Here's a comment (slightly edited) I posted at Martian Utopia Cafe, whose author in turn had linked to a recent Glenn Greenwald post about the troubling continuities between the "war on terror" policies of the past and current administrations. Obama too (he's the head of this government) reserves the right to label people, including Americans, terrorists, not share any evidence, and yet assassinate them. Does this make him like Cheney? Some would say, essentially, yes, and they're scathing, maybe even withering, in their criticism of the president. Here's what I wrote:
I won't scathe, because as your Jon Stewart post also shows, there's too much of that right now. Also, it sounds too much like "skate," and I just separated my shoulder doing that. I read Greenwald, and he's often hard to resist. Still, I'm balking at the Obama-Cheney analogy. It just doesn't fit, it's taking a more than legitimate opposition to an existing policy one or two steps too far. The policy exists, and the buck stops at Obama's desk, so ultimately it's his. But I feel the following also matter: it's an inherited policy; it's a policy that has become the co-property of the vast government intelligence and national security apparatus; it's a policy in the politically most sensitive area: the "war on terror," an area where the new administration (it's still relatively new) has been making some (not enough!) significant improvements; and I'm not willing to ignore that this war is an extremely unconventional and dirty one where in some cases it may be necessary to deal with an enemy in an unconventional way (i.e. assassinate, rather than capture and try him). In short, while I'm unhappy with the implications of the policy, I'm trying also to figure out why it's still in place, perhaps giving the president too much benefit of the doubt (maybe I also had lower expectations of him, or of his ability to change a lot of things overnight by executive order or otherwise). He's operating in a tough bureaucratic environment, and he's operating in a dysfunctional political environment (poisoned, also, by Cheney and his stooges). He also now is responsible for fighting off the Islamist terrorists, and he gets to see a lot more intelligence than the rest of us. I understand that in regard to the latter point, the traditional government "trust us" argument no longer works, and yet I'm willing to believe that the current administration acts in good faith. Cop out or "real world," I just cannot see it otherwise than as extremely complicated. I certainly would not want to be in Obama's shoes (another cop out?). If in two years time policy in this area was exactly as it is today, I might feel different, but for now I'm going to give him a little more time.
USA Cycling's War Against Women
3 months ago
6 comments:
And behold the reply:
http://martianutopiacafe.blogspot.com/2010/02/evaluating-barack-obama-reply-to-friend.html
Also, just for shits and giggles, a list of things Obama has done that I like. To prove I'm not completely whacko.
1) Keep whacko (McCain) out of the Oval Office.
2) Strengthen the health and safety regulatory structures of the federal government, per this article by John B. Judis at The New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-quiet-revolution?page=0,0
3) Increase federal funding for clean energy, as chronicled by Joe Romm at the blog Climate Progress, climateprogress.org.
4) Follow through on his promise to de-escalate U.S. involvement in Iraq, as chronicled by Juan Cole at www.informedcomment.org.
5) Be a little less of Israel's lap dog than W. was, and put at least some pressure on Israel to make at least some concessions to the Palestinians. Not nearly enough, for radical me, but hell, it's better than what we had before. Too bad, though, for all the Palestinians still getting fucked over by -- oops, never mind. Got to stay positive.
6) Prevent a Second Great Depression, thanks to the stimulus package and the bailout of Wall Street. Yeah, I wish he'd gone much further, but he deserves some credit for staving off a catastrophe, at least for now. Too bad he hasn't done enough to keep it from happening again, but that's another story.
7) Ending the federal ban on stem cell research. And ideologically driven federal interference with science in general.
8) Increased federal spending on infrastructure and R&D in a variety of areas.
9) Increased federal spending on health care, including health care for under-served areas. He's put a bunch of money into HRSA that will flow directly to my university's school of medicine. This is good.
10) EPA's decision to classify greenhouse gasses as pollutants.
11) Ending Bush's stupid plans to put a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. I gather the Poles and Czechs are upset. Fuck them.
12) Cash for clunkers.
13) Negotiating somewhat seriously, unlike W., on global warming. Now if only he could actually get a deal.
14) General support for the idea of nuclear disarmament, specific moves toward a nuclear arms reduction pact with the Russians.
15) Expansion of S-CHIP program to give health insurance to kids.
16) Extension of unemployment benefits. My dad would have been in real trouble without this. If only Barry would now shut the fuck up about cutting spending and entitlements for the little people.
17) More $ for national service programs.
18) Sonia Sotomayor.
19) Driving Fox News viewers into apoplectic fits of mindless, heart-palpitating rage.
20) Re-introducing the general idea that government should be run by smart people and not ideological hacks.
21) Lots of other micro-scale achievements that will all go away when Obama's failures on the big stuff bring Republican quasi-fascists back to power.
Yay, I'm fair and balanced! Kinda.
Sounds like old times (which I miss too), for example the old Clinton chronology (you're not keeping an Obama chronlogy now, by any chance?). I've posted a quick, initial reply. More soon.
Ruud, Some questions.
1) "It's an inherited policy." So this means it can't be changed? How? Why? Is he the c-in-c, or not?
2) "[Assassination] has become the co-property of the vast government intelligence and national security apparatus."
And therefore the President has no option other than to continue Bush's secret assassination policy? Why? He could literally undo it with a single executive order, correct? Why doesn't he? You never say. Is it a need to appease the various agencies? Why? What will they do, specifically, against him, if Obama discontinues secret assassinations? What precisely are you talking about? Please give more than vague general assertions.
3)"it's a policy in the politically most sensitive area: the "war on terror."
Do you mean that therefore Obama's poll ratings would go down if he discontinued the assassination policy? Again, a vague assertion in place of an argument. Please be specific. If you're talking about declining poll numbers, how do you know the poll numbers would go down? How do you know bad electoral consequences would ensue?
4)"an area where the new administration (it's still relatively new) has been making some (not enough!) significant improvements."
Because the administration is new, it therefore can't change policies? Why? What do you think would happen if it changed the assassination policy? *Exactly* what? What actor would take what specific action with what bad consequences for Obama, and what would those consequences be? The administration completely discontinued Bush's policy on stem cell research with no problems. Why can he safely scrap a Bush policy in that area but not in regards to assassination?
5)"in some cases it may be necessary to deal with an enemy in an unconventional way (i.e. assassinate, rather than capture and try him)."
What kind of cases? Why? Do you have historical precedents in mind, where secret assassinations by the chief executive of a democracy, against the citizens of that democracy, were crucial to defending national security? If assassinations might be necessary, why not water boarding? Why not slamming people into walls? How does your willingness to endorse assassination not also extend to torture?
6) "He's operating in a tough bureaucratic environment, and he's operating in a dysfunctional political environment."
[CONTINUED]
Again, what exactly does that mean? You use vague, amorphous phrases rather than spell out exactly what actions by what actors would ensue, with what bad consequences for Obama, if he discontinued the assassination policy.
7) "he gets to see a lot more intelligence than the rest of us. I understand that in regard to the latter point, the traditional government "trust us" argument no longer works, and yet I'm willing to believe that the current administration acts in good faith."
You're willing to let the President secretly assassinate American civilians based purely on his own secret finding, as well as detain them forever without charges. Again, why don't you also favor torture? And indefinite detention forever without charges? And unrestricted monitoring of private communications without a court order?
How, exactly, did the U.S. manage to fight KGB infiltration without similar presidential action? Why is it now necessary to take unilateral, extra-Constitutional executive action against Al Qaeda?
You say you're aware of the weakness of the "trust us" argument, then you rely on precisely that argument. Our constitutional system is based on a general philosophy of presuming the likelihood of abuse of power by government. I seem to remember that being a big deal around 1787. Why are you so willing to now disregard that philosophy and place trust in an executive without the need for that executive to show evidence that extreme actions are necessary?
8) "If in two years time policy in this area was exactly as it is today, I might feel different."
Please provide a written citation to a credible report that Obama's policies on assassination, indefinite detention without charges, and surveillance without court authorization are designed to be anything other than permanent. From everything I've read, the Obama people are looking for, shall we say, final solutions. You talk as if the actions Obama has taken are "stop gap" measures -- when has he or anybody on the NSC or any other responsible body ever said that? Don't give me a vague assertion, give me a citation to a credible written source. Maybe you can do that, in which case I'll reassess my opinion on this point.
9) General observation. The issue here isn't whether Obama is like Cheney. The issue is how to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism, and whether the nature of that threat uniquely, overwhelmingly *compels* systematic violations of the Constitution and centralization of extraordinary, extra-legal powers in the U.S. executive branch. Which is the course Obama is now on. Or maybe you think he’s not violating the Constitution.
You never make a specific case for why the external threat requires Obama’s extraordinary measures measures, and not more traditional alternatives.
Post a Comment