Well, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has hit another one out of the park today with a look at the Obama "justice" department. Great stuff, I'll not poach tidbits, and I'd encourage everyone to read it in its entirety.
http://www.salon.com/...
The highlights.
A system rigged to produce indefinite detentions. If we have enough evidence to convict, you get a trial. Less evidence, you get a military commission. No evidence, you get preventative detention.
If you somehow get acquitted at trial, Obama's DOJ now asserts the ability to lock you up anyway: post-acquittal detention. No joke.
And the cherry. The Obama DOJ is also alleged to be allowing evidence of torture to be destroyed.
Congratulations Mr. President, we now have bi-partisan agreement on a politicized DOJ that illegally detains, puts on show trials, condones illegal activity, and illegally destroys evidence (or at least condones it). Bi-partisan disdain for civil and human rights and the rule of law.
I feel like I want to throw up. I can hardly describe the despair I feel knowing that the tree of liberty's roots have established such a shallow and precarious purchase in my country, and in my party.
When I think of all the hub-bub about Obama, flag pins, and the pledge of allegiance, this makes me sick. The last line of that pledge reads "with liberty and justice for all." The furor over not saying the words was loud. The Dems caved in and made of show of saying them. Which was fine. Both sides have now revealed that they have no intention of actually going about the business of preserving liberty or providing justice for those wronged. And the silence is deafening for the most part on both sides.
For me, I am nearly done with him. Is he better than Bush? Of course. But the real questions we as progressives need to ask are not just is Obama and the Dems better than Bush and the GOP, but are they good enough at all? It's not just a question of relative quality, but absolute quality as well.
Will we havae a government that we can be proud of? One that upholds the law and constitution? That is reasonably transparent? That keeps its word? That fights for the American people and not Wall Street banks and large corporations? One that will do enough to halt global warming? One that really provides liberty and justice for all?
Sadly, shockingly, the answer so far is a resounding no on many fronts. And if the answer is no, then Obama (and some Democrats) will not have, nor do they deserve, your support or mine.
To review.
Obama maintains that detainees held at locations other than Gitmo have no rights whatsoever to challenge their detention. We can hold them forever at Bagram, Afghanistan. He said he was going to close Gitmo, but he just moved it to Afghanistan. And it isn't even closed yet. Closing Gitmo is just a political stunt. The practice of locking people up and throwing away the key continues.
Obama broke his word on the FISA vote.
He has been an utter failure on transparency issues, and demonstrates his further ease at breaking his word in the process.
He broke his word on releasing the torture photos. He broke his word again (so far) on releasing the CIA Torture report. And he even blocks access to White House visitor logs just like Dick Cheney did.
His DOJ has made broader, more outrageous assertions of sovereign immunity and state secrets to foil lawsuits than Bush did. Yes, he said he was going to revisit the issue, but has he? And how is it that they didn't have time to narrow the claim, but did have time to broaden it? Makes no sense at all.
And of course, there is the failure to investigate or prosecute obvious criminal actions by the prior administration. Gen. Taguba concluded that war crimes had been committed. And according to some, failing to investigate and/or prosecute under these circumstances is a violation of the law.
And now, as if possible passive illegality at the DOJ wasn't enough, Greenwald's latest piece suggests that we are now destroying evidence of abuse against British citizens.
It is now clear to me that if we really want a nation we can be proud of, it will have to be achieved despite Obama in many instances. Certainly in the area of civil rights, human rights, transparency of government, and having a functional DOJ.
Heck, I haven't even mentioned the colossal failure to repeal DADT as he promised. Despite the obvious national security benefits (we need everyone we can get, especially translators and the fact that allowing gays to serve openly has strong public support, even among conservatives. For the record, 69% overall, and 58% of conservatives support it. Data here.
Plus, anyone who argues against repealing DADT is implicitly calling our troops bigots. Their argument essentially boils down to: our troops are so bigoted that if gays were allowed to serve openly, the military couldn't function. Sorry, I think more of our troops than that. And frankly, I don't understand why we need to suffer those who insult the integrity of our troops (even implicitly). My strong suspicion is that the prejudice is far more deeply ingrained in the generals making the argument, not the rank and file.
One last thought. It occurs to me that those who violate the law, torture, listen to our phone calls, read our e-mails, deny justice to the abused, and lock people up and throw away the key seem to portray themselves as tough. Tough on national security. We'll do anything to protect the county. This portrayal of being "strong" on national security is repeated all the time in the media. Of course, if you oppose such measures, you are then "weak" on national security.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Torture advocates and enablers aren't strong, or brave, or tough. They are scared. They are weak. They are cowards. They lack the confidence of their convictions. They believe in liberty, freedom and the rule of law, but don't practice it. At best they don't believe that America can survive if it sticks to its principles. At worst they are hypocrites who don't really believe in the rule of law, human rights, and liberty in the first place.
Now, I don't think Obama falls into the latter category, but the first category is a possibility, even though he used the same argument against the GOP on the campaign trail (we can win the war on terror and be true to our convictions).
Obama's explanation's thus far simply doesn't hold water. He doesn't want to lose GOP support for his agenda by looking back. This argument is so weak as not to be credible. First, it would apply only to the Bush era investigation's issue, and to none of the others (DADT, release of info, transparency, etc). Second, he doesn't have any GOP support anyway. Third, that's a boneheaded reason for not holding people accountable for criminal wrongdoing. Fourth, it treats the bedrocks of our society as if it is something to be prioritized, rather than something that is non-negotiable. In essence, his argument IS the first category above: civil rights and the rule of law are important, but we've got more important things to do right now. I couldn't disagree more vehemently.
There are two other explanations I can think of. One, is that it is a sort of political cowardice. They think enough of the population would freak if they stood up for what we believe in, so they let it go and focus on "other priorities." As if the rule of law, liberty, and justice are some sort of bill we need to get through Congress rather than foundation upon which this nation, and our moral authority rests. My God, after 230 years, you'd think we could get bi-partisan, or even Democratic support for that notion. Apparently not.
In my opinion, if we sacrifice our liberty and the rule of law in the name of defending our nation, then we have lost that part of our nation that is most worthy of defending. We have lost the best part of America. What is left? Corporate profits and military might?
That the second explanation is that Obama is just a wimp who doesn't dare go up against the military or intelligence apparatus. It is the only explanation that jibes with the DADT wimp out. Memo to Obama: Truman ordered the military to integrate blacks, you can and should do the same thing. You are in charge of them, not the other way around. This isn't Central America.
In either case, it isn't impressive leadership, it doesn't bode well for our nation's future, and it shows we as progressives have a lot more work to do on many fronts.
Isn't it about time for a stand on this stuff?
Peace.