever it's inconvenient. And losing rule of law even more would be a far graver casualty, and a far graver threat, than whatever angry former detainees might do to us.

In any case, over the long run, stopping harsh treatment and extralegal detention would enhance our security. Terrorists exploit America's crimes for their own propaganda; through our behavior, we've likely created many more anti-American extremists than we've killed or imprisoned. As long as Obama continues Bush's policies, he'll be one of al Qaeda's best friends.

__________________