http://articles.latimes.com/
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/
I know we discussed this in the past about Obama's campaign pledges to promote civil rights and gov. transparency, but as president he has actually increased secrecy and expanded the powers of the US terrorism-industrial-complex (even over Bush levels), sometimes at the expense of the rules of war, civil liberties, and other laws/values. I guess the calculation was simple for Obama: it was more important to get the support of the military-intel community than the civil libertarians, so he made decisions to favor the former. Especially with the economy/jobs front-and-center, I guess his people felt that civil rights won't be a critical issue in 2012, especially when his yet-unnamed GOP rival would probably endorse and harsher stance on executive privilege and the security-vs-rights debate.
So that's where we stand: the GOP isn't mad at Obama because terror plots are being thwarted and Al Qaeda leaders are getting whacked. Though I'm sure they'd prefer to get the credit, and probably feel that Obama is just the lucky executor of the good Bush-neocon policies that are now bearing fruit. Any consolidation of executive power and trimming of Congressional/legal/regulatory red tape is probably good for them. They know they'll recapture the White House at some point, and then it's pedal to the metal.
But from the left, Turley likens it to Stockholm Syndrome. We've fallen in love with our captor, just because he's the first black president, a young, handsome, charismatic chap, the game-changer, the chosen one, whatever other superlative. We aren't happy with what he's doing, but we just can't allow ourselves to oppose him and admit that we were wrong. So like a kid without discipline, he keeps taking and pulling, and taking and pulling, because we do nothing. The Dems bet big on this guy, and now we're stuck with him. It's very hard for a parent to admit that their kid is a bad seed because they still love him.
Yes it's true that campaigning is different than leading, so maybe Obama is under more constraints now and exposed to different information, which has changed his views. But any leader under crisis has experienced that, and some still decided to stand up for their beliefs despite the political consequences, while others folded like cowards and played it safe. Some things he has done are just flat wrong, and it's not like lives were imminently at stake. Yes it's possible that a GOP president may be worse. But if we were voting between Hitler and Napoleon, would we be content supporting Napoleon because he was just slightly better? And let's remember that Obama has in fact exceeded Bush on many secrecy and rights violations issues. We've dug ourselves into quite a hole with this one.
We can't allow Obama to get away with making a blanket promise to not prosecute any Bush-era people or CIA employees/affiliates for torture or other abuses, and squash any private investigations. I know closing Gitmo didn't work out for him (he was naive to think it would be easy), and these terror issues are a legal nightmare. Yes, justice is hard work, but that's what separates us from cave men. Would we rather condone abuses power, shadow governments, and selective application of the law like the enemy regimes we routinely denounce? People must be held accountable for their crimes, or there's no deterrent for future criminality. Poking around at the CIA and Pentagon is going to cause some problems for a president, but sometimes avoiding conflict and failing to do the right thing is worse. Same thing with the Wall St. investigations, no one goes to jail or gets punished, so what incentive do they have to shape up? Our democracy and republic exist and survive because of checks-and-balances on power. If the president shirks that responsibility, and even blocks Congress from intervening, what is to stop the security establishment from running amok, like they have always done in similar loose situations throughout history?
US soldiers are standing trial for abusing or killing civilians during our wars. They are on the front lines fighting for their country, paid slave wages, and still have to answer for crimes if they err. Why should CIA sociopaths, reckless Blackwater mercenaries, and neocon paper-pushers be exempt? I have particular contempt for the fat suits drafting policies in DC. These chickenhawks mostly never sacrificed an ounce of sweat for America, yet they are making decisions that are destroying innocent families and creating all sorts of unanticipated blowback for us, in between their tee times and K St. power lunches. Such patriots. The hubris. And now Obama, the Peace Prize Laureate, has thrown his hat in with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment