President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.
McConnell is positively gushing with praise that “the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . ” Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank god every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.
Hayden, who is my neighbor in Virginia, has also opposed any prosecution for torture under the Bush Administration. Obama has pleased many in the Bush Administration by insisting that CIA personnel will never face prosecution for torture — despite our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Hayden’s surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Hayden’s program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review — and Obama ultimately stopped it.
I accept that people of good faith can disagree with civil libertarians on some of these programs — though even the Bush Administration came to reject the legal analysis of the torture programs. However, Hayden and Obama did not want to risk federal courts resolving this matter on issues like surveillance. Instead, they just circumvented the legal system. The pat on the back for a job well done by Hayden and McConnell should give someone in his Administration a moment of pause . . but I doubt it.
Source: SiFy
Jonathan Turley
I understand Blouise. We usually agree on most things!
rafflaw,
It’s ok to disagree with me … often I disagree with myself 🙂
since the 80’s when reagan managed a coalition of the religious and the more traditional republican money interests they’ve been able to drive home their talking points of you can’t trust the liberal media and if you follow us we’ll take you back to the “good old days” when everybody on earth respected and bought culture and products from us.
fast forward to the present and the old coalition is getting frayed around the edges, with the money trying to lead by fear and the religious tired of being led around while waiting to get sucked up into the air.
sarah palin’s people won’t accept morman romney or new york bloomberg and the money will never risk sarah getting her hands on any real power.
so the slightly left of center (if you close one eye and tilt your head) obama still has the best shot at 2012.
but a lot can happen in two years
Thanks Buckeye.
Given the dearth of other candidates, I think I might be able to cast a vote for Mr. Feingold once I learn more about him. However, could he be a viable candidate based upon his recent loss of office? Most likely, that loss resulted from his largely honorable voting record that others opposed.
Professor Turley,
Could you vote for Mr. Obama?
Sometime before the 2012 election, could you drop some hints regarding for whom you might vote? Better yet, tell us flat out.
As someone who has only not voted a few times, which was based on principle, I would prefer not to throw away my vote; however, I do not know for whom I could cast a vote that would help preserve our Republic and stop the erosion of our civil liberties and the desecration of the rule of law.
FFLEO
My answer is probably YES depending on how badly the new congress performs in the next two years. If it’s as bad as the previous 2000-2008 years, I don’t see any alternative unless a moderate Republican or third party candidate shows up.
Mr. Obama is an anomaly in that he, supposedly, looks for long term solutions, not what is currently popular. And you’ll have to agree, he’s not popular with very many right now.
As far as your reservations, I can understand and share them to some extent, but don’t see them as clearly black or white as you apparently do. And, again, what would be the alternative? Someone who would do the same or worse? Would you vote for Mr. Cheney or Ms. Palin? Or not vote at all? If you don’t vote at all, do you really feel that is an answer?
Elaine has laid out what seems to be, unfortunately, the attributes of too many voters. The fact that 48 million people voted for McCain/Palin should give anyone pause about the voting public’s discernment of anything let alone about such esoteric items as are discussed on this blawg.
Two years is a long time in politics and Mr. Obama may not even be the Democratic nominee in 2012. Maybe it will be Mr. Feingold. 🙂
Swarthmore Mom,
I am asking also an honest question. Since you have determined that other parents should sacrifice their innocent sons and daughters to Obama for the greater social “good” will you willingly tell your own daughter to go to Obama and ask that he kill her? If not, why not? Why are other parents to accept their children’s capricious death for this greater “good”, but not your own daughter?
Further, you said you had watched the movie “Inside Job”. You know from the information provided there that it was both Republicans and Democrats who have worked side by side to dismantle the social safety net. Surely you can see that is the case right now as well (as was documented in the film)?
Finally, after you have given over the lives of other people’s children to death and indefinite detention for some greater good, what happens when the power of death and indefinite detention passes to a Republican who may then use it against anyone they see fit? Perhaps your daughter will not be spared afterall, because this power is absolute. There is no rational reason to believe other children will be taken but she will be safe.
Jill,
Actually, my biggest disappointment in Obama isn’t the corporate leanings, it is the refusal to prosecute any and all parties responsible for the torturing of detainees. Of course, when he authorizes the killing of an American citizen without due process, I guess I should not be surprised at the lack of torture prosecutions.
Thanks Ms. EM and Swarthmore Mom for your candor.
rafflaw,
This is exactly what we must learn from the election of Obama. People who voted for him didn’t think they were voting for a corporate war monger who would install a police state. Yet every one of the attributes we see now was there to see in candidate Obama, if people had allowed themselves to see it. So we must learn from this experience. First, it isn’t only the right wing who can be convinced to vote against our best interests. Propaganda works. Many leftists didn’t listen to their own misgivings and other leftists excoriated anyone who questioned Obama. So we learn to listen to our misgivings and listen to people who raise objections to candidates, even to candidates who are especially popular with the press. We learn we must do our homework. We acknowledge that manipulation can happen to anyone and we try to not be manipulated. This will take collective thinking, reasoning and debate but it could work. It’s worth a try. Otherwise, we will concede our nation to those who will destroy it.
My answer is a definite “yes”. The republicans already have the House and they have a good chance of taking the Senate. Obama’s Supreme Court picks have been vastly better than Bush’s. The republicans will try to dismantle the entire social safety net while dismantling the EPA. The list goes on and on. Unemployed Americans will not receive any benefits. This new brand of republicanism is way to the right of Bush. They actually make him look like a “compassionate conservative”.
Elaine,
Our president believes many of those things, as do his supporters. So yes, our work is cut out for us. If we don’t try, the outcome is assured.
FF Leo,
FYI: I did not vote for President Obama in my state primary. This year, I have considered changing my party affiliation from D to I–after more than four decades. I have little faith in most of the politicians in Washington. Too many members of both parties are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.
I know there were many Americans who were fed up with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. They showed their displeasure at the polls in November. Now the Republicans will take over the House in 2011. I don’t see that as an improvement. At this point, I’m not even sure I’ll vote in the next presidential election.
I extend my request to the other regulars here regarding voting for Mr. Obama. A simple Yes or No or Undecided is sufficient, although please expound, if you prefer.
Elaine,
I agree with you that I don’t believe that the Tea Party has anyone in their bullpen that I could get behind. They are just too far Right and too corporate. And seeing how corporate a lot of Dems and Republicans are already, it amazes me that candidates who claim to be part of a groundswell of normal every day Americans, they sure do like to keep the Corporations happy. Even when it is against their economic best interests.
Ms. EM,
If you have time, please read my post above and tell me if you will vote for Mr. Obama (if you can).
Thanks.
Jill,
There are people in the US who think our country is justified in torturing people…who think it’s okay for our government to imprison people indefinitely even though no charges have been brought against them…who believe in discriminating against certain minority groups..who do not believe in the separation of church and state. About 40% of or population believes in creationism and thinks that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. I don’t have a lot of hope for the future. I wish we had a strong third party.
BTW, I can’t imagine the Tea Party nominating a candidate that I could ever vote for.
Blouise,
Thanks for the explanation. While I do not agree with everything that you said, I do agree that Obama does need to have someone with stones with him every time he “negotiates” with the Teapublicans.
Swarthmore Mom,
I agree that if we don’t get the big corporate money out of the elections, real Democracy has no chance of a recovery.
Elaine,
I understand this. That election was decided not even by the electoral college but by the supreme court. What I’m really trying to say is that we need to stop doing as we are told in this nation. We still have a vote, at least for now, and we should use it. Maybe, even most likely, the use of that vote will not be successful against the powerful, entrenched rulers whom we now face. But if we won’t even consider trying to use our vote on behalf of the good of our nation, we are conceding the end of our Constitution before voting even begins.
We know that Obama will take down the rule of law. He already has. We know that anyone the Republicans run will do the same thing. Therefore, we can keep voting for one of two candidates who will destroy what is best about our nation or we can attempt to vote for a third party candidate who will not. Voting the first way is a guarantee of destruction. Voting for a well researched third party candidate gives us at least a chance, however small.
Jill,
It’s not exactly one person, one vote in this country. One has to consider the Electoral College. A candidate with more popular votes can lose a presidential election. Case in point: the presidential election of 2000.