Washington Post: "Is Obama Betraying the Left?"
In Today's Washington Post there is a debate thread about the torture photos and the military commissions, entitled "Is Obama Betraying the Left?"
In my opinion, the question shouldn't be, "is Obama betraying the left?", it should be, "is Obama betraying himself?" and if the answer is "no", than the question should be, "who is Obama?".
Advertisement
He's not betraying anyone, he's being pragmatic.
Read Paul Begala's masterpiece on pragmatism versus values, for context.
May 16, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm increasingly nostalgic for the Nixon administration.
May 16, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The promise to end military commissions and the promise of transparency in the torture question were also made in a spirit of "pragmatism"... to win the election.
May 16, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I remember something about getting out of Iraq.
May 16, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to read it. How about a link?
May 16, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Begala is a partisan hack moron. Who listens to him?
May 17, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait till you see the health "reform" bill....
Let's see where are we now on that. Universal? No. Single-payer? You can be arrested for advocating that. Public option? To be dropped to make blue dogs and big contributors happy. Taxes on the wealthy? You must be crazy. Taxes on the mail clerk's health benefits? Retail clerk coerced into buying a policy he can't afford? Now we're talking!!
If you loved the big bank bailout, you're going to adore the big insurance, big pharma bailout.
Change? Oh, you just lost your employer paid benefits? Well, that's change isn't it? Now, I have an insurance policy I'd like to sell you and it will earn me a mighty nice commission...
May 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will "centrism" turn out to be ¡validating the policies of George W. Bush?
May 16, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think about McCain as president, and I'm strangely content with things as they stand.
May 16, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
With McCain, I thinks we'd have much the same result on the torture photos and the military commissions, the difference is that you wouldn't be defending McCain. This puts you in the position of defending the military commissions and the cover up of torture. Which is probably the result that the establishment wanted when they anointed Obama.
May 16, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. Those of us who voted for Obama are indeed in that position, like it or not.
Could you elaborate on the part about that being what the establishment wanted? I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I'd like to know.
May 16, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without making it sound like some mysterious, dark conspiracy, it simply goes like this. George W. Bush managed to totally trash brand USA and that was very bad for business internationally and nationally Bush got people questioning too many things.
The USA had to be repackaged and re-branded.
The formula that defines this repackaging is called "Lampedusian" after Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, an Italian author, who wrote "The Leopard", which Luccino Visconti filmed starring Burt Lancaster as the Sicilian prince, who states the formula, “Everything has to change so that nothing changes.”
An example of how effective this might be, it would be fun to see Noam Chomsky's sales figures under Bush and his sales figures under Obama.
May 16, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I really wish you weren't right about this, but, you know, there it is.
May 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so true. Plus Bush spent too much time catering to the fundies and didn't keep his eye on the economy. The establishment adores the bank bailout and the bipartisan charade which enables every compromise to eliminate anything from any bill that advantages the middleclass and disadvantages the ruling class.
May 16, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am defending Obama as maneuvering between needed factions in Washington. But McCain would not be effectively repairing diplomatic relations, would not be addressing economic concerns, would not be likely to improve health care, and would not be likely to improve energy issues.McCain would have been likely to install cabinet secretaries and advisers of the political wing I despise, that got us into lots of trouble.
There is more than one reason to vote for a candidate. Obama made cautious, narrow promises regarding our prisoner policies, and investigation of abuses. That properly should come from a wider base, like Congress. Since roughly half the country is content with our prisoner policies, more aggressive alteration of them is dicey.
May 16, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you are assuming that Obama will come through on those things you surmise you are going to get from him. You can't count on any health care reform, you have with minor changes in Bush's war and military strategy and budgets, you have a modified Bush bank bailout going on that is neither working nor for the benefit of the taxpayers and common folk, and lots lots more that wouldn't be a whole lot different if McCain were in (God forbid). And that isn't even addressing Obama's wholesale adoption of the Bush policies on secrecy and flat out authoritarian claims on executive power. I am not saying they are the same, but there is an awful lot that Obama is continuing that is not only pernicious and favored by the Republican Party, but but also not what he promsed he was all about, thus I think David's question in this post is a good and valid one.
May 16, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We were talking the other day about Eisenhower, he had been the commander of allied forces in Europe and had managed the Normandy invasion and had had the lives of thousands of American soldiers under his care. Therefore it was possible for him to be very vague in his statements. Ike could talk his famous double talk and nobody worried about it very much because people had been trusting him literally with their lives and the lives of their sons for such a long time.
In the case of Obama we only have the quality of his words to go on. If he devalues his words, he devalues himself. This is a very slippery slope.
May 16, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This country has been on a "slippery slope" for at least 8 years and maybe 25. Where were the critics then, where was the Washington Post?
Obama took the advice of Generals on the photo release, and has turned over the closing of Gitmo to AG Holder. Neither the torture photo's nor the prisoners in Cuba were the doing of the Obama administration. The torture has stopped and the prison will be closed.
Eisenhower was said to be a "conscious, dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy" by Robert Welch, the influential conservative founder of the John Birch Society. link He was not trusted by many ideological conservatives regardless of his history as Supreme Allied Commander.
Anyone who thinks McCain would be little different than Obama would be in a similar class of eccentric ideologues, who apparently do not recognize the difficulties of managing this country and its government.
May 16, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all you said, but as to releasing the photos, if the crimes they depict are treated as crimes and prosecuted:
1. The photos will lose their potency because USA will be known not to tolerate these crimes (the low-level prosecutions from before didn't come close to showing that),
2. The message will be clear to future administrations that they can't count on "looking forward," to get away with crimes.
3. Those who did this will not be free to be a part of future administrations (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others who got away with Iran-Contra) to repeat their crimes.
4. Our country will have done the right thing, and that is the start of heading in the right direction. We need to collectively take a shower, and the way to do that is investigate and prosecute where crimes were committed, no matter how high up it goes. It should have already been done via impeachment, but it's too late for that except in Bybee's case.
May 17, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
DITTO
May 16, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dickay old boy, your DITTO has been moving around a lot lately: ditto what exactly?
May 16, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh hell David. I do not ditto THAT MUCH. HA!! Tom Wright makes good points.
I do not believe that we could have a better leader of the Free World than we do now.
536 people represent this country. They come from all localities with different perspectives, different histories, different aims. Coalitions must be formed.
The one man 'in charge' of the executive branch must deal with many different powerful agencies while reaching accomodations with congress.
What do I know. I am the lowliest of the low.
But most often in my experience, Tom Wright is on the right side, so to speak. Ha!!!
May 16, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free World? What's that? Where is that?
May 16, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as they don't include anyone left of center in the coalition. You've all surrendered to the premise that the only choices are different flavors of conservative from bland and boring to lunatic fringe with Obama just a more trendy taste.
May 16, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe that we could have a better leader of the Free World than we do now.
This sentiment actually DOES reflect a belief using my definition. As you may know, I define a "belief" as an opinion that not only lacks substantiation in fact, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence.
May 16, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
...tankard-and the evidence is...?
May 16, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in the newspaper, CNN, this blog...but only to those who have their eyes open.
May 17, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you believe in Magic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRfSbtCFKQ4
May 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a different kind of believing. At my age, I DO believe in pretty girls and mirabile dictu! they sometimes believe in me.
Thanks Jan.
May 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
to frame issues like whether or not to prosecute those who committed torture as a betrayal of the left demotes the seriousness of it--it takes the matter of upholding the rule of law and reduces it to, or disguises it as, a political debate with two fair and equitable points of view.
The conviction with which government upholds the rule of law is not supposed to have nuances that vary between parties.
When Obama took the oath, he made a promise to the nation, not just the left.
It's valid to talk about whether he'll keep his promises to the nation, but the more the Washington Post, or any other news organization, pushes the centuries-old "left right" framing, on a country whose present emergencies necessitate, even cry out for a law abiding democracy, the less hope we have of returning to one.
May 16, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this is not really a question of "left and right" as there are conservatives that are firm defenders of habeas corpus, due process and against torture too. And there are people of the left who would bend all of that. The real question is the one I pose: who is Barack Obama really?
This is a point I've been harping on for months, as Obama had never been a governor or a mayor etc. we had very few actions of his to judge him by. Aside from the campaign itself we have never seen him under fire till now and a campaign is about giving people an idea about what you would do if elected. Governing is doing it, not just talking about it. In Obama's case we had no administrative record and very little voting record to base our judgment on.
So, we basically had only his words by which to judge him, and they were very fine words and he was elected on the basis of those words.
If the words finally mean little or mean nothing then where are we? Where are we going? Who is taking us there and what is this all about?
May 16, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are conservatives that are firm defenders of habeas corpus, due process and against torture too.
Name three. I can think of one.
May 16, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, how about Andrew Bacevich to start out with.
You have to be clear that a conservative is not a fascist or a neocon. Habeas corpus dates back many hundred years... any true conservative in the Anglo-Saxon traditions must think it holy.
May 16, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Just two more.
May 16, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We agree mostly, David. But to say we had very few actions of his to judge him by is really misleading--as a Senator, Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
Strongest ethics reform bill out of Congress, nuclear non proliferation act with Lugar, on record as being against the Iraq war--we don't need to re-adjudicate this point, do we?
Let's at least agree that while he was not a governor, he did in fact have an impressive record, (as it has been substantiated by so many sources, it would be ridiculous not to) --let's not replay the "all we had to judge him by were his words" theme.
If we can agree on that, then we can have an honest discussion about whether or not he will live up to his campaign promises.
May 16, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three years in the Senate is pretty thin to be handed the atomic bomb, but there have been other presidents with thin resumes that did ok. I think people were mostly impressed by his personality and his rhetoric, not his record. I emphasize that he was asking to be judged on his words and that if they prove empty in matters of principal, things that affect the rule of law, then we are out on thin ice.
Finally I think the Obama years are going to be a political education for the young people that are someday going to change America, as, even by now, it is obvious that Obama wont.
May 16, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Cheney spent 40 years in Federal government--now he deserves 40 years in the Federal Penitentiary.
John McCain has spent half his life in public service--there, he's plenty experienced, would you feel more comfortable with him as President right now?
How would you assess John McCain's first 100 days?
May 16, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
(...by now, it is obvious that Obama won't (change America.)
This is your judgment based on the first one hundred days of what will likely be eight years of leadership.
You're rendering final judgment after only being shown 3% of the sum.
May 16, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
Strongest ethics reform bill out of Congress, nuclear non proliferation act with Lugar, on record as being against the Iraq war--we don't need to re-adjudicate this point, do we?
--------------------------------------------------
Only if you think you've proved something with that piece of propaganda you linked. Like so many of these bs blogs written over at kos, many of which compared Obama's senate record to Clinton's this one lumps his sponsored and co-sponsored bills together.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html
"Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often "co-sponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources – let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place." Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is "a better metric of a senator's agenda, efforts and interests."
May 17, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post David!
May 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accusing Pres. Obama of betraying the left is like accusing him of betraying the University of Nebraska Table Tennis Team. One cannot "betray" a group with whom one has never had any association.
Mr. Obama has never attempted to sell himself as a liberal, although he was happy to let the more gullible among us think he might be slightly to the left of Pres. Reagan. Shame on any who fell for that bit of thespianism.
The wiser among us knew we were getting a less virulent, more capable advocate of, at best, centrist sympathies when we voted for him.
May 16, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't accuse him of "betraying the left", I accuse him of saying he would do one thing and then doing another on questions that hit at the very essence of what the Republic stands for. Since until taking office Obama was basically what he said he was and not what anybody had seen him do, this distance between fine words and not so fine actions is significant.
May 16, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, me again David, I understand your larger point, not sure if I agree but I'm thinking about it.
A little OT but I wonder what you think. I'm trying to help peel away this "left right conservative liberal" packaging the msm and political marketers always box our debates in. This is socialist, that's socialist, anti-Americans, pro-Americans, democratic socialists, Banana Republicans, this could go on forever, but that would be like never graduating from the sixth grade. DC is teeming with too much hypocrisy for these labels to mean anything definitive at all.
I don't even know if the terms Republican or Democrat mean anything anymore, do you?
Rhetoric has so invaded our debates we don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
Let's not call pollution climate change. Let's call it pollution. I can see and touch and smell pollution. It's in the oceans, the forests, the air, it's everywhere.
Let's not give those who don't care about pollution an esoteric way to sidestep the argument by claiming climate trends have always varied on this planet, global cooling, global warming, hey the temperature's pretty nice today, there's nothing to worry about.
yeah well the temperature's nice but my baby is choking on the sulfur dioxide soot billowing out of your coal plant right now, would you mind?
Honestly, if you tear off the "packaging" from most diatribes these days, we might actually start communicating.
(I know, I went off on a rant, I'll quiet down now.)
May 16, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the windmill I have been titling at this last year.
May 16, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
good to hear it Jason. (I don't have all your posts in memory, but I'm glad to hear you feel the same way.)
May 16, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect it will remain the central challenge to building the sustainable world most of us envision in way or another.
May 16, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"this "left right conservative liberal" packaging"
Maybe part of the problem in "peeling" is that you conceive of it as an exoskeleton when it's an endoskeleton.
Oddly, radical valid points are literally geometric points which define a multi-dimensional polygon-like construction casually called "a circle". Each valid point on the circumference defines a valid diameter with an opposing point, if you know where the center of the circle is exactly. Radicals having valid points can claim a small neighborhood of the circumference, but they are generally no better than are the blind wise men holding different parts of the elephant and trying to shout each other down about the "true nature" of the invisible beast.
Packaging is generally outside the box in which the present comes. So peeling it away makes sense when trying to expose the essence of the present. Try escaping from that "exo" metaphor and see if my circular story above reflects a deeper reality which is actually "on the surface".
May 16, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm not as smart as you are regarding the geometry, so go easy on me:) But you do mention the term "circle", and we can dance around the circle, claiming to occupy certain radical points one day, then others the next; there's no fixed point one occupies. Yet my radical point is defined as precisely opposite relative to your radical point, and well it sure sounds like one big circle jerk to me-just an exchanging musical chairs version of a circle jerk.
And political debate sure doesn't seem multi-dimensional. Multi-hypocritical maybe, but essentially linear.
Endo and exo, you just had to bring those guys into this, didn't you, Eds?
I'll bite. So let's say my exo layer says I'm a fiscal conservative, but the endo in me starts spending like a drunken sailor. How can I be true to anyone else if I'm not being true to myself?
This isn't changing with the times. It's switching when it's politically convenient.
So now my endo is morally bankrupt, and my exo is just false advertising.
Let's stop going in circles and evolve.
May 16, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm not as smart as you are regarding the geometry, so go easy on me:) But you do mention the term "circle", and we can dance around the circle, claiming to occupy certain radical points one day, then others the next; there's no fixed point one occupies. Yet my radical point is defined as precisely opposite relative to your radical point, and well it sure sounds like one big circle jerk to me-just an exchanging musical chairs version of a circle jerk.
And political debate sure doesn't seem multi-dimensional. Multi-hypocritical maybe, but essentially linear.
Endo and exo, you just had to bring those guys into this, didn't you, Eds?
I'll bite. So let's say my exo layer says I'm a fiscal conservative, but the endo in me starts spending like a drunken sailor. How can I be true to anyone else if I'm not being true to myself?
This isn't changing with the times. It's switching when it's politically convenient.
So now my endo is morally bankrupt, and my exo is just false advertising.
Let's stop going in circles and evolve.
May 16, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, running around in circles seldom gets one anywhere but tired! Spirals are a different situation...
I don't see how to read your dual reply as serious so I'll leave my suggestion as given.
May 17, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's why I go ranting nuts when I hear this talk of "healthcare reform". It's meaningless unless you know what the outcome is for real people. Likewise, you can talk all you like about Obama's groovy diplomacy but if we're still bombing little children what difference does that make.
I was watching Juan Cole last night on Moyers decontruct the spin verging on lies coming out of the administration on the current situation in Pakistan and Afghaninistan and I say, this is different from the Bush administration?
May 16, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
i know, it's dizzying at times. Just because you add the term "reform" to the end of a concept doesn't mean you've reformed the concept. You've just lengthened the rhetoric.
When a cancer patient gets a bill for $300,000, lengthier rhetoric won't pay for it.
May 16, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even know if the terms Republican or Democrat mean anything anymore, do you?
I do. Both mean, "conservative, bought and paid for by big money."
May 16, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pollution and climate change are two completely different things, although there is some overlap. So yeah, let's not.
May 17, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting old is a bitch, isn't it? One forgets even one's own headline.
May 16, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You could have fooled me, but maybe I would believe you if the title of this blog had perhaps been:
May 17, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
A helluva lot of people at Moveon.org felt he was a liberal, especially when he told them he was. Those folks delivered a key liberal endorsement and tons and tons of money to him when he needed it most. Once he got their endorsement it was, "see ya suckers!"
May 17, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If MoveOn considered him a liberal, they ARE suckers. Even a mentally and politically impaired amateur such as myself knew that candidate Obama's philosopy is closer to Reagan than FDR.
May 17, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're correct. They were suckers.
But I also think Obama clearly and deliberately misrepresented himself on the issues they believed were key issues such as the restoration of the rule of law, transparency, and open government, protection of the people from illegal domestic spying and in particular... ending the war which he is not even attempting. He is slightly de-escalating the illegal occupation of Iraq and dramtically escalating the Afghanistan war. He used his "opposition" to the invasion as the bait, winked and nodded about the rest of it and the huge majority of Moveon members bought it hook, line and sinker.
Looking back I think he was also helped significantly by the fact that many either disliked Hillary as a candidate for President for whatever reason, thought she could not win, or disliked the Clinton/Bush "dynasty" thing so supported Obama.
But it was very clear that he and his people were signaling to the Moveon members that was "on their side." It became clear he was being less than honest when he did his FISA flip flop after specfically promising the Moveon membership he would filibuster any such move and vote against it if it came to the floor. In that particular flip flop incident he specifically ruled out voting for FISA telecom immunity for the very weak reasons he cited for doing so.
May 17, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with anything you said, nor do I even disagree with the fundamental dishonesty of his implications. Personally, I thought that he would turn out to be a talented president and good for the country in many ways, but I was sure he would not a civil libertarian or a real humanitarian.
It turns out I was too, too right.
Still, I think anyone who watched what he did rather than listened to what he said would have and should have known it would come to this. His politics are not much to the left of, say, Arlen Specter or Bob Casey. But what does one expect from a religious zealot?
May 17, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, but in order for him to get where he is, he had to convince a lot people he was something else and they still think he is. His people did a lot of winking and nodding and misleading during the campaign as you recall, implying he would be more liberal upon election. Lots of people believed that malarky. Lots of people believed his unequivocal and repeated assurances that he would not do precisely what he is doing on secrecy, the wars, excessive executive authority and so on. So, I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't just that people are naive or stupid or didn't notice. I also think that he, not unlike many politicians, consciously misled people about who and what he was and what he would do as President.
May 17, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few disconnected observations:
(1)I go back 11 Presidents, and I'm not sure I've seen a genuine 'conviction' President in the bunch. Most of them have some loose orientation to the ideological spectrum that they hope will sort of guide them, but one really never knows. In my opinion, some of the best and most effective of that group were also among the most flexible in their ideological approach. If you're driving a square peg, it's a bit easier if you can find a square hole to drive it into.
(2)I've said before and I'll say again that the 'torture' issue is best handled as a pure LEGAL matter (ditto to several people in here who have made that same point). Politically speaking, I think we risk getting into trouble when we give the impression we are more concerned about the welfare of a few criminal terrorists than we are the welfare of the law-abiding public. (I know, I know: That's classic inflamatory demagoguery, but it's potentially effective, and you have to waste a lot of time arguing about it). Likewise, when you open the door to overtly moral, deeply self-righteous arguments outside the bounds of mundane law, you open the same door to various essentially irrelevant diversions: Was Pelosi 'in' on it? Did it 'work'? Would you do it if you had 30 minutes to find a bomb? None of these has anything to do with what was or was not LEGAL, but they all conspire to keep us from facing that esential question in a nation of laws, which most principled people of ANY political stripe would agree that we are.
May 16, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good One Wilson. I think you are right on the case. The USA, if not a nation of laws, is merely a lot of fat people out shopping.
May 16, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well snarked.
May 16, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture photos and military commissions.
What did Obama actually say in promise, and what is he actually doing now? Is the result a paradox or by contrast a deep contradiction?
I believe Obama is restructuring the commissions. Is this effective nuance or backtracking? Well, what are his alternatives?
I was concerned about the transparancy factor, but I don't get how telling us that there are more pics is not transpanent enough. Transparency doesn't mean we sniff every bit of laundry to see how dirty we subjectively think it is. It means the Administration being open about what it's doing, and not distorting what it is doing to the extent that distortion is reasonably avoidable.
I have to work on the assumption that there is a class of people who think they should be in the White House while sitting in their armchairs. By all means, keep the WH honest. But not as the saying goes "at any cost".
I do think Obama did not make a good public statement on this. It seemed forumulaic and not sincere. Is he being corrupted too quickly? I can only hope not.
May 16, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but he's not restructuring anything.
1. He campaigned against the commissions and for using civilian courts. He voted against commissions.
2. He's window-dressing and spinning the reforms because all of them are either untrue or trivial. He's claiming reform of irrelevant procedural elements that the tribunal alredy has full power over.
3. The only thing of any substance he's doing is allowing the detainees to retain a private lawyer (in addition to a taxpayer-funded one).
This is just spin spin spin and nothing but spin.
He simply calculated that politically he's better off flip-flopping than risk the long-term can of worms that civilian courts would mean.
May 16, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did vote for tribunals with additional rights, rights that are now included. It is unlikely any president will ever suspend 'military tribunals' as they have been around for at least 150+ years. the reforms below are not 'spin'.
Obama voted for one version of the tribunal law that gave detainees additional rights, but then voted against the more limited 2006 legislation that ultimately became law......
However, the changes Obama ordered are consistent with his past criticism of the Bush system. link
They include:
_Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees.
_A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.
_Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel.
_Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices.
link
May 16, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know.
Please show me how these restrictions are different from what has already been in place, with the exceptions of the "leeway" in choosing a private lawyer.
May 16, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has not changed his opinion on the tribunals as the MSM misleadingly pretends, and he has not eliminated them as some ideologues on the left would like him to do. AG Eric Holder is probably the one in the lead on cleaning up this mess, under rules changes Obama states below.
"First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial," he said. "Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts." link
Basically Lalo if (1) an inmate was tortured until he said he was a terrorist the testimony will not be admissible, (2) if someone testifies he heard someone else say an inmate was a terrorist it would presumed not true unless proven by other means by the prosecution, (3)inmates would have some legal protection if they decline to incriminate themselves by not answering a question.
Contrary to what the Washington Post would lead one to believe, Obama has not changed his position on military commissions:
link
May 17, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your replies to lalo.
May 17, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can read the spin statements too.
But the information that was obtained from tortre was already inadmissible under Bush!!! It had been already dismissed in the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani. Obama is making a completely absurd statement about starting something that already exists and HAS BEEN PRACTICED.
His point about hearsay and burden of proof is TRIVIAL. The military tribunal already has (a) full power to dis-admit unlreliable evidence and (b) there is an appeal process that can specifically reverse a decision based on unreliable evidence. The core argument about hearsay is that it is unreliable evidence!!!
And by the way, Candidate Obama DID campaign explicitly on the promise of trying terrorists in the civilian courts.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/mccain-camp-pou.html
You can defend his window-dressing all you want, but it's still window-dressing.
May 17, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect the people holding Obama to a standard, but not so much those who are happy to complain about him.
For those in the first camp, I repeat my point about needing to get agreement from rather more than a bare majority of Americans if we are going to indict the other half for war crimes. So torture questions will be slow and difficult to resolve.
We lack a dominating majority in the Senate; where is the value in fighting the right to a standstill? We lack financial maneuvering room, too. We need to win support for a new Supreme Court justice, and some kind of health care improvement. I sure could use the last, but I have lots more reason to hope for improvement with the Obama than with his opponent.
May 16, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"some kind of health care improvement"
Well, at least you are in touch with reality. He's not exactly FDR there is he. I guess we don't have to worry about room on Mt. Rushmore.
May 16, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDR had 15 years, he didn't solve everything in 15 months.
Seaton, if you want to know 'who' Obama is on tribunals, you might look at the man's record, some links are above.
You remind me of that character on Peanuts who always has the cloud over his head, cheer up, we are lucky a good man like Obama in office to try to clean up the problems this country got itself over recent years.
May 17, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that FDR flip flopped on all the conservative notions he originally campaigned on, gave us liberal and progressive policies and government and Obama appears to be the opposite of that. Not a good trend.
May 17, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you move forward to take part in a fight, make sure you can end it. (otherwise what is the point?)
If we do not have broad support, what will be the outcome; a failed first try where there is little chance of getting a second. All battles should be won before they are fought; with broad support to investigate and prosecute, Obama will appear to have no choice but to submit to the Vox Populi. Same with the investigating committee, or other judicious apparatus. I don't care what the books say. People do what is in their interest, not always what is proper.
If there appears there is not significant popular support, no one is going to stick their neck out there, only to watch it die with their name attached. Monuments and History Books are full of winners, not losers. These are, after all, pencil necked geeks, not arthurian knights.
May 17, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
With McCain in charge, there would be no doubt that we would join the Israelis AND do the heavy lifting in attacking Iran. Lebanon and Syria would also be on the menu. (McCain told a Lebanese/American ally that he would remove Hezbollah from Lebanon. Either he is such an ignoramus that he thinks the Hezzies and Al_qaeda are basically the same thing only different or isn't bothered by the notion of genocide.)
With Obama, the situation vis a vis active, overt American participation in a war on Iran is less assured. For the time being.
Hillary would be somewhere in between Obama and McCain when it comes to war in the ME. I am not a fan of this administration's ME FP, but have no question about preferring the current reality to the alternatives.
Bottom line for me is another war or two or three.
If Obama gets US involved..... even by pretending to turn blind eyes....the worm will have turned.
May 16, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My view is that we tend to reduce everything down to simple shapes that fit into the holes we simply understand.
I can see that we consider that we dispise censorship, and love justice. I can see that releasing the photos would let chips fall, ass it should be. I sympathize with those who long for an end to Gitmo and the unamerican trials it has symbolized to the world.
But these things do not tempt me to grow angry, or disappointed in our shining prince. I am not in the habit of reducing complex negotiations (as we are with our government) to either success or failure in the first hours or first compromises drafted. To reduce Obama down to betraying or staying true is like reducing the Bible down to the first three chapters. (Jesus isn't even mentioned until more thn halfway through.)
If I am George W. Bush, it is easier for me to remember the term "Constitution" and throw that word around alot, but harder and displeasing to memorize the preamble and sections thereafter, and harder still to apply them to real-life current events, (not that he would ever.) But hopefully the point is grasped: To say Obama is either betraying or staying true to the left--measured by his most recent decisions on torture, prosecutions, and photos--is to me dismissive and insufficient.
I know that pleasing one side, even the side that "got you there" is never assured, nor realistic in any circumstance demonstrated. If life were that simple, we would all treat each other much better, because we would always receive our treats.
I believe Obama has to, just by nature of his office, betray at least some of his own personal views, let go at least some promises made, and even adapt a measure of his message for the sake of political expediency. He for instance may oppose a few items in a bill, yet knowingly still support the overwhelming majority of items in it and thus the bill. Did he betray himself or others? He may want to leave Iraq immediately, yet be "outside of the box" enough to comprehend and appreciate the consequences inherent in that move. That is why he we wanted him; his judgements in relation to his execution.
We really can never know what considerations he is struggling with, weighing in his own mind, and what grander ideas he keeps in the hand behind his back. Nor should I judge him as betraying the left by making a few decisions I may take issue with from my obscure POV.
The generous yet wise reaction I am left with is this; give him time, let it flow, wait and see before I prejudge. Often being to close to a thing impairs our vision.
Separate emotion, personal passion and involvement, and then take a look, and what you think you see isn't always exactly what it turns out to be. Just my opinion--don't reduce Obama to a yay or nay. In time, we can be sure of our verdict. It is still too early in the investigation, and we are still collecting evidence.
May 17, 2009 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This personification of issues saddens me.
I suppose we all have agendas, but it seems that for an awful lot of people on both (or all) "sides" -- including you, Mr. Seaton -- are thinking of and discussing these issues not in themselves but somehow merely as facets of a person. I would like to be able to say that this is a manifestation of some complex psychological framework, but it really is not. Aside from the truly lost cases who seem convinced that Obama is secretly a Republican, although they themselves have no idea what being truly left means -- as meaningless as the definitions are in the face of the reality of our little Hilbert space graph -- I think a healthy dose of active self-control and -reflection might substantially improve the quality of analysis here.
And the thing is that while holding politicians accountable for their promises, actions and abuses is laudable and necessary, it seems to me that our collective wrongheadedness in such personifications of issues is precisely the reason why such vigilance of politicians is needed to begin with. Sometimes I just lose faith in humanity: that is you guys and gals.
Torture photos and military commissions are important topics. Obama is not. And the Washington Post sure as hell is not.
May 17, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink