Human Rights Groups: Obama's Policies Mimic The Bush Administration
Human Rights Watch--which was represented at the big White House national security meeting yesterday--thinks the Obama speech was a bunch of window dressing.
"President Obama is absolutely right to emphasize that ignoring our values undermines rather than enhances America's security," said HRW executive director Kenneth Roth. "But allowing detention without trial creates a dangerous loophole in our justice system that mimics the Bush administration's abusive approach to fighting terrorism."
That's strikingly similar to language used by the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who, after yesterday's meeting, declared, "I don't see meaningful differences between these detention policies and those erected by President Bush."
HRW is also concerned about the administration's approach to investigating and prosecuting Bush-era torture policies. They want Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to commit to a real inquiry.
"It's not good enough to prosecute a few low-level officials while ruling out a truth commission to investigate senior officials who planned and authorized the policy of abuse and torture," Roth said.
Apparently, though, Obama doesn't want any part of that, and the Attorney General knows it.
Josh
Matt
Eric
I think we'll need a new version of Godwin's Law at this rate. One in which "Bush" is substituted for "Hitler."
May 21, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
History doesn't repeat itself....
....but sometimes it rhymes.
May 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't do the cause of human rights groups any good to equate Obama's policies with Bush. It may be an accurate assessment, but I suspect they're simply going to lose some credibility among non-politics/government obsessed people.
May 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm politics and government obsessed, and they just lost a bunch of cred with me.
May 21, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
May 21, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too. For the first time in my life, these folks make me question if I'm really a liberal because (by their lights) liberals are not supposed to practical and/or deal with reality.
May 21, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a takeover of the really fringe left around here these days. A lot of the more sensible and knowledgeable people seem to have disappeared. I'm beginning to feel like this is not a healthy place for me either. TPM has become a haven for people who are very good at criticism, but have little knowledge or experience in how government (with a big G) actually works. They conflate politics and government. Any ideas where people are talking who actually know what they're talking about?
May 21, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO--A takeover OF the fringe left or BY the fringe left? Do you even know what YOU'RE talking about? What's the "fringe left" anyway? Is it "fringe" to expect the president to live up to his oath of office and defend the constitution? Is the sensible, moderate thing to hold people in custody indefinitely, thousands of miles from their home merely because they're suspected of a crime? I wish you like in finding right-minded people who, like you, have "conflated" their head and their ass.
May 21, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice
May 21, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment 'A lot of the more sensible and knowledgeable people seem to have disappeared.' would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
I assume 'sensible and knowledgeable' means people you agree with, probably other pseudo liberals whose strongest allegiance is to the democrat party and not liberal ideals.
The democratic party is as owned as the republican party. There is no hope with either of them. The 'lesser of two evils' is still evil.
We're in a world of shit people and buying into the same tired old folderol isn't doing any good. The democrat party is controlled by corporate interests and that, despite their hyperbole, is where their true interests lie.
There will be no meaningful change until a 3rd or fourth party gains traction. This maybe a long and arduous fight but there is no hope with the corporate parties.
I doubt that most people- being mindless consumers desiring instant gratification- are in for the long fight but that is what it will take-not blind allegiance to the corporate candidate of the moment.
May 21, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I suggest hemlock? It's rather innocuous, and goes down easily.
May 21, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I doubt that most people- being mindless consumers desiring instant gratification- are in for the long fight but that is what it will take-not blind allegiance to the corporate candidate of the moment."
This is particularly rich coming form someone who's decided that the Obama administration is as hostile to civil liberties as the execrable Bush team after observing them for a whole four months.
May 21, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heretic!
May 21, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
the word is falderal.
May 22, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree, does the ACLU expect the DOJ to instantly free these guys on bail and initiate 240 terrorist trials?
It took years for Bush/Cheney to collect this coterie of captives and they did almost nothing in the way of legal proceedings for seven years.
May 21, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I, for one, expect any administration to follow the rules laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. What is there about that that is so hard to accept? If I get arrested by crooked cops, I don't have to expect to languish in jail indefinitely because the government is afraid of me, or believes I might actually commit a crime if they release me. Instead, my lawyer immediately gets me released on bail, and the charges dropped shortly thereafter.
If you prefer to say these are men captured on the battlefield, you are forced to accept that they are prisoners of war, and the Geneva Conventions required that they be released way back in 2004, if not before.
Doesn't anyone know what the phrase "due process" means, or "the rule of law"? Please, don't be such wusses that you are now afraid of your own shadow.
May 21, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh please
May 21, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?!
Too much to expect?!
May 22, 2009 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
More heresy!
May 21, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a conflict going on and US troops are in the field in Afghanistan confronting forces hostile to both the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama can't just let all the GITMO inmates walk and go back to join the fight. Additionally, many countries they came from don't want them.
Until Obama can wrap up and end the war Bush couldn't end in 7 years, he cannot let these potential hostiles walk. According to the Geneva Conventions it is legal to hold POW's as long as a conflict is ongoing.
May 21, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure AG Holder will release many of the inmates with or without a trial once he gets a handle on each inmates reason for being there.
May 21, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that kateo is, like many republicans, more enamored with the democrat party than the ideals and laws this country was supposedly built upon.
May 21, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I smell a troll here, anyone?
May 21, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think you are a troll. We just have a difference of opinion.
May 21, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free, then, NCSteve and everyone else, to describe all those differences between Bush admin policy and Obama admin policy, with respect to "preventive detention", military commissions, and the rest. I know, throwing around epithets like "fringe left" and "loony left" is a lot easier, but it doesn't exactly increase your cred to do so, except among the amen chorus.
May 25, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
An "Emerging Consensus"? You have to be kidding me. You name two organizations and that's a consensus? Please qualify the headline a bit.
May 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture, Imprisonment forever, Rendition, covering up crimes by the politically connected, threatening allies to cover up crimes.
Q: What is wrong with any of that?
A: Nothing!!! IOKIYABO
May 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Impeach Obama!
May 21, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing will revive the idea of the "loony left" in the American conscisouness faster than equating Obama and Bush.
Can we just have some common sense, please? Certainly they're on to something here, but as a rallying cry "Obama = Bush" will go over like a lead ballon.
May 21, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is playing it right: if he were to look like he was behind 'getting' the previous ill-doers, the right wing would make that their red meat for the next several decades. Let the congressional committees, and good reporters, come up with the goods, and then let the DOJ proceed, without the White House directing them. O's speech sounded balanced to me. Remember how the 'trauma' of Nixon and of Iran-Contra sowed the seeds of Ollie North's media stardom, and Cheney-Rumsfeld's commitment to 'never again' allowing a president's authority to be restrained, even and especially when s/he wished to break the law. Do you want O to act the totalitarian bully?
May 21, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There aren't going to be any congressional committees. Don't you get it? They are stonewalling now just as Bush was 6 months ago! The last thing they want is any inquiries.
May 21, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But allowing detention without trial creates a dangerous loophole in our justice system that mimics the Bush administration's abusive approach to fighting terrorism."
Such comments only mimic intelligent thinking.
Sometimes detention without trial is the right thing to do. Abusing the power to hold someone that way would be treason, a violation of the oath the defend the Constitution.
We cannot prevent treason from happening in all cases. We can only be vigilant and act correctly ourselves when it occurs.
The correct version of the above quote is that Bush's abusive methods mimicked and mocked a good approach to dealing with terrorism, while Obama is carefully working through the mess to get us back on track.
May 21, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
With friends like these who needs enemies.
The average American sees Obama being attacked by both the Left and the Right on the same subject means that Obama must be something right.
May 21, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, HRW is a great organization. But they do act like just another special interest group. I bet they even issue a grade of how "correctly" politicans vote. Basically one issue special interests don't recongize any balancing of priorities, or consider the politics -- such as, if Obama goes 100% the HRW way, with no concern for politics, and we get attacked again, say goodbye to all civil liberties and human rights. CYA and some consensus is not a bad idea in this area. I don't expect HRW to tone it down, but quit the pantomime of "disappointment" and dubious comparisons to Bush.
May 21, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (what a loathsome euphemism) are defined as torture by the Geneva Conventions, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1955; the Convention Against Torture, likewise unanimously ratified by the Senate, which took effect in the U.S. in 1994, and the War Crimes Act, enacted into law in 1996. In other words, the acts perpetrated by CIA interrogators are crimes, period. Article 2(1) of the Convention against torture obligates the United States to "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." The War Crimes Act defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions." The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States -- the attorney general, not the president -- is therefore OBLIGED to investigate, prosecute and, if the offense is proven, demand the punishment of the men responsible for these crimes. Several weeks ago Obama apparently recognized these facts when he announced that the investigation of torture was Eric Holder's responsibility. Now, in a secret meeting with human rights organizations, Obama has announced on his own authority, with Holder sitting mute in the same room, that prosecution is "not constructive," and that we must "move on." Imagine him saying the same thing about mass murder, or the terrorist attacks themselves. This is one of those occasions in which political expediency must yield to the rule of law. The president, as a former professor of constitutional law, knows this well. Sadly, he has chosen to ignore the government's constitutional obligations.
May 21, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly right. You must be one of those people Obama called out today in his speech who isn't interested at all in keeping America safe. Besides, who needs to rule of law when one has a benevolent monarch?
May 21, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... The plan is to get the executive, legislative, and judiciary to all declare that a person is a prisoner of war and can be held until that war is over along with periodic reviews.
Yea I'm ok with that.
Bush decides that because he is "The Decider", he alone can lock someone up indefinitely.
No. Not liking that last one at all.
Human Rights Watch thinks those two positions are the same.
What the !#$% are they smoking?
May 21, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the "war" ended back when Saddam was captured, if not before. Everything that has happened since then has been an occupation, done very, very poorly, without the slightest understanding of how an occupation should be handled.
Those POWs were required to be released long ago. But, if you instead consider them to be criminals, not POWs, you run into a different problem. Our system of justice then rules, and that is also being ignored.
May 21, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the references to the war are referring to Afghanistan, not just Iraq. Most of those still at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, I believe.
May 21, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I realize that, but the only "war" we were fighting was against Iraq. Congress passed on their responsibility to declare war to Bush, and he declared that war against Iraq, not Afghanistan. If you will recall, he stated that al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden were of little concern to him.
We are not at war in Afghanistan. It is extremely sloppy use of language to say that we are. If we are at war there, what government are we fighting, and how can that government surrender? Every thing done in Afghanistan has been done as an assistance to Afghanistan, or has been sold to us as that. We sent in a small number of troops to help Afghanistan kick out the Taliban. Remember, it was the Taliban, the unofficial government of Afghanistan, that was declared to be our enemy for harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. If that was a war, it ended when the Taliban left Afghanistan. And, when a war ends, POWs have to be repatriated.
If those we captured are not POWs, they are civilian criminals, who committed crimes in Afghanistan, and, therefore belong in Afghanistan before the courts there, not here. We have zero justification for holding them in GITMO.
Bush's absurd "enemy combattant" category, means Prisoners of War, and nothing else. There are only two legal categories for people captured in battle - civilians and military. Civilians are to be tried by their country, and military personnel are to be held until the war ceases, then are to be repatriated without abuse.
I am dumbfounded to find that Obama, a lawyer, an extremely intelligent man, experienced with the Constitution, is unable to understand what Bush did, and stop repeating it. He, like Bush, likes to use the term "commander in chief", even claiming to have taken an oath as one, but it seems to me that he is being commanded by the military, not vice versa. Harry Truman demonstrated the proper reaction when the military tries that.
May 21, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't listen.
If it comes from Obama, it is always right...
May 22, 2009 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the way they want prosecutions, someone veered WAY off course yesterday in asking for it. If it is confirmed that the way they asked for it by a "symbolic gesture" or a "trophy" prosecution, then I am not surprised Obama didn't say no but I am surprised Obama didn't kick them out of the room!
May 21, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the ACLU and Human Rights Watch can take a break from haranguing Obama for not moving fast enough and giving them 100% of their wish list, and counter the Cheney pro-torture faction which won't shut up and continues to push its views on the public and media.
The vote on Gitmo was a warning, not that Obama is weak on rule of law, but that the media and congress are still beiong influenced by the ghost of Bush/Cheney.
Activists are missing the point and skipping the public debate. I see Bushies on TV every day. Where the fuck are HRW and ACLU? Stop acting like special interest lobbyist pressure groups, and get on the fucking tv and push your views ON THE PUBLIC, instead of SURRENDING the public debate to DICK CHENEY!
May 21, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Let's identify the real enemy. The far left groups are behaving no differently than the far right groups. It's kind of sad. I thought if they had someone who was more sympathetic, they would try to work with them, but it's like the Marx Brothers, "whatever it is, we're against it!"
May 21, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They totally miss the point, like they aren't paying attention.
Did anyone see that horrendous vote against closing Gitmo?
Obama fulfilled his end of the bargain. But NOTHING will get done if we don't help him beat back the reactionary forces which want an endless Gitmo and torture.
Newsflash to lefties: You're NOT winning the public debate. God helps us if the public decides the rightwing is right and should be trusted with national security.
This is infuriating.
May 21, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's VERY frustrating. But I don't think Obama pays much attention to any interest groups, so that's a good thing. But I find it very odd, and sad, that instead of turning their anger against the last administration, they just turn to this one. They don't pay attention, which tells me it's all about them. And that's incredibly tragic. I don't have much respect for some of these groups anymore--they've been dangling on a thread, and now they are cutting it. How do they define the public good? They are making themselves extinct.
May 21, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we are missing a huge opportunity to denounce Cheney and the pro-torture rightwing in the mainstream media. *They* are chattering on TV and spreading their vile views, and meanwhile lefty pressure groups are issue press releases and talking to lefty bloggers. The rightwing is dominating the debate in public.
May 21, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think we can still do that, don't you? I think the right wing media is speaking to a shrinking audience. I have faith in America!
May 21, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some don't care about winning the debate. They want the rule of law followed.
How that might actually be accomplished is entirely beside the point, and not their problem. It just has to be followed. Damn the consequences. And if it's not being followed, then Obama = Bush, and anyone who doesn't agree obviously hates the Constitution and is a mindless Obamabot.
Finding a way to get to the point where the rule of law is being observed while not losing the power to direct the agenda of the country isn't important, either. Getting Democrats to grow a pair in Congress isn't the point, either. None of these things. Obama is just like Bush. Don't you get it?
May 22, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
it looks to me like the easiest way to get on teevee is to be in disagreement with mr. obama on a given issue. teevee thrives on controversy.
May 22, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about hypocrisy! When Bush violates human rights, as documented by solid human rights groups such as the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, the Obama fans say he should be brought up on criminal charges. When Obama continues those policies, and HRW correctly points this out, Obama fans, abandoning all pretext at fairness, resort to name calling. The partisans now cry that HRW is not part of the "looney left" for acting consistently, and claim that any comparison, whether or not accurate, is like comparing Obama to Hitler. (The first poster is the one who invoked Goodwin's law, ironically.)
So I guess we who really do care about human rights are really just a fringe group for being consistent?
May 21, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point they're bringing up is that Cheney is still out there, and while the ACLU/HRW could go after Obama for being too much like Bush, they could also help change the media tone and go after Dick Cheney.
May 21, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I think the point they're bringing up is that Cheney is still out there, and while the ACLU/HRW could go after Obama
That strikes me as a dishonest argument. Cheney is not in office right now and is not setting these policies. Naturally human rights groups goes after the people or groups responsible. Further, HRW *did* state that Obama should investigate Cheney for any abuses.
May 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calchala is right. We're not objecting to HRW's stance. But they are missing the point.
If Cheney wins the public debate, we are screwed. I would be happier if the left had a ferocious response to the pro-torture faction. It would give political space for congress and the WH to do the right thing.
As someone else said, they choose TODAY to say this? With the Cheney speech today, and with the Gitmo vote yesterday, I feel HRW, ACLU just don't have a fucking clue.
May 21, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no hypocrisy here. Obama wants to have oversight, even for those things too sensitive to be revealed to the general public. Bush wanted it all his way because he said so.
The problem with Bush was that there were no checks and balances. Obama on the other hand is trying to create a system of accountability to handle this new breed of asymmetrical war we are now fighting.
May 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>There is no hypocrisy here. Obama wants to have oversight
HRW rightly calls such language "Pretty." You don't indefinitely detain anyone. It goes against the right to a fair trial, which our founding fathers recognized over 200 years ago. Having so-called oversight does not lessen the crime against a human being when his human rights are violated.
May 21, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutist views do not hold up under scrutiny. Even American citizens don't get full protection during wars.
Can a soldier decide that they don't want to take a hill and quit the Army?
Does the American public's right to know imply that our troop positions be displayed on a web site?
On a battlefield do our soldiers have to read an enemy combatant their Miranda rights before taking them prisoner?
War is not pretty. Innocents will get killed and freedoms seen in peace times will not be fully honored. Name a war that is not the case if you choose to disbelieve me. The problem is how do we handle those truths during long term low intensity conflicts.
Bush tried to make it up as he went along without any checks to guard against the possibility that he might be wrong. Obama might end up making some of the same choices but it is how he gets there that is the difference. His decisions will be challenged and for that we can be assured that what comes through that process will be better for it.
Like I said earlier, I'm ok with that.
May 21, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that Obama is NOT the "decider" anymore. This is intended and will be decided by the president, his advisors, congress and the courts.
As it should.
HRW might not like it, but we have something called political debate and consensus. Not pretty at all. But it's democracy.
May 21, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You don't indefinitely detain anyone. "
You can hold POWs indefinitely under the Geneva Convention.
May 21, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, you can hold POWs until the war is over. No longer. The war in Iraq ended way back in about 2004, when Saddam was captured, or even before, when we overthrew the Iraq government.
May 21, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq?
May 21, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very interesting argument I read in the WSJ was that during war, you hold the POWs until the war is over. Whereas I hope this war is not forever, that perspective casts a different light upon the duration and process for dealing with these people.
Eliminating the "enemy combantant" status is a good step.
May 21, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, you can have a tribunal and find some of these guys are POWs. Then hold them until Al Qaeda surrenders.
This is what the Geneva Convention states for POWs. It's the Third Convention.
However, for people who have evidence of terrorist plots, we should put them on trial for terrorism. POW status is the most mild treatment possible (they would even have to be paid a small amount!), which is too kind for the worst offenders who belong in a proper prison.
May 21, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wars, by definiton, are fought between governments. Al Qaeda is not a government, and not even exclusively in a single country. Al Qaeda is a criminal gang, more like the Mafia than an army of some country. It isn't possible to be at war against Al Qaeda. We could be at war against Afghanistan or Pakistan, but not Al Qaeda.
The problem, of course, is that Afghanistan has no government, but is an anarchy, with various sectors temporarily ruled by war lords, and with Kabul ruled during the day by our puppet "president" there. That makes it impossible to end a "war" there - who could surrender?
Either Afghanistan is an independent country and we are there at their invitation to assist them, in which case those captured there should be imprisoned their by Afghanistan. Or, it is a total anarchy, with no government, and we should be at war with Afghanistan for failing to protect their neighbors from their crminal gangs, and those captured are POWs. But, in that case we are at fault for leaving Afghanistan without an operating government, as the Geneva Conventions require us to do. There is no way we can be at war with ourselves in Afghanistan. So, now what?
The utter stupidity of the Bush administration may well haunt us, and especially Obama, for another 8 years.
May 21, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
May 21, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet more heresy! How dare you?
May 21, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the "heresy" bullshit. You obviously want to sacrifice a left-of-center administration on the altar of principle after a mere four months in office. I don't.
I don't have to blindly agree with every decision Obama makes to still support him, as opposed to supporting the establishment types that are still seeking to obstruct and defeat every initiative that he proposes, no matter how mildly progressive those initiatives might be. You don't seem to have a clue as to who the true enemies are.
At this point, Obama's transgressions against civil liberty absolutism are almost exclusively rhetorical. If Obama is engaging large-scale preventive detention, routinely torturing those suspected of terrorism, and conducting kangaroo trials via military commissions, then I will eagerly join those on the left opposed to him and his policies. At this point, your rhetoric, and that of HRW in equating Obama's policies to Bush's, is as unhinged as it is premature.
May 21, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
sacrifice? i don't think anybody wants to "sacrifice" obama or his administration.
i just want him to uphold his oath of office, and the rule of law. i voted for him because i thought that he was more likely to do it than the other guy.
i don't expect to agree on a whole lot with the guy who gets elected president, but i do expect him to agree that torture is illegal and that those who order it done and commit it are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
if he fails in this, i think that it's my and everybody's duty to pressure him to do the right thing.
May 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice parroting of dear leader's smear of the left. Congratulations! You have fallen for the trick. As for me, I'll stick with the heretics.
Look, if you don't care about principle and if you're naive enough to judge a politician based on what you believe his character to be then good luck to ya. But I choose to stick to certain bedrock principles that are non-negotiable. Not in every instance or on every issue, just the important ones like our civil libeties and like the idea that the government and the executive branch particularly MUST obey the law and if they don't they should be punished. Obama works for us, he is no King, yet he presumes the power of one when he announces he will find a way to make the illegal, legal. That's exactly what Bush tried to do and everyone in the Democratic Party criticized him bitterly for it. If they did so simply because it was Bush then they are hypocrites. Criticizing that sort of outrageous and unconstitutional attempt to grab power is not aboslutism it is simply standing by the rule of law across the board and not only when it is politically convenient for whoever the leader in power is. In this case it happens to be Obama. Obama didn't defend Bush's illegalities, but now when he does the very same thing it is "absolutism". Bah! I opposed the same bullshit with Bush. Changing the face of tyranny does not lessen the tyranny one whit. Bad policies under Bush if continued by Obama are not suddenly okay. They remain bad policies and sometimes dangerous ones as in Obama's illegal preventive detention idea. If it's "absolutism" to consistently oppose illegal activity by the government then so be it. Guilty as charged and proud of it.
May 22, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the "Human Rights" advocates need a new PR team
They picked the WRONG day to say Obama=CheneyBush
May 21, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it. Seriously, WTF????
May 21, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
PR = Propaganda
You know that..right?
May 22, 2009 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is fine that Obama wants to move ahead with health and environmental issues. We all do.
However, unless and until he moves forward on the accountability issues of war and war crimes, he will be seen as just another weak president by the Right and the American people.
He is only shooting himself in the foot by letting the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA push him around.
May 21, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is fine that Obama wants to move ahead with health and environmental issues. We all do.
However, unless and until he moves forward on the accountability issues of war and war crimes, he will be seen as just another weak president by the Right and the American people.
He is only shooting himself in the foot by letting the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA push him around.
May 21, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
People need to understand that Obama is our president, and we are all benefitting from that. I have yet to hear anyone remotely on the left regretting Obama's election. I, for one, never let a day go by without feeling extremely proud that out country elected Obama.
But, I don't worship Obama. He is my president, not my God. He is human. He has asked that we speak up when we believe he is on the wrong track. We are doing so, and will continue to do so. But, I very strongly suspect that Obama will get all of our votes in 2012. And, we will continue to point out his errors.
May 21, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you on this. I think you have stated this simply and elegantly. Thank you.
May 21, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
My only beef is not to forget the public debate. We can't have Dick Cheney and his pals pushing their pro-terror views in the MSM day after day, meanwhile the left spends all of its times critiquing the finer points of Obama's plans. That's all well and good, but as we saw with that Gitmo vote, we risk letting the GOP co-opt and hijack the debate.
May 21, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GITMO vote is an illustration of the problem with having Harry Reid as majority leader in the Senate. He is lost in that job. Just because he has seniority shouldn't make him majority leader.
May 21, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we stop micromanaging Obama's decisions the left will stop eating its own.
But everyone clings to their little corner of the sheet and that's all that matters and determines their judgment of Obama.
I will go for the whole pie, let him dish it
May 21, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never realized how far left the democrats went. The second he gets in office I could only imagine all the issues streaming in from all the interest groups after 8 years of turning America into a poo sandwich.
At least have the respect to raise the issue in a proper manner, and not ruin what you have gained by comparing the administration that wants to fix the messes to the one that created it.
Unless you plan to throw it all away in 4 years. I wonder how much would of been addressed with a McCain/Palin admin right now. How much worse could they have taken us? Think about it on any issue.
May 22, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
humans rights groups are the heroes when they criticize your enemy, but they're the enemy when they criticize your favorite president.
May 22, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am very disappointed in him, The FISA flip during the election was not just to get in office...it's the way he rolls.
Sad (me).
May 22, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting and insightful comments here...
I have a question though: Can anyone explain to me the benefit of equating Obama with Bush?
I see the detriments: 1) It seems to me that doing so sows seeds of dissension among the base, because people feel very strongly about such a loaded equation. 2) It disregards some of the substantial and nuanced differences between the two; thereby, helping to validate Bush's policies -- some on the right are already crowing about how Bush is being validated (despite the substantial and nuanced shifts Obama is making). Any real or perceived validation of Bush's presidency gives Republicans an opening. 3) It undermines our own Democratic president, who on most policies leans or is solidly in line with the left. Sufficient undermining may preclude the passage of the major reforms -- healthcare, environment, immigration, etc. Thereby, potentially crippling a chance to make sweeping progressive changes. These are just a few potential problems with this approach...
I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't be challenged; he should be. But, I think it would be helpful to be sensitive to language we use and political implications of that language; we can't miss the forest for the trees. To me, equating Obama and Bush will do more damage than good to Democratic/progressive/liberal longterm aims.
If someone can explain to me the benefit of using this incendiary semantic approach, I would wholeheartedly welcome it. I earnestly can't see how anything positive can come from equating this president with one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.
May 22, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
a plug-in electric car and universal health care will not make me happy to live in a country that has a tiered legal system where the powerful and well-connected can get away with torture, warrantless spying, looting the economy and whatever else they damned well please while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout of their greed, corruption and paranoid fantasies.
May 22, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink