Points Of Friction: Obama Meets With Civil Libertarians, Human Rights Activists
Yesterday morning President Obama met with representatives of several human rights and civil liberties groups in the White House's cabinet room. Joining him were his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser David Axelrod, as well as Attorney General Eric Holder. They sat down with representatives of the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Human Rights Watch, among others.
Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow reported that one of the attendees warned the President he was letting George Bush's policies become his own--and that Obama was not pleased by that characterization.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch advocacy director, declined to discuss specific points of order, but agreed to speak about the atmospherics of the meeting.
"It was very robust and it was a real conversation," he said. "There's a lot of agreement and there's some disagreement on some issues."
Malinowski said the President is aware that in recent weeks, civil libertarians and human rights groups have grown frustrated with some of his policies, and that he's attuned to those frustrations.
The unresolved question, though, is what purpose the meeting served--was it a forum for Obama to brief the critics to his left on his intentions going forward? Or was he providing them information, and seeking counsel--a sign, perhaps, that he's mindful of their criticisms and may yet move in their direction? "We'll have to see," Malinowski said. "One doesn't expect in the President to say, 'Gosh that was a great point i never thought of and I have to revisit my decision in light of what you just said.' The president heard a lot there that he can take back to the privacy of the oval office and think about."
On at least one issue, though, Obama seems to have made up his mind. Isikoff reports that Obama announced his opposition to torture prosecutions--an unsurprising admission, perhaps, but one that must have disappointed many in attendance. Previously he had said that the question of investigation and prosecuting Bush administration officials was one for Holder to answer. But with Holder sitting right beside him, there's no doubt he's feeling pressure to, as they say, look forward, not backward.


















It was a chance for Obama to tell the far left to sit down and shut up. According to Maddow, he didn't retreat an inch from his heel-dragging on a torture investigation. In fact, when questions which should more appropriately be handled by Holder came up, Obama alpha dogged those and set the tone that he was in charge and making decisions with the strong implication that Holder was there to execute, not strategize.
May 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So he must be happy to be an accomplice after the fact. Look forward: let's empty the prisons and let bygones be bygones.
May 21, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like many people, I've been disappointed in many of the decisions Obama's been making and I think that, in general, he's been listening to opinions ranging from moderate to conservative, and not including much from the left.
But I'm willing to wait until we know more before making a judgment on this particular meeting, since this report was probably one meeting attendee's take filtered through Isikoff.
We really don't know what happened at the meeting. I cannot tell you how often my husband and I will have come back from some gathering with entirely different interpretations of what happened.
May 21, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are the far left! Who knew?
Once upon a time, such arguments were made only by far-right Republicans. No longer, it seems.
May 25, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when does the argument start that by shielding the Bush admins he is infact breaking the law himself and should therefore be impeached?
Seriously, if he is putting preasure on the attorney general not to prosecute then he is interfering with the proper course of justice. If he was a mob boss who was leaning on a prosecutor in order to prevent the investigation of an associate mobster that would be a crime.
May 21, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
[[So when does the argument start that by shielding the Bush admins he is infact breaking the law himself and should therefore be impeached?]]
That train left the station on my blog in February, although I said he should be treated as just one more of the criminals -- I didn't specifically mention impeaching.
May 26, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Isikoff has his write-up of the White House meeting here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/198706
May 21, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
One possible explanation for Obama's heel-dragging that I haven't heard discussed much is that it might be an intentional plan to allow the Hague to force the issue on him.
According to Jonathan Turley, the Geneva Conventions call "complicit" any authority that neglects to try war criminals within it's own jurisdiction. Obama could be trying to immunize himself politically from being blamed in 2012 for the prosecutions of the Bush administration for war crimes in the international criminal courts before his reelection.
When the Hague threatens to bring action against the U.S. for not prosecuting Cheney (et al) Obama can turn the matter over to Holder as the logical step to protect the United States, thus proving his bona fides to "lapel-pin patriots."
This battle to protect the constitution while ardently pressing the need to move forward will be remembered in security conscious minds as STRONG LEADERSHIP.
I admit, I'm looking at this from the craven attitude that all actions of first term presidents can be explained as "campaign events" (see "permanent campaign" "What Happened" former white house press secretary Scott McClellan) but then, looking at what passes as journalism in the MSM... how can one look at it any other way.
May 21, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be very interested in hearing an explanation about how investigating and prosecuting bank robbers, for example, is any different from investigating and prosecuting any other law breakers, such as Bush administration higher ups. If we decide that we are better served by looking forward, why did we pursue Eric Rudolph? Or, why would we investigate the actions of our currupt bank officials? In fact, why would I be prosecuted for a parking violation - why not just accept that I won't do it again?
Obama is on very thin ice now. And, I don't think it is for any reason except to discourage the next administration, almost 100% likely to be a Republican one, from prosecuting him.
May 21, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is absolutely hillarious is that Barry has become just like that eeeeeeevil BOOOOOOOSH!
During the campaign, Barry called milliatry tribunals an "enormous failure." Now they're back.
From The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) -- and now Guantanamo, Barry is just like Georgie.
EVERYBODY - Do the "Obama three-step":
1) Denounce a Bush policy
2) Change the name and make cosmetic changes
3) Adopt the Bush policy.
May 23, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink