Bean

Space Goat said: "I mean, an Obama official says the president could imprison people found not guilty at trial, and the response is, would you prefer Bush? WTF?"

No, my implication is not that criticism of Obama=Love for Bush. My statement is based on the idea that it could be a LOT worse.

And let's not forget, that once again, the decisions Obama has to make now are based on the remainders of an 8 year trashing of the constitution and basic civil rights by Bush. He was left with this pile of crap in his lap and is going to HAVE to make some decisions that seem completely contrary to his platform and views. I'm not saying the policy is right, or even acceptable, just throw a little context into the discussion.

Were Bush never to have pushed for his tribunals, or have come up with the "illegal combatants" moniker, chances are this wouldn't even be an issue. But it is, and the question is, these are people that while they may have been illegally detained, and perhaps had not been a threat to begin with, after the crap that Bush put them through, they most definitely have a bone to pick with the US now. New administration or not.

I agree, it's contrary to the rule of law, but what would you propose as an alternative?

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Sam Cogley

The Running Game?

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.

__________________

Bean

I'm not going to get into a point by point comparison of Bush vs Obama. Sure, as you've pointed out, there are many similarities, but you could probably apply a good portion of that list (at least relatively speaking) to almost any former president at one point or another. Just because they've made similar decisions does not mean Obama misrepresented himself during the election. And let's be frank here, that's what you seem to be implying.

A lot of liberals and Dems seem to forget that for all the left wing promises he made throughout the election, there is an entire other half of the electorate that he has to represent. Just because the Dems won, doesn't mean the right wing voices can be ignored entirely. THAT'S the major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush catered almost exclusively to the Right with the exception of a few small token gestures that were more PR than anything else.

The issue here is you make it seem to simple. Again, he has an entire half of the country to appease as well. Were he to have stepped into office, and summarily dismissed every single Bush policy that the left wing disapproved of over the last 8 years the ensuing backlash from the right would have made these little "tea party" movements look like actual tea parties. You're talking about dismissing policies and procedures that were 8 years in the making. He can't just jump in and start from scratch. As much as some would like to believe it, he's the President and he does have to pick his battles at some point.

Well, as pretty as that sounds, the United States hasn't been a truely "free society" in over half a century. I'm sorry if this sounds fascist or what have you, but it's just harsh reality. There are situations in life where (sadly) the ideals of man can't cope, and this is one of those situations. He locks them up, he's fucked. He lets them go, ditto.

Once again, what can he do? You say that these people can't be treated a certain way based on what they "might" do, and again, that's very eloquent and ideal. Unfortunately in a lot of the cases it's also completely unrealistic. When the law takes precedence over morality it's useless. For the last 8 years Bush has been talking about "those people" the "big bad guys" that want to kill you. 90% of it was exaggeration, but most of these guys fit into that 10% that really want to kill all of you. It doesn't take a court of law to determine that, nor does it take psychic abilities to predict that they will act on that if released.

I agree with you that it's horrible that their rights are being trampled, but Obama's job isn't to protect them, it's to protect you and your allies. Unfortunately that means these people get the shaft, while millions of others can breathe a little easier.

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Space Goat

The United States is a country which has a constitutional system of government and lives under rule of law. In such a country, for the rulers to indulge the electorate's desire for unconstitutional and illegal behavior isn't acceptable or defensible. (Just because the country might have some democratic procedures doesn't make it a democracy through and through.)

I'm reminded of a quote from Doctor McCoy in Star Trek III: "How can you get a permit to do a damn illegal thing?!"

That's not what I'm suggesting Obama do. I want Obama to obey the law; that's not the same as demanding Obama undo every Bush action the left didn't like.

I'm not sure of that. Candidate Obama -- who called for legally constrained detentions and vowed to end torture and close Gitmo -- had quite a few supporters from the right, enough for him to win states that had swung red previously. Opponents of Obama would definitely have caused a ruckus, but it'd have been nothing compared to, for example, Southern dissatisfaction with federal civil rights legislation, which President Lyndon Johnson nonetheless pushed.

Then I'll take the opportunity to say so directly: Obama misrepresented himself during the election.

While campaigning, Obama distributed a paper that said (emphases mine): "He will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S. to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees. He will develop a fair and thorough process based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can’t be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries."

Obama also said (emphasis mine), "It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice."

President Obama has reneged on this promise. He has embraced Bush-style military commissions outside the UCMJ, preventative detention (for which none of the standards to which Obama claimed he'd adhere make provision), and even imprisonment regardless of the results of a trial (ditto). These policies directly contradict what Candidate Obama said he'd do.

Furthermore, Candidate Obama's campaign materials delivered a stirring defense of habeas corpus (emphases mine): "The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. He firmly believes that those who pose a danger to this country should be swiftly tried and brought to justice, but those who do not should have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty."

Denying detainees a trial, as well as ignoring the results of a trial after it's taken place, would break this promise.

Obama needn't have stuck with the Bush policies or begun from scratch. The United States has long maintained a robust justice system, one that stiffly punishes terrorism, to the extent that mere membership in terrorist organizations constitutes a severe crime. This justice system imprisoned for life without parole the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, as it also did the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moving the detainees into America's justice system, wherein truly vile men would likely be found guilty and punished accordingly, is a viable option for Obama.

Move the detainees into the American justice system. If evidence has been tainted by coercion and torture, investigate properly to gather more evidence. This should yield enough incriminating information to convict dangerous terrorists heavily involved with al Qaeda.

In the absence of trials to establish guilt -- indeed, with the government striving to avoid trials and accountability -- how can we be certain? All we have is the government's word these men are dangerous. Some likely are, but many others who were imprisoned and mistreated for years were verifiably innocent. This includes detainees still in US custody!

If the government's word shouldn't have been enough to imprison people under Bush, why should it be enough under Obama?

The purpose of constraining government to respect civil rights isn't to protect criminals and terrorists, but the rest of us. An authoritarian government that could imprison whomever it deems fit, without trials or accountability, would pose a far graver threat to the American people than would a few terrorists. Thankfully, we don't have such a beast now, but the extralegal preventative detention Obama supports would place many more bricks in the road to that grim fate.

And one couldn't argue Obama would just apply that policy to a few detainees whom Bush mistreated. Obama intends it for future detainees as well. The president isn't just dealing with his predecessor's mess, but building on what Bush did to establish a permanent framework.

Sometimes, that's probably true. Much of the time, though, I think that's just an excuse to avoid hard choices and a balm for troubled consciences.

And, likely in most instances, these situations have their genesis in past decision-makers abandoning principle in favor of so-called pragmatism. An illustrative example that comes to mind is the US-UK toppling of Iran's liberal prime minister in 1953, followed by decades of support for the Shah, a brutal dictator. This culminated in the Islamist revolution of 1979.

I don't need to describe how Iran's theocracy, likely made possible by Western "pragmatism" at the expense of the ideals of non-intervention and national self-determination, troubles the world today.

I agree, and the situation disturbs me.

Whereas unjust denials of freedom to specific groups of Americans have declined, in their place has arisen an increasingly authoritarian state whose crimes impact not just all Americans but the whole world.

__________________