by Damozel | Those who have been following the Obama administration's policies regarding Gitmo can't possibly feel surprised by this article in WaPo, though certain progressives who didn't listen closely enough to Obama during the primaries may be feeling severely disappointed. Those of us who realized all along that the key word in many of Obama's most resounding statements is, and always has been, "but..." (sometimes unspoken) are perhaps less disillusioned through having had no illusions in the first place.
Glenn Greenwald, always a credit to progressives who put principle before the cult of personality, says:
And it's hard to imagine how he won't get what he wants: Republicans are eager to grant the President this detention authority (Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham have both gushingly praised Obama's proposal) and, as the Bush era proved, there are always more than enough Congressional Democrats to join with the GOP caucus to enact any new system of expanded detention and surveillance powers. Absent serious public opposition (and one recent poll shows overwhelming opposition), it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will wield the power to imprison people indefinitely without charges of any kind....
There is one point in particular I really want to highlight about all of this:
There has now emerged a very clear -- and very disturbing -- pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he's assured that he'll get the outcome he wants. If he can't get what he wants from those processes, he'll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway.
In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. But where those processes impede Obama's will, he'll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway (by contrast, the first-term Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded powers even where Congress was eager to give them to him; the second-term Bush, like Obama, was willing to allow Congress to endorse his radical proposals: hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc.)....
That, for instance, is the precise pattern that's driving his suppression of torture photos. Two federal courts ordered the President to release the photos under the 40-year-old Freedom of Information Act. Not wanting to abide by that decision, the White House (using Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman) tried to pressure Congress to enact new legislation vesting the administration with the power to override FOIA. When House progressives blocked that bill, the White House assured Lieberman and Graham that Obama would simply use an Executive Order to decree the photos "classified" (when they are plainly nothing of the sort) and thus block their release anyway....Obama movingly assured us that some of the Guantanamo detainees will be tried in a real court -- i.e., only those the DOJ is certain ahead of time they can convict. For those about whom there's uncertainty, he's going to create new military commissions to make it easier to obtain convictions, and then try some of the detainees there -- i.e., only those they are certain ahead of time they can convict there.
For the rest -- meaning those about whom Obama can't be certain he'll get the outcome he wants in a judicial proceeding or military commission -- he'll just keep them locked up anyway. In other words, he'll indulge the charade that people he wants to keep in a cage are entitled to some process (a real court or military commissions) only where he knows in advance he will get what he wants; where he doesn't know that, he'll bypass those pretty processes and assert the unilateral right to keep them imprisoned anyway.
A government that will give you a trial before imprisoning you only where it knows ahead of time it will win -- and, where it doesn't know that, will just imprison you without a trial -- isn't a government that believes in due process. It's one that believes in show trials. (Salon; emphasis in original; paragraph breaks inserted for additional emphasis)
Greenwald does caution readers that the articles alleging that he is considering such an executive order are lacking in details that would clarify his specific intentions. But of course, as Greenwald also points out, we have plenty of evidence of his general intentions.
Big Tent Democrat, always an outspoken critic of Obama, says:
As Darren Hutchinson points out at Dissenting Justice, "kinder, gentler indefinite detention is still unlawful."
Susie Madrak writes:
At Newshoggers, Steve Hynd -- who, speaking as a progressive, finds Obama "not very good at all"-- writes:
The report is being described as a "trial balloon". Not to see if people will accept the idea of indefinite detentions - Obama has already said explicitly those will happen - but to see if doing an end-run around Congress to proclaim the right to do so by executive fiat will upset too many very important people....
This move is an abuse of authority and immoral at every level.
Obama has already foreited my (always sceptical) support - over his claims to secrecy, his abysmal Af/Pak non-plan, his denials of habeas rights and his continued torturing of the facts about Iran's nuclear program. My original fears have been proven justified, he's America's Tony Blair....
Digby comments almost wistfully on the superior honesty of the Bush administration:
I suspect they understand that keeping the folks from losing that freedom loving, patriotic illusion of American exceptionalism is an important part of exercising American political power. And they're probably right. Bush and Cheney's biggest mistakes were in being honest about something nobody wants to know..
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
- Sanford: "King David Didn't Resign," So Neither Will Sanford
- Employment Disaster
- TPMtv "The Day in 100 Seconds" for June 26, 2009: Michael Jackson Dies and Other Matters
- Looking Forward
- TPMtv "The Day in 100 Seconds" for June 25, 2009: The Personal Tragedy of Mark Sanford
- The Daily Show: Jon Interviews Reza Aslan on the Situation in Iran
- Supremes Do Care if Officials Strip Search Your Daughter to Look for Prescription Drugs
- It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid Part ######: The Downfall of Mark Sanford
- TPMtv "The Day in 100 Seconds" for June 24, 2009: Mark Sanford's Latin American Love Connection
- Colbert on the GOP Health Care Plan & the Disappearance of Mark Sanford
Comments