http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/14/rescind-barack-obama-obama-transparency-award
The "transparency award" in question was described as "aspirational", similar to the rationale for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize early in his presidency when he had done nothing yet to further the cause of peace. Participants admitted they used the private meeting in March to try and lobby Obama to do more to earn their award. If the president doesn't change course as a result of the lobbying and "award", there are some who would shrug and say, "no harm, no foul". - letter authors
In March, Obama won an open government/transparency award from 5 gov't watchdog groups. But soon after, a coalition of other watchdogs and whistleblowers wrote an open letter in The Guardian to rescind the award, since secrecy and suppression have actually increased during the Obama admin. This is noteworthy when you consider his predecessor. I know he is no longer Candidate Obama, and as president he must be a company man and defend agencies like the NSA and FBI. But we put him in office to change things, not bolster the status quo.
The "example" his administration is making of Wikileaker Bradley Manning (who hasn't been convicted in court BTW) is atrocious. That man (a US citizen with rights) probably broke the law, but at present he is basically zero threat to US national security, yet he has been kept in solitary lock-down 23/24 hours a day for months. There are also accusations that he was tortured. This punishment is disproportionate and probably unconstitutional. How can we criticize Syria and Myanmar about their abuses? Yes leaks can hurt national interests, but secrets can too. There has to be a balance, and without leakers and whistleblowers, we might still think that Nixon wasn't a crook, companies price commodities fairly, and cigarettes are non-addictive.
Here is a partial list of their criticisms:
• President Obama has not decreased, but has dramatically increased governmental secrecy.
According to a new report to the president by the
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) – the federal agency that provides oversight of the government's security classification system – the cost of classification for 2010 has reached over $10.17bn. That's a 15% jump from the previous year, and the first time ever that secrecy costs have surpassed $10bn.
• There were 544,360 requests for information last year under the
Freedom of Information Act to the 35 biggest federal agencies – 41,000 requests more than the year before. Yet the bureaucracy responded to 12,400 fewer requests than the prior year,
according to an analysis by the Associated Press.
• Obama has invoked baseless and unconstitutional executive secrecy to quash legal inquiries into secret illegalities more often than any predecessor. The list of this president's invocations of the "state secrets privilege" has already resulted in shutting down lawsuits involving the National Security Agency's illegal wiretapping –
Jewel v NSA and
Shubert v Obama; extraordinary rendition and assassination –
Anwar al-Awlaki; and illegal
torture –
Binyam Mohamed.
• Ignoring his campaign promise to protect government whistleblowers, Obama's presidency has amassed
the worst record in US history for persecuting, prosecuting and jailing government whistleblowers and truth-tellers. President Obama's behaviour has been in stark contrast to his campaign promises, which included live-streaming meetings online and rewarding whistleblowers.
• The Obama justice department's
prosecution of former NSA official Thomas Drake, who,
up till 9 June, faced 35 years in prison for having blown the whistle on the NSA's costly and unlawful warrantless monitoring of American citizens, typifies the abusive practices made possible through expansive secrecy agreements and threats of prosecution.
• President Obama has set a powerful and chilling example for potential whistleblowers through the abuse and torture of
Bradley Manning, whose guilt he has also publicly stated prior to any trial by his, Obama's, military subordinates.
• Under President Obama, the
FBI has launched a series of raids and issued grand jury subpoenas targeting nearly two dozen antiwar activists. Over
2,600 arrests of protesters in the US have been made while Obama has been president, further encroaching on the exercise of first amendment rights.
• President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one,
Anwar al-Awlaki.
•
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to
secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
• President Obama promised to reveal White House visitors' logs. He didn't. In response to outrage over his refusal to reveal the names of health insurance CEOs he had met with and cut deals with on the health insurance reform bill, he announced that he would release the names going forward, but not those in the past. And going forward,
he would withhold names he chose to withhold. White House staff then began regularly meeting lobbyists just off White House grounds in order to avoid the visitors' logs.
• President Obama has sent representatives to aggressively pressure Spain, England and Germany to shut down investigations that could have exposed the crimes of the Bush era, just as he has instructed the US justice department to avoid such matters.
--------
Also, what do you think about the lawsuit brought on by Kucinich, Boehner, and others questioning the legality of Obama's military action in Libya vis-a-vis the War Powers Act? I know I wrote you earlier advocating intervention in Libya, but since then I believe I was wrong. Well, I definitely think the way Obama and NATO are handling it is wrong. If we made a surgical hit on Qaddafi and his most loyal associates when the rebels were on the outskirts of Tripoli early in the conflict, maybe it could have avoided these months of war and stalemate (there probably would still be later conflict in Libya to fill the power vacuum, but at least the UN could get shoes on the ground by then to try to maintain order and political fair play).
But as we learned in Iraq, we just can't take out a dictator without a PLAN for what happens next. And of course we have no friggin' plan for Libya. The excuse of avoiding a humanitarian disaster with intervention also doesn't hold water, because worse abuses took place in Darfur, and are taking place presently in Syria, and we do nothing. Qaddafi is bad but he's not Nero. Plus who the heck will run the country after him? We don't have a puppet government waiting in the wings, and we have no history or relations with the rebels (who are quite heterogeneous BTW). From our dealings with Pakistan and Israel, we should know that even open alliances can be very tricky and damaging to our interests. So maybe the Libertarians and pacifists (and those with common sense intelligence) are onto something when they advocate for no foreign interventions unless our vital interests are directly at stake. The sooner the US realizes the limits of its power and influence, the stronger and safer the country will be.
Despite the Congressional lawsuit, they can't really do anything to stop the Libya operation because Obama said he won't be asking them for any more money than was already allocated, so they have no future leverage. They of course could draft legislation to force the president to halt the mission, but Obama would just veto it, and I doubt Dem senators would turn against him with an election year coming up.
--------
So can we give the Laker's the NBA championship halfway through next season? Ya know, to encourage them to actually win it.
Reading that list of offenses by Obama is embarassing. But a non-theoretical question for you, would you expect Bachmann to be better? In retrospect would we have preferred McCain/Palin? As hard and fast as the government is screwing us there is no hero to step in. What are the options? Mass support for protests just does exist in this country partly for reasons recently discussed. A meaningful number of people think Obama is too liberal and that Romney is too.
--------
Haha the Lakers don't need that incentive, they just need to have their wives and GFs get along, but that's another story! Heck they have enough talent anyway, give the pre-championship to the Clippers to motivate them!
As you said, the aspirational award is an interesting concept. Too bad it doesn't apply to peons like me. I'd love for my boss to give me an aspirational bonus/promotion, and if I didn't live up to it, "no harm no foul".
Of course I think some more hard-line politicians would be much worse than Obama re: transparency, but that's why I voted for him. He was supposed to be more civil, dignified, and humane, but his record hasn't shown much. While I think it's highly unlikely Obama would lose in 2012 (and if he does, we'll have many more problems than this undeserved transparency award), a new GOP administration is not likely to be more people-friendly on this issue. I would pack my bags if I was a Muslim or Arab, considering the offensive language used at the recent debate and on the campaign trail. Didn't some politician say we should nuke Mecca in retaliation for another Islamist attack on the US?
Yep:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html -------
and, a meaningful number survive on social security, lost their homes to fraudulent banking practices and have had healthcare costs skyrocket to the point of being unattainable. i think they're waking up to the fact that the democrats and republicans are going to screw them, no matter what. it;s coke or pepsi. pepsi's a little sweeter, but both will make your ass fat and rot your teeth. it's bullshit and it's bad for you. look how many people are showing up and protesting and getting arrested. there are tons. it's just not on your tv nor is it reported on npr. People have to stop this branding thing of 'socialism is bad' and start to wake up that social-ism just means that your priority in govt. is society, therefore you support society's basic needs. then, you have to vote for people based on their actions, not on their words(obama). but, i'm not totally convinced that even if we did vote in kucinich for president he wouldn't be crippled by media attacks like carter. revolution is the only way out. it's breaking out all over.
---------
The unfortunate part is you need to be at the light-myself-on-fire stage for meaningful action to take place. People are willing to take too much and survive on too little. What i don't understand is how badly things can go once you get into the high office. Would T do the same thing as Obama? Maybe i'm not cynical enough to believe that most in congress/high offices went into it for the wrong reason. I want to believe that most went to change things for the better but our current outcome doesn't follow.
Maybe the random selection method for government offices? 2 year rotation only requirement is minimum education?
--------
Heh T holding high office? I would send the Lakers and Patriots to Gitmo, legalize all drugs but meth (only ugly trailer trash use it), move the US capital to Vegas, and institute a national salary cap of $1M (since I'm not greedy). Then I'd use that extra tax revenue to fix all the broken shit we email about. But it wouldn't really matter what I want since it would be impossible to work with Congress on anything meaningful.
Actually the Tunisians (part of the smelly Arab masses that Westerners look down on) have a leg up on us. That street vendor who got screwed over by the gov't and self-immolated triggered a successful revolution. The American Quaker who lit himself on fire to protest Vietnam didn't stop the war, much less overthrow Nixon. And you or I doing the same today won't make Washington wake up. Our lives don't mean squat to them. A million lives don't either. And when that is the case - we need new gov't as L said.
J and I were talking about this recently - No Drama Obama decided that getting re-elected was more important than keeping his campaign promises. He basically is letting Wall Street (and those loyal to it in Congress) have free reign, deferring to the Pentagon and CIA to "protect America" as they see fit, and not confronting the many parties damaging America from within (and I'm not referring to the Muslims or Hollywood Elite). That way none of his campaign donors are pissed off, and maybe in his second term he grows a pair. Or maybe that's the problem - he was all "hopey and changey" on the campaign trail, but in private he made promises to all his funders that he would be this kind of president, and "a Lannister always pays his debts".
Maybe you noticed that I'm fairly schizophrenic on my evaluations of Obama since 2008, depending on how bad the GOP is in comparison. Today obviously I'm being a hard-ass. But it's tough - expectations were unprecedented for him, world events have got in the way of a lot of his initiatives, the US right wing has basically made it their Crusade for him to fail, and "herding cats" in Washington is as tricky as it sounds (even the liberal ones, who all expect Obama to put their causes #1). And let's remember that he was pretty much a political baby upon taking office. Bottom line, these are just excuses. He deliberately let opportunities for change pass him by, or he didn't try hard enough to stand up for the people and for what is right. Sadly, his boldest move was to give the green light to violate Pakistani sovereignty and take out Geronimo. I don't think other major political figures would have done much better in his shoes, but I have to believe there are some caring, decent Americans out there who could. Those people wouldn't be allowed anywhere near elected office though.
But like M said, somehow America will go on because deep down we can take a lot of shit. We may complain about it, but we'll soldier on, even if we're broke. What choice do we have - move to Afghanistan? And things aren't quite Greek-bad in order to get a critical mass to rise up. We'll have Coke or Pepsi in Washington for probably the rest of our lives, and that's just the way it is. But hopefully if a real leader for the people emerges, I'm ready to follow him/her and give my life to rid us of this plutocracy. I just hope what follows is something better.
Oh forgot to mention (humor me just a sec), another thing barring us from rising up is losing whatever little we have. Unless you're Buddhist, you probably feel that you have one shot at life. Loved ones, job, what meager assets you have - if you decide to fight the system you could lose it all. It's a serious deterrent, as is the hope that things are bound to get better if we just wait it out. Inaction is the easiest action. That's why I really have to admire the freedom fighters and activists from Iran to Burma, who have made the choice to lay it all on the line for what they believe, and many have paid dearly. We are cowards and slaves in comparison.
--------
There is something to be said to giving 100% (like many of these protesters who are literally dying to make their country better) but it is also important to note the absolute value of what you have to lose. Most people have a job that pays, a tv to watch, food to eat, etc. If i was deciding between protest and starvation what do i really have to lose. Like you said T, people don't want to lose what little we have. And i'm not sure we'll ever have little enough (by comparison to the rest of the world) for a large enough percentage of people to be willing to risk it for change. Unfortunately i'm like most people in that i'm an armchair critic. Maybe that is actually more that what most people put into the political process but it isn't enough and I know that and i don't have the time/will/determination/fill in the blank to change that as of now.
---------
Yeah I feel you on these points. As you said, much of our population won't be so desperate as to revolt, and those at the bottom are too marginalized to fight. Just as civil rights have evolved since the Middle Ages, so has tyranny. The feudal and slavery systems mostly failed around the world (except places like Saudi and N Korea), so rulers have found that they can still keep people down in a "free society". It's very good crowd control (whether deliberate or not): pacify the people with just enough prosperity and other priorities so they forget about their rights and dignity. Order in China pretty much hinges on this too.
It's tough to convince people to fight a system that they are invested in, or feel dependent on. Most of us probably have retirement accounts. Those are run by Wall Street. Probably we would like to see the "too big to fail" banks broken up like Standard Oil, but what if the cost was our savings? More Americans work for corporations now than ever before (probably out of necessity and economic conditions, not that we like them any more). At work I am sure you have met zealots who think the firm can do no wrong, and they might secretly be OK with corporate misbehavior if their stock options appreciate. Even if we're not greedy company men, our reliance on their salary and hope for career progression may affect our loyalties. We like our creature comforts and we can't all be like Siddhartha or Guevarra. Online media supposedly helped some Mideast revolutions, but when used differently it can be an urban pacification tool. People can literally never face another human being, yet hold a job and order whatever items they need online. If we're all isolated (and distracted with media/entertainment), we can't organize. And to a certain extent, major religions tell us to just take our lumps and don't rock the boat, and we'll be rewarded in the afterlife. These and other factors make us unlikely to upset the status quo.
Maybe we don't have to be all or nothing though - courage to change what we can, tolerance to accept what we can't, and wisdom to know the difference. A big gift to the world is to raise kids with good values who might be able to serve society more than we were able. Heh but when faced with that challenge, maybe I'd rather be a guerrilla. A MLK or Gandhi is born every so often, so we have trust and nurture the next generation (which hopefully also prevents the next Hitler or Pol Pot from developing). But "waiting on the world to change" probably isn't good enough, so I guess incremental protests or choices made in your own life about issues you care about can achieve some good (and hopefully won't have unintended negative consequences). Maybe with the butterfly effect and such, a passing good deed snowballs into something bigger. I could do a lot better, but I try to donate/volunteer, avoid frivolous consumption, do right by people, and scale back my energy/meat intake. Unfortunately, I think all that doesn't even offset all the harm I do each day. If I had any surplus money, I wouldn't invest in companies that I don't approve of (which is pretty much all of them LOL). I'm open to new suggestions though, so M or others please feel free to share. But as you said, changing ourselves is the easy part - how the hell do we change politics?
------
Now, I'm with you! a lottery system for people who had an adequate grade in mandatory civics classes in high school. that would first entail we teach civics in high school again.
My guess is T wouldn't change but would think that he was being pragmatic by privatizing prisons. It's rationalization. Either that, or someone in the media would get a 'tip' on T's porn collection and ending his career with a tearful remorseful press conference. ;)
To be honest, I'm not sure we as a society would care if someone set themselves on fire in protest. We'd call them crazy.
I heard it described once as a frog in a cool pot of water on a stove. The frog just sits while being cooked in the boiling water b/c it happens so slowly.
People are protesting(i'm going to an antiwar rally today), people are getting arrested, marches are happening on wall street regularly. But, it doesn't exist in our worlds which glow from living rooms every night, therefore they don't happen. Hugo Chavez has a downright antagonistic media. It's run by the monied elite. But, he also has 70% support b/c he really is a populist and supports evening the playing field. Can that happen here? I just don't know.....Does poverty have to reach the level of poverty of third world nations before we do something?
---------
Heh I'm already having Weiner (the mother of all fitting names) draft
my apology speech. "I let you all down, and I ask that you pray for my
rehabilitation, and healing for my family who suffered from my
misdeeds."
Besides improving civics edu (that US kids scored horribly in a recent
assessment), families/teachers/leaders need to do a much better job
showing youth how we are all interconnected and interdependent. The
selfish older gens are a lost cause, but maybe there's hope for kids.
If we realize the consequences and externalities of our actions, then
maybe we'll make more socially responsible decisions. Do I really need
that luxury car, knowing that money could feed a village for a year?
The world is not just our playground and our personal desires aren't
the only consideration. Once people get a grip on their egotism and
tribalism, socialism is the logical next step. It's not an us-vs-them,
win-lose situation; we're all in this together so we better cooperate,
or we won't survive. I'm struggling with this every day though.
