This has been a uniquely bad week for civil libertarians. The Obama Administration appears to be rushing to dispel any notions that Obama will fight for civil liberties or war crimes investigations. After Eric Holder allegedly assured a senator that there would be no war crimes investigation and seemed to defend Bush policies, Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Obama’s Solicitor General nominee, reportedly told a Republican senator that the Administration agreed with Bush that we are “at war” and therefore can hold enemy combatants indefinitely. In the meantime, Obama himself seemed to tie himself in knots when asked about investigating war crimes and leading democrats are again pushing for a symbolic “truth commission.” I discussed these issues in this segment of Countdown this week.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) both raised the issue with Kagan. Both supported Bush’s policies. Graham asked Kagan: “Do you believe we are at war?”
“I do, Senator,” Kagan replied.
One would have hoped that a solicitor general nominee would ask if he meant a constitutional war or a policy war. We have declared wars on everything from illiteracy to inflation. However, the framers treated war as a more serious matter that required a declaration (though Congress has effectively gutted that requirement through the use of resolutions). If we are at war, when does it end? Terrorism will continue for centuries. Will we remain at war with war time powers being exercised? Since the Solicitor General is required to apply the law with precision, Kagan’s reply is extremely alarming.
Graham then asked “If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?” “Do you agree with that?”
Kagan replied, “I do” and the marriage with the Bush policies was complete. So much for change. Both Holder and Kagan have now taken such a vow with Senators in order to secure their confirmations. The message appears to be a uniquely English approach to government. We will continue policies and laws that can do great harm to civil liberties, but we will use them in a beneficent way. Your “change” is not that we will get rid of the policies. Your change is that you get us. This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected. To have a well-respected academic voice such views is a terrible disappointment for civil libertarians, who are being offered a meaningful commission as a type of air kiss toward war crimes.
For the full story, click here.
Buddha,
I thanks for the link I missed it on Huff Post. As I read it I began to feel breathless and had to consciously calm myself, lest the rising rage in me would bring on angina. These Judges deserve the worst that can happen to them and the officials who oversaw these facilities contracts should be fired. The outsourcing of governmental responsibility has been a favorite theme of the corporatists. Its fallacy is that corporations can do it better and cheaper. The reality, even with so-called non-profits is that these entities exist for self-perpetuation and the benefit of their executives. They are by definition amoral entities and must be regulated closely.
Why anyone would believe that a corporation could run a youth facility or prison in a humane lawful manner is answered by the “magical thinking” of five year olds. The inviolability of the market and its ability to ensure good results is a myth for children and objectivists.
I wish these judges all the disgrace and discomfit that can be heaped upon them. However, there are others who have allowed this and they too must pay.
If there is civil war is it the haves against the have nots, the right against the left (the right will win that one they have guns), black against white, whom is going to be fighting whom?
My guess is that the constitutionalists arent going to win that one.
The War on Terror is a fabrication.
The fact that Obama supports and is allowing the continuation of the invasion of Afghanistan (and let’s face it,Pakistan as well) is very disappointiing and add that to Panetta’s retracted statement on ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ and now these developments with
Elena Kagan.
I voted for him but I am keeping a close eye.
And it’s shit like this that guarantees it’s going to get ugly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/two-pennsylvania-judges-a_n_166149.html
I bat about .850.
I stand by my assessment.
When there is naked fascism, there will be war.
Civil war.
seamus
How do get the blood off?
I’m rereading Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George Warcrimes Bush for Murder.”
I voted for him. I gave him money. I don’t expect the Obama or Congress to do a thing about the unambiguous crimes of the previous administration. I’m sure the thinking in the White House is that we have to focus on fixing the economy, and any revelation of just how criminal the previous administration was will only make the markets skittish, further hurting the economy.
In the end, Obama and Congress will act like chicken shits.
When the Republicans get back into the Whitehouse there will be naked facism.
Yes, this entire site is full of shrinking violets. It’s a shame that people don’t speak their mind more often!!!
FFLEO,
I am a shrinking violet, after all. And you know what the Book says about the meek.
😀
When it comes to Obama, Jill sees the world through a jaundiced eye, as it were.
I, in particular, and others, do not discourage participation in the process of ‘change’, but have, indeed, grown weary of the constant anti-‘Bama barrage – the cut n’ paste cacophony which has only escalated in the past 21 days.
Obama inherited this mess from Bush et al who should be the ones who taking the heat – not the new administration and certainly not in the first three weeks.
In fairness, in ‘moving forward’ Obama deserves at least some credit for rescinding the infamous OLC memos within his first days, as well as practicing damage control in a number of other important areas while continuing to assemble his team.
JT,
good job with KO, keep up the good work. I am extremely disappointed with how the new administration seems to be handling this matter as well as issues such as rendition, willingness to prosecute and go after war crimes and especially the recent argument by the Obama DOJ in regards in its assertions of state secrets to get whole cases thrown out of court (piggybacking on what Bush Admin did). Glenn Greenwald has been doing an excellent job in calling out the new administration and those trying to cover for them on the issue of state secrets.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html
Thank you Mike Appleton.
Jill has been warning us for weeks that the Obama administration seemed to be backsliding on the issue of torture and the treatment of enemy combatants. I have discounted those concerns, preferring to believe that the new president wanted to keep that debate in the background until he had assembled his cabinet and dealt with the current economic urgencies. I have also followed Prof. Turley’s television appearances and have been buoyed by his continued insistence on the rule of law. However, I am gradually coming to the belief that Jill was right and that the Administration does not share Prof. Turley’s passion for the Constitution. The most recent comments by Dean Kagan are particularly disturbing since she will be the administration’s principal legal advocate. Surely the president understands that the efforts of senate Republicans to secure advance assurances in the form of what amount to de facto pardons is highly improper and unethical. Why can’t his nominees just say so when confronted by Bush apologists in committee hearings? I can no longer comfort myself with the fact that these assurances have no binding effect. The cumulative impact of statements from various Obama appointees since the inauguration is extremely troubling. I expected better from this man. We have the right to expect better. The nation requires it. I have come to the conclusion that I was a bit naive and that constant pressure will need to be brought to bear to prevent the atrocities of the Bush years from slipping quietly into the fog and acquiring semi-legitimacy over time through silence. Neglect in this instance is not benign.
Excellent interview Professor Turley.
Buddha,
Dagnabbit Man! Please quit being so dang meek, doggoneit all!
Constitutionally and rule of law speaking, Buddha is Crying seems more appropriate. As Clinton might say, some of us “feel your pain.”
Given this critical rule of law issue, along with TARP I, II, ad infinitum…
Nothing is making any sense except for nonsense…
I’m increasingly dissapointed in the new administration’s approach to civil liberties. It isn’t only that there is no desire to investigate the potential misdeeds of the past government but that there is a subtle continuation of the same policies even when the President pledges to close Gitmo and end secret prisons –his version of “looking forward.” Dean Kagan’s statements and the recent in court admission that the U.S. will continue to rely on the “state secrets” defense in a civil matter are disturbing.
One question which I’d be interested in hearing more thoughts from Prof. Turley about would be why Ms. Kagan adopted her position on enemy combatants. Is it that she’s always felt this way or is she saying what she thinks the senators or the president wants to hear? Perhaps, she’s echoing the current state of the law but will be advocating a change in position when she’s arguing to the High Court. That last possibility seems more implausible given the state secrets defense but the President has indicated that this will be an area for future review.
WASHINGTON!!!
I’ll say it again.
OUR INTERNATIONAL STANDING WILL NEVER BE REPAIRED WITHOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION GOING TO PRISON. Got that? It’s not supposition either. Read some foreign policy journals, you semi-literate Washington jackasses.
Not punishing them is not an option unless you just WANT trouble. Because trouble is what you’ll get. And not just from the “rest of the world.”
You can only kick someone so long before they kick you back.
Everyone, EVERYONE in Washington would be well served to remember that. Because soon, people are going to need an outlet for their growing anger and mistrust. It’s human nature. When someone hurts you or steals from you, you will eventually hurt them back. That’s a fact.
Who do you think is going to bear the brunt of that anger?
Johnny the pizza guy and Phyllis who works at the car dealer? Or the politicians and banks/bankers that are stealing them blind and pissing on their INALIENABLE rights and the Constitution?
Soon, a foreclosure won’t end in a suicide, but a murder. Maybe a mass murder.
Soon, someone is going the break the law who never broke the law before because they see no justice in unequal application. If one “class” is/remains visibly immune to the law, no one will follow the law. Play Monopoly with a cheater sometime if you doubt this. Go to any playground with bad or no supervision or rules.
Soon, politicians of any stripe will be in danger any time they are in public and not much safer at home. And I mean all of you, from the mayor of the dinkiest town to Senators. You’ll be in danger from the very people you’ve surround themselves with as servants and guards in your sloth, vanity and greed. It’s easy to kill someone who can’t/won’t cook for or defend themselves. Ask Agatha Christie. The easiest element in the food web to remove without negative consequence are apex predators, but if you remove algae, we all die. And if you create just the right conditions, the algae is far more dangerous than predators. Ask a biologist. Are you getting the picture, Washington?
Soon, the thieves of Wall St. and K Street will be running for their venal, corrupt little lives. Because mob justice will hot on their trail. I must confess the thought of Cassidy & Co. and Merrill Lynch on fire and their boards running in fear makes me giggle.
Why?
Because We the People know who is screwing them over . . . again. Ask them. They are telling you but you won’t listen.
You’ve had more than one guess, Washington. I’ve demonstrated time and again, I draw from a wide knowledge base that’s width is only matched by its depth and I’m not basing any of this on the retrograde concept of “partisanship”. I operate off observation, fact, logic and the Constitution. That being said, my feelings will in no way be hurt if you politicians don’t listen. My ego is not invested in this. YOURS is.
Your time to get this right is nearing an end. Soon people will simply start getting hurt. It won’t a revolution like 1776 either. It’ll be much much uglier. Anarchy Plus. That’s not a threat. That’s just another valid observation of human nature. Go on, test my average. I was right about a concerted effort to remove our liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism, real or manufactured, almost ten years before Bush. I was right about Bush before he took office in saying, “This is the guy to watch.” I was right about Iraq on the day of invasion. I am right about who really attacked us on 9/11, Saudi Arabia and about Bush being their boy. I’ve opened a lot of minds. I’ve beaten every Neocon troll, both the paid and the brainwashed variety, I’ve ever faced.
How? Because I READ ALMOST EVERYTHING, I PAY ATTENTION AND I HAVE EXCELLENT LOGIC AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS. Better than yours by a long shot, Mr. Average Politician. Because I can leave my ego out of it. You’ve demonstrated you are 100% incapable of taking “you” out of your analysis. That’s not a sign of good leadership. That’s a sign of mental illness.
The sad part is that most of you have the same training I do. Maybe not as high a quality, but essentially the same. You just didn’t pay attention because you were perpetually focused on yourself. Just like you are now. And if successful evolution has one rule, it’s PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR SURROUNDINGS. When you don’t, that’s when the lions get you. You are failing this test again, right now, and the cost is going to be HUGE. Again, not a threat, but a prediction.
What are the chances I am wrong about this?
Rapidly.
Approaching.
Zero.
JT,
Saw you on Keith last night and you made your points clearly and perfectly. The caution of the MSM/Beltway Insiders/punditocracy to clearly state that crimes were committed that demand exposure/censure and real punishment is both a failure of will and a lack of understanding of the lasting ill effects of ignoring these vile actions.
“Wars” on anything except other nations are adroitly used to garner public support by bad politicians. They are meaningless expressions usually signaling the beginnings of boondoggles. While I believe the Obama Administration knows better,(indeed even many in the opposition know better) given the almost total shallowness of the MSM and punditocracy to see past the falsity of meme premises, they fear the headlines and opprobrium that would result from honest answers. They therefore respond in safe memes out of cowardice and duplicity. I may like Obama and have good hopes for him, but he and his advisers are not “above the fray” (cliche me)or the fear of speaking true. That is why you from your pulpit and we as citizens must always continue the pressure to keep them honest. Based on this I sense my need for another White House call in the immediate future.
Thanks Jill, you took the words right out of my mouth..BUT, JT seems to have been aggressively promoting the REQUIREMENT we have as a nation to uphold our International obligations. Treaties aren’t worth the paper they are written on if the signatories don’t abide by their agreements.
BUT, words and even open criticism are easily ignored by those with a vested interest in this debate and many just want to see this swept under the carpet. Even the day-to-day layman can openly demand action but it seems to no avail. Is the legal community as a group prepared to make enough noise that Holder can’t ignore this OR do we continue to just get guest appearances and gnashing of teeth…??
There are many things wrong with this. There is already clear evidence of crimes, that’s not an open issue. If no one is above the law and should be investigated when evidence points to the fact that they broke the law, that would seem an open and shut case for investigating the bush administration.
I listened to Senatory Leahy last night and in many ways I am sympathetic to what he said. The problem is he feels prosecutions will fail because those being investigated will just stonewall. I agree with that, but don’t think his panel will help that problem. These same people will just stonewall Congress. That’s what they’ve been doing (there are no consequences, even the refusal to show up for hearings). So I must agree with JT as a matter of law and practicality–prosecutions are a must. It’s harder to stonewall the courts than Congress, although certainly not impossible. Nevertheless for the reasons JT outlined it is the course this nation should take.