It's been eight months and it's time for a review. Let's see what we have so far:
- Torture was formerly illegal, but now he claims to have made it more illegal, except that if you did it anyway you won't be prosecuted.
- He's continued to promise that he will sort of close Gitmo. He's promised that the prisoners will get a fair trial as long as a guilty verdict is assured in advance, and if it isn't, they'll get a less fair trial, but if they're acquitted, they get to stay in prison anyway. And if none of that works, well, he's still got Bagram.
- Extraordinary rendition will continue but we are assured that it will be somewhat less extraordinary than it has been before.
- US Citizens no longer get any trial at all if they are enemy combatants, or if they aren't but someone decides to call them one in order to deny them a trial.
- If you are generously granted a trial, your evidence can be suppressed because it's a state secret, or more accurately, because it's claimed to be a state secret. However, in the past, they had to be really convinced that it was secret, but Eric Holder has changed that to be really, really convinced - a great victory for the Bill of Rights.
- Even though we're not going to torture anymore, it's important to keep evidence of the methods secret, because, you know, just in case.
- And because we're not going to torture anymore, we're not even going let a commission look into what happened, because, after all, we probably won't do it again, so what's the point.
- And if we're not going to go after torturers, it would be silly to go after people who merely engaged in illegal wiretapping.
- But let's not get hung up on torture when we need to root gay Arabic translators out of the military and send DoJ officials to argue in court in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.
- One bright point - Obama has called into question the legality of Bush's infamous signing statements, and has stated that while he will continue the practice, his will be for better reasons. He promises.
---------------
Unfortunately, he's not dithering on civil liberties: he's decidedly against. Perhaps not as much as his predecessor, but against, undoubtedly.
--
"his will be for better reasons"
(#187684)Commence libertarian Two Minutes Hate
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
Reversion to the mean
(#187685)That's all I ask.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=1
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
it is amazing when one finds oneself involved in a war
(#187701)that the executive has an expanded view on its powers as CiC. Just anothe example of regression to the mean.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
We were in a war?
(#187706)I must have missed the declaration.
"Assent, and you are sane."
or the burning buildings. nt
(#187714).
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
Heh.
(#187715)See, first I learned that smart people have thoughts, then I learned how communication works, and now I learn that 9/11 happened. Discourse with conservatives is so illuminating!
"Assent, and you are sane."
well certainly the discourse is going to remind you what
(#187719)actually happened, what you do with it is an entirely different subject.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
Smart people have thoughts!
(#187722).
"Assent, and you are sane."
What struck me about the Constitution a long time ago
(#187686)It provides "rights."
It gives times that the government can take away the "rights", such as during times of insurrection or the like.
The government can declared when there is an insurrection or the like.
The government can take away peoples rights whenever it wants to, with legal backing it granted to itself.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Yup. At the very least
(#188035)the special "wartime powers" ought to apply only in the case where there is an actual Declaration of War, passed by Congress. In addition to making it a bit harder to activate the bad stuff, the declaration would probably also specify who we're at war with.
And in order to keep war from being declared
(#188092)on a semi permanent basis, crongresscritter salaries should he halfed and all lobbying baned during wartime.
Careful
(#187687)You're liable to be accused of hysteria or dogmatism by the people who decried Bush's identical policies.
The funny thing is, I knew this was coming and how it would all play out, but that doesn't make it hurt any less. (Not the accusations -- the day I care what Harley thinks about me personally is the day I start electroconvulsive therapy -- but the inexorable failure of an ideal for which many great men have sacrificed and died.)
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
On civil liberties I definitely got played
(#187689)With healthcare reform we'll have to see how it turns out in the end, but there's little clearer backtrack on principles and promises than eeyn's examples.
Now I nod my head when I read passages like:
Like almost everyone here, I have frequently asked myself why the Democratic Party tends to be so worthless, even though many individual Democrats are pretty good.
The answer is this: Loyalty is always punished, and betraying the voters is what political parties are for. The Democratic Party is not us. The Democratic Party is a billion-dollar hierarchal bureaucracy made up of careerists with axes to grind. For them we're just a resource. It's our job to learn to deal with them; they've already figured out how they're going to deal with us.
Supporting a candidate or joining a political party is not like falling in love or finding Jesus. It's like making a high-risk, high-stakes business deal with someone who cannot entirely be trusted. You have to keep your eyes open and protect your leverage -- once you've lost your leverage, you've lost everything. Liberals can beg and whine forever, and all Rahm will ever do is laugh. We need to learn to deal with Rahm (and Obama) as coldbloodedly as they deal with us.
No one should ever be surprised, shocked, hurt, or heartbroken when a Democrat doublecrosses them. That's what politicians do. Being doublecrossed is the same kind of thing as losing a hand of poker. You should figure out what, if anything, you did wrong and get ready for the next hand.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/14942/why-is-the-democrat-party-so-worthless
that's why I send my money to the ACLU
(#187691)and not the DNC.
Leverage
(#188039)Well, if one believes that people have a duty to show up and vote for one of the two "serious" candidates, then there's not much leverage left there. All that's left is withholding contributions, which only works if you're rich enough to be giving significant amounts.
IMO you need to openly threaten to either stay home or go third party, and for the threat to have credibility, some number of people need to actually carry it out every cycle.
Ahhh, It's Not Like Civil Liberties are Difficult to Understand
(#187690)...or enforce.
Unless you don't want to.
I guess it's kind of nice to have my own cowardly Bestard in the White House...NOT!
Traveller
Practical issues
(#187693)1. Prosecuting every single person who was involved with tortur would be the right thing to do, but it would require a lot of political capital and take a lot of attention away from President Obama's others priorities, whatever they are.
2. No problem with this. Gitmo will be closed, but it will take time and there is a lot of pressure from the Republican, who will and have acted like crazy people.
3. That story is from February. Not sure what the status is right now.
4. Same February story. It doesn't say anything about Americans being held without trial. I believe you are mistaken about this. Jose Padilla got a trial, after Bush & Co. backed down at the last minute. Do you have anything recent to show us that says Obama supports holding Americans without trial.
5. I agree with you on this one. It is just too easy to claim something is a state secret.
6. I agree with you on this one. There needs to be a truth commission. It will not make the US look good but it might stop this sort of thing from happening again.
7. See #`1
8. I am willing to give Obama some time on this one. If nothing happens on DADT by March then Obama is just being a coward on this issue.
9. You oversimplify the issue. Simple signing statements that clarify ambiguous text in a bill, may not be constitutional, but they are a practical solution to a common problem. If the Prez had to veto a bill every time a comma was misplaced his opponents would use that to their advantage, and it would slow down an already slow process. Bush's signing statements amounted to proclamations that he had no intention of following the will of Congress. The difference between the two situations is obvious.
I am disappointed with Obama so far, but I am still willing to give him some time to get to where he should be.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
Sorry on #4 - wrong link
(#187698)got pasted in.
Bush had asserted the right to hold US Citizens as enemy combatants back in 2004, and according to this it was in the Military Commission Act of 2006.
But you are partially right. Apparently since March things have improved - slightly. "Obama administration ends use of “enemy combatant” designation", but
So, they've released or charged the citizens held, but there is a belief that the main motivation,as it was with Bush, was to avoid having a court rule on the power itself.
Thanks for the clarification and your other points - I'll respond to them when I get the chance.
Blue, on your other points
(#188048)On prosecutions (items 1 and 7), it is as you say a matter of priorities, and I disagree with BHO's priorities. Remember that this isn't just about punishing past conduct or repairing our image, it's about deterring future conduct. From a future conduct point of view, openly advertising that you are allowing a "just following
orderslegal memos" defense is particularly damaging. He's more or less laid out instructions for the next time.On Gitmo, the admin is now saying the schedule might slip - no surprise. You're right that most Republicans are behaving very badly on this, but (as many have stated) they control neither the Congress nor the executive branch. The funding thing is nonsense, if Dems wanted to do this they could slip funding in through any of the normal routes, or if Obama really believes in signing statements (see below), he could issue one that moving prisoners is part of the unitary executive's commander-in-chief authority.
Item 9- "may not be constitutional, but they are a practical solution". I guess you and I just have a very different view of how much obedience the President owes to the constitution.
Thanks
(#188111)Re: prosecutions
I think a truth commission will prevent such future conduct. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen either.
Re: Gitmo
I think Obama will be true to his word and close Gitmo. I also think, politically, it is better for Obama to do it over a longer period. If the Prez did it in one fell swoop then the R's and the media would go crazy, and we would talk about little else for three weeks.
I don't believe in absolutism. The intent of the Constitution is being followed if a signing statement says something to the effect of: LINK
The idea that the President has to veto The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 simply because Congress wrote an overly-broad sentence is ridiculous IMO.
Is that your solution? Obama should have vetoed that bill?
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
well
(#187700)-we have farmed out our aggressive interogation to other countries through rendition.
-Gitmo was and remains a political game; it is just tougher when you are responsible for the outcome.
-see my first comment with respect to rendition.
-See Lincoln and FDR with respect to US Citizens.
-What you don't trust Eric Holder?
-You always wnat to keep your options open.
-See comment on Gitmo with respect to politics.
-Was it illegal and I wonder how we pulled information on the recent arrests made in NY, CO, IL and TX.
-Both of those efforts (the rooting out and sending DoJ to address a nonmilitary issue) were stupid.
--With respect to "signing statement" see US Constitution, btw it is my generall understanding that Lincoln signed the first one.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
On your first item
(#187705)the "CIA torture staff" had approval from their superiors, aided by oddball interpretations from DOJ. I agree with Obama on this one. If anything, the ones who gave approval should be investigated. If that course is pursued, it'll be a big waste of time because they had legal cover. If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be the lawyers and the AG for legal malpractice.
Re U.S. citizens and trials if they're enemy combatants, do you have an actual link to support this? This would be a serious breach of constitutional rights, and I think that your assertion is inaccurate.
Concerning Belew and Ghafoor, if those phone conversations involved a party not on American soil, warrantless wiretaps are not illegal, so long as the target of the tap is the international party. Far as I can tell, Obama's interpretation of the law is correct.
Re the rest about detainees and gay people, what can I say, Obama chumped you.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Befehl ist befehl.
(#187708)Interesting; the camp guards were right the whole time. It was victors' justice.
"Assent, and you are sane."
Inapt
(#187710)The interrogators sought approval for the techniques. They didn't take orders.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Thank you.
(#187713)That is, perhaps, the single blog post which most sums up Internet Conservatism.
"Assent, and you are sane."
perhaps, but more likely it isn't reflective
(#187718)of the overall position.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
BD, I think you're saying
(#188051)that knowingly obeying an illegal order is different from carrying out a legally approved technique. That's true, but-
Some official waving his hands and saying "legal" doesn't make it legal. The interrogators can look at the lawyer's advice (and that's all the OLC can give - they can't* give a waiver of the law) and decide whether or not to take the advice. The responsibility is still theirs.
From a personal ethics point of view, the guys in the 1940's "just following orders" were under threat themselves, and in most cases didn't dream up the atrocities themselves. In the current case, the civilian perps were under no obligation, they could just quit. They went proactively asking for excuses, and got them.
*Or at least they shouldn't be able to give waivers of the law. Obama's policy effectively gives them that power.
-----------------------
On the "chumped" part - A bunch of us here more or less predicted this, and I didn't vote for him, so I can't claim to have been betrayed.
For the three who were waterboarded,
(#188099)I think the CIA guys should've known better, because it's clearly torture. For the other approved "enhanced" techniques, more of a gray area. They wanted to know where the line was so they wouldn't cross it. The DOJ lawyers did them a major disservice.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
There were only three!
(#188106)BD knows, and he's telling us.
"Assent, and you are sane."
I don't think he means that
(#188110)I think he's referring to the three openly acknowledged cases where specific legal assurances were given to the CIA by government lawyers. Obviously these are just the tip of the iceberg, but they're important because they're an open attempt to legitimize the "just following
ordersmemos" doctrine. There's an unlimited supply of lawyers willing to write anything you ask, so it's especially dangerous.I think you're wrong.
(#188113)I think BD genuinely believes that there are only three currently known instances, and will be genuinely resistant to the idea that there are more.
Of course, that might actually have changed as a result of this conversation, which would be pleasant.
"Assent, and you are sane."
BD's perfectly able to defend himself, but that's not my read
(#188115)of what he's saying. Look, for all the talk of waterboarding, a much larger and uglier problem never seems to get on the radar: torturing people to death. And there are the Ooops!-es, where we realize we got the wrong guy and end up pushing him out of the van in rural Romania or letting him languish at Gitmo. There are quite a few people the military has exonerated at Gitmo: unlike the Bad Guys, these folks are free to walk around, they eat in the mess halls, they don't have anyone to take them in, they live in a Kafka-esque legal twilight.
BD freely acknowledges there were at least three. Given what I know about human nature and the Gummint, Foxtrot Uniforms are routinely covered up. Is he resistant to the idea there were more? You might give him the benefit of the doubt. There's the all-too-real possibility these three are the only sets of documents which weren't deep-sixed: the trash was long since taken out at the end of the Previous Administration and the Current One shows a distinct aversion to go digging for more skeletons.
Interesting.
(#188122)I'm not sure why I would be expected to give a two-time W advocate the benefit of the doubt. That's a very strong position.
"Assent, and you are sane."
Why shouldn't I give anyone the benefit of the doubt?
(#188137)We pigeonhole our intellectual opponents at the risk of pigeonholing ourselves at the same time. Unless we give each other the Benefit of the Doubt, it's all so much talking past each other. Which is boring.
I was right.
(#188141)My model works.
"Assent, and you are sane."
Didn't say "three currently known instances"
(#188135)Far as we know, three were waterboarded, and each were waterboarded multiple times.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
I think it goes a lot deeper and a lot wider.
(#188146)This was policy. A huge number of suspects were gathered. We know of violent abuse and deaths in multiple locations and we know of secret prisons but nothing about their prisoners and procedures. To assume everything behind the curtain is white when so far everything that's come through it is black would be credulous.
If they were serious about this they would startwith the 3 cases and see what falls out of the trees when they start to sing. Wouldn't take long (or thumbscrews) to follow the trail of singing canaries as far as it went.
But the actual toturers must be punished (again, assuming anyone is serious about torture and it being wrong and all). The cover given by lawyers was just words. Their professional standards bodies should take an interest, but to torture someone. To plan the capture and torture of people. That is another thing altogether.
Yes, it was policy
(#188147)One of the best sources of what we know is the CIA IG report, summarized here.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Good link.
(#188164)Thanks.
Just citing known facts
(#188134)Cite. If you have credible information showing a different number, show it.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Thanks for all the links.
(#187817)I'm halfway through them and every one goes right to the point and is from a reliable source. Much appreciated.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Reliable Sources
(#187825)BBC
NYT
Salon
Huffington Post
Firedoglake
MSNBC
Time
Wired
ABC News
Marvelous, welcome back to the reality community Tomsyl.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You're welcome
(#188053)although now that Spart points it out, the sources do seem to lean leftish. Unintended.