Obama Admin: A Cowardly Blackout on the Dark Side?
The good news: The Obama administration appears to be authentically committed to shutting down “the dark side” strategies of torture, illegal detention and invasive wiretapping. I like that.
The really, really, really bad news: Recent filings by the DOJ demonstrate an equally vigorous will by the White House to prevent casting any probing light on those barbaric activities. That nauseates me.
In a staggering move, the administration is trying to broaden already bogus legal arguments that would shield government agencies from being sued as a result of the NSA’s massive domestic data sweep program initiated by the Bush-Cheney administration — the program commonly known as “wireless wiretapping.”
The Bushies used the argument of “state secrets” to lobby for immunity for the eavesdroppers. The brief filed Friday by DOJ countering a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation goes even farther in protecting the snoopers by claiming “sovereign immunity.” The Obama administration is relying on sections of The Patriot Act to bolster its geal reasoning.
As reported on Raw Story, liberal constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald explains how Obama and Atty General Eric Holder are taking Bush-era doctrines to unacceptable extremes:
“In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad ‘state secrets’ privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they ‘willfully disclose’ to the public what they have learned,” Greenwald wrote Monday…
“This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ’s, and the ample time that elapsed — almost three full months — makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials,” Greenwald wrote. “Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used — not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance.”
“Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ — using an absurdly broad rendition of ‘state secrets’ to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity — are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself,” he adds.
One can easily guess at Obama’s motivation. He simply wants to avoid the inevitable sort of polarization that would result from probing the legal responsibilties of not only the former NSA leadership, but also those of telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon (I take all this rather personally as I have been a plaintiff in a similar class action law suit against warrantless wiretapping pressed by the ACLU).
There is absolutely no way to justify or rationalize this position taken by Obama/Holder. This is a transgression of campaign promises on the same scale –or worse– as Bill Clinton signing the Republican-written welfare repeal law of 1996.
Even on grounds of pure political expediency, putting aside the obvious moral and ethical questions, this seems an unwise choice. A recent Gallup poll shows that an overwhelming near 2/3 of Americans are in favor of some sort of legal probe of possible Bush-era war crimes. What is the point of electing Democrats if they are out of step with a vast majority of the population and propagate policies identical to –or worse than — Republicans?
This issue, in spite of the deplorable blocking move made by the DOJ, is not likely to go away. There will be mounting pressure on the administration to do something, to say something about the 43 page report from the International Committee of the Red Cross granularly documenting the participation of American medical personnel in recent acts of torture. The ICRC report was made public by professor/journalist Mark Danner on the site of The New York Review Books. It’s revolting. Silence from the admin on this will just not cut it.
Even more alarming, is the question of the infamous and still secret so-called “Bush torture memos.” The Obama admin has not yet released them and the Republicans (whose party wrote them) are now apparently blackmailing the White House to keep them from the eyes of the public. Release those memos, say the Repubs, and we will fillibuster Obama’s legal appointments.
Amazing, eh?
TPM is running a write-the-congress campaign demanding these memos be released and that the Republicans stand down. A nice first step. A more vigorous step will be for Democratic voters to demand that when it comes to holding officials accountable for torture and war crimes, they want real change they can believe in.
——————– + ———————-
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
April 8th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Marc: One can easily guess at Obama’s motivation.
Yeah, he’s building a wall to block investigations into his own administration’s actions both now and in the future.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:58 am
With Marc, there’s no difference between professed grievances and real grievances, which is why I like him. But I don’t imagine I’ll be hearing much about civil liberites and budget deficits from most the rest of the Left now that Chimpy McHitlerburton is retired.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Speaking of investigating and trying heads of state for rights abuses: Fujimori’s Last Stand: Peru’s Ex-President Found Guilty – Draconian measures were needed here, and I wouldn’t agree that Peruvians now demand more flexibility from the judicial system in our fight,” he said. “Democratic rules and human rights haven’t been set aside in the emergency, though some mistakes were made.”
Surely, you must agree that, under Bush, mistakes may have been made, but the motivations were honorable. A President who can like and forgive Bill Ayers clearly shouldn’t concern himself about investigating a previous administration, as business was conducted to protect the nation.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Yes, Marc, it is alarming. Someone put a big fat asterisk on that Change we can believe in. This is so NOT why I voted for Obama.
Whether one reads the ICRC report or not, I consider reading Danner’s article as an act of civic responsibility. I surely hope someone from the Obama team reads it. Danner offers a pretty clear warning that the route of move forward without looking back, the secrecy that surrounds the memos not yet released, and absent an investigation as to what precisely was gained by torture, leaves Obama politically vulnerable. It is in Obama’s best political interests to pursue an investigation into Bush’s use of torture.
Thanks for the link to the TPM campaign.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:38 am
This is a terrible decision. What’s most interesting – and in some ways most important – about this move by the Obama DOJ, as well as some key debates over various aspects of bailout and stimulus, is that Obama’s base of support among liberal bloggers/journalists who helped shape the core of opposition to the Bush administration, is that Obama is just a likely to face their wrath – or at least strong pushback – when he over-reaches or disappoints. I predict some response from the White House that overrides this DOJ action – or maybe I should say that I hope for some response that moves away from this argument. In an event, Obama’s popularity is strong among the general public who don’t follow every policy in detail – but the sentinels like Greenwald haven’t gone to sleep or transformed their journalism into a big, wet sloppy kiss. The difference between the left/liberal bloggers – who are keeping their eyes open and their pens ready as the new administration’s policies unfold – and the rightwing which has swung from ass-kissing Bush/Cheney and the Beltway midget’s of the GOP for years to total hysteria and hate-mongering against all-things-Obama is telling. I’m wondering where a frenzied “anti-government” hysteric like Glenn Beck falls on this question of warrentless spying…or if the absurd “Go Galt” and “Tea Party” crowd are weighing in on this one ? (Comment #1 suggests that these opportunistic idiots don’t even understand the scope of this ruling or the issues involved, they’re so mired in an essentially mindless, guttersnipe little wingnut world.)
April 8th, 2009 at 5:40 am
“and in some ways most important” – I should have said “most revealing”
April 8th, 2009 at 6:20 am
On the handling of bailouts, more fire under the hot seat:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/05/useconomy-regulators
April 8th, 2009 at 6:34 am
This has been the most distressing early trend of Obama’s administration. Marc and Glenn nail this one.
Obama is just plain screwing the pooch here, which is all the more disappointing, given Obama’s legal and constitutional acumen. There is no excuse here; he fully knows the implications of what he’s doing.
I’d say that I’m smack in the middle of the base that helped him get elected, but if he doesn’t change course on this issue, I won’t vote for him again.
I don’t expect a president to be all things to me, but if you’re going to callously fuck with our civil liberties and willfully ignore what the law mandates, well then, screw you.
Obama has a lot of time left, and will do a lot of good things, but civil liberties and torture don’t fit on any scale–they can’t be weighed against other actions. They end the conversation.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:47 am
The President’s takes off his shoes and puts on a sweater:
“Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a neighborly day in this beauty wood. Won’t you please, would you please, please won’t you be my neighbor?”
China and Russia answers by blocking any action, even a condemnation, of any kind in an equally neutered UN, against a blatant nuclear provocation to by the ‘il one.
How’s that kinder and gentler approach working out so far Mr. President, against the bullies stealing your lunch on the world’s playground? How’s those apologies for that mean old other US Admin working out for you so far? Would it help if you disarmed and prosecuted them, to show this beautiful world our truly neighborly, sincere, and likeable you are?
April 8th, 2009 at 7:03 am
None of this was unexpected. One could read a detail profile of his advisors BEFORE he was elected. I took the trouble to chase up his environmental chops. Called the NRDC and was lead to a website (they could not go on record of saying anything to me on the phone) that was carefully monitoring the candidates. There was a long, well crafted description of who Obama’s advisors were shaping his policies.
I didn’t vote for Obama because I thought that he had any innovative chops on the domestic front. I voted for him because of they psychological factor of how is election rearranged some of the collective molecules.
But ‘change’? C’mon.
I realized waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in primary season he was the anointed one. Big money was poured into upending the right wing juggernaut. Buffet, Soros etc.
But…the skeletons are all out of the closet so that people can agitate and DEMAND the change that will have to be made by grass roots wrath.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
That One: …hate-mongering against all-things-Obama is telling …Comment #1 suggests that these opportunistic idiots don’t even understand….
“Hating all things President” was an affliction of the left the moment that Bush was proven to have beaten Gore until he left office. On the other hand, I see conservatives supporting Obama in several areas – the best ones being his not doing things that he promised, which will turn out to be a long list.
I support Obama’s plan for a “surge” in Afghanistan – the same type that worked in Iraq but that you and he opposed. Now, Gen. Petraeus has been restored to his correct name rather than “Gen. Betrayus,” given to him by the left.”
Bottom line: …Comment
#1#5 suggests that these opportunistic idiots don’t even understand conservative positions and reasoning and are too knee-jerk reactionary and too diishonest to report them correctly.- – -
Dan O: I’d say that I’m smack in the middle of the base that helped him get elected, but if he doesn’t change course on this issue, I won’t vote for him again.
I thought that the broken promise of getting out of Iraq within three months would have been enough. It might have been enough for Balter.
- – -
What I really see in this post and the comments is more of the same Bush Derangement Syndrome. What happened to your “Move-On” philosophy? Can’t you ever get over your hate?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Anna -
A true concerned citizen would really get under the hood, below the molecular level.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I thought that the broken promise of getting out of Iraq I was pretty clear on what issue the breakpoint is for me at least. Iraq isn’t it. We fucked that up in a lot of ways, but I’ve never been convinced that immediate withdrawal was necessarily smart. Nor am I convinced that we should be there for years in the future.
Besides now you’re shifting ground. You accuse all of us of having a herd mentality whenever you get the chance, but now when any of us shows some independence, well then, it wasn’t fast enough for you, or for the right reasons.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Woody is just too ill-informed to even bother with.
Literally doesn’t have a clue.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
reg: Literally doesn’t have a clue.
Anyone who would listen to the crazed and distorted personal attacks from reg, irrational and far, far less educated, must be similar to him.
reg’s Rule: Sideline the argument. Attack the messenger.
Open your minds.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I still think that Obama’s motivation, as I explained in comment #1, is the most accurate though less acceptable to a liberal.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
blah, blah
April 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Very good, reg! You used all of your potential brain power to address the point rather than attack me.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Woody, when you can learn to engage facts, as opposed to slinging bullshit you make up because you’re too stupid to deal with even the most basic information, get back to me. Among other things, Obama never promised to get out of Iraq in 3 months. You’re too fucking dumb for words. No crawl back in your little hole.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
When Obama started running for President, he led his supporters to believe that he would get our troops out of Iraq immediately. (I bet that you were there.) I went with what he was saying when he wanted the support of the Soros crowd to get the nomination. Don’t hold me to his ever-changing timetable, which he erased from his websites.
Does it disappoint you that Obama is not keeping his promise to invade Pakistan?
That’s okay. You’ll get used to his broken promises one day.
Now, try to focus on what Marc wants you to discuss.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
It does not cease to amaze me that people think Obama is going to change much of anything. His public statements and policy decisions place him firmly in the right wing. He is Reagan-Bush-Clinton in a different costume and makeup. I voted for Nader and am proud of it.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Woody – I’m going to assume you’re just a troll who gets off on spreading manure, because nobody could be that stupid.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
reg’s rule: Sideline the argument. Attack the messenger.
You just can’t imagine that Obama would take a cover-up action to protect his interestsdespite his claiming to set up a “transparent government.”
Saying this isn’t being a troll, but attacking personally me in response is.
What Obama promises:
From the White House
Another sample of what was promised – VIDEO Transition Update: Valerie Jarrett on Ethics Reform
Compare those promises against a sample of what you’ve gotten, instead. Government watchdogs are complaining that Treasury officials are not being transparent enough about how the hundreds of billions of TARP funds are being spent. …Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the TARP congressional oversight panel, agreed. She complained that multiple inquiries to Treasury have gone unanswered.
Here’s what Marc wrote: The Bushies used the argument of “state secrets” to lobby for immunity for the eavesdroppers. The brief filed Friday by DOJ countering a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation goes even farther…. …There is absolutely no way to justify or rationalize this position taken by Obama/Holder. This is a transgression of campaign promises
Well, I provided a reasonable and simple justification – self-interest to protect Obama’s administraton. Call it Ockham’s razor. It’s sure not as complicated as you want to make it, and the other party doesn’t have the power to make Obama do something that he dosen’t want to do.
Now, reg, why don’t you just shut up?
April 8th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Admit you’re a lying piece of shit on the “3 months” claim and I might bother to read the rest of your fartiing and belching….
April 8th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Also, you might learn to spell…(Occam!)
April 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“But I don’t imagine I’ll be hearing much about civil liberites and budget deficits from most the rest of the Left now that Chimpy McHitlerburton is retired.”
So much for you imagination … or your knowledge. Even Keith Olbermann slammed Obama on this.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
reg: Also, you might learn to spell…(Occam!)
I’m sorry, you show such ignorance in trying to correct me, that I can’t consider any of your other accusations.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
That’s not the spelling normally used, but who really gives a shit…the only point that matters is that you’re lying scum.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
If I’m lying scum, then you really better worry about the President who has a hard time keeping his promises and sticking with his stories. Do you really, really believe the White House story that Obama was not bowing to the Saudi king? If he’ll lie about little things, he’ll lie about the big ones. http://obamalies.net/
April 8th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
“Also, you might learn to spell…(Occam!)”
I skipped over posts either from Woody or mentioning him, but you forced me to go back and look. “Ockham’s Razor”, from its author William of Ockham, is not a misspelling; see, for example, http://www.amazon.com/s/?keywords=ockham%27s+razor
(Of course, this is not an endorsement of Woody’s special safety razor that only cuts toward the left.)
April 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Wonder what went on behind closed doors.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
It looked like Obama was trying to give the king a blow job.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I am more than comfortabe being corrected. I didn’t know there were two accepted spellings. The difference between me and Woody is that when I’m wrong I’m not such an absurd, cowardly little creep that I can’t admit error. I also didn’t make that error because I’m a perverted, lying scumbag who doesn’t give a shit about the truth – which is the source of 90% of his deliberate and twisted disinformation.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
There’s a lot more that you don’t know and won’t admit.
What do you think of the title of Marc’s post: “Obama Admin: A Cowardly Blackout on the Dark Side?” Does that make Marc a racist?
Do you have any reasonable point on the post’s topic?
April 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Well, playing offense is always better for the offensive, and we can look forward to endless posts from the Woodmeister. The price of Victory.
I would again direct your attention to the bizarre yet predictable recent comments from Coop’s buddy Hitchens, no investigation led by Democrats would be fair, that would be just too POLITICAL. Yet all the celebrated lush is repeating is SOP, the
special rules republicans get to play by, as they waterboard, pardon their crooks, and Impeach the opposing party for their private lives. During a great deal of this Marc Cooper is cheering the system on; and that, Reg old bean, is why you get to read Woody while I’ve been kicked off twice.
And why your seconding of some of the nastier baiting of Mrs.
Clinton last year should make you a little ashamed.