Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Military, Politics, Society

Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown

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

157 thoughts on “Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown”

  1. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/12/22/president_obamas_christmas_gift_to_at_t_and_comcast_and_verizon

    “One of President Barack Obama’s signature campaign promises was to protect the freedom of the Internet. He said, in November 2007, “I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose.””

  3. J Brian,

    “To what am I willing to profess allegiance? The original (Francis Bellamy) version works for me.

    “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    As it happens, “my flag and the republic for which it stands” are as yet only imaginary at best. And yet, there is that “springing forth eternal hope” that incessantly beckons to me.

    So, my political affiliation is to the super-set (which contains itself as a full member) of all of the public policies which are inextricably bereft of deception.

    If my only-yet-imagined political party affiliation needs to be named, I can think of a name. How about, “The La Kayim Party.”

    Yes, I freely confess to fiddling with what I observe to be destructive aspects of human society. As I am given to life, to live my life, I bow (to?) the strings of existence.

    For those who identify not with “The People of The Book,” a synonymous name may work better. “The Panentheist Process Party”?

    For those who read the writings of Paul Tillich, another synonym may be, “The Eternal Now Party.”
    ———-

    We have a surprisingly similar party affiliation Doctor, as long as I didn’t have to attend any of the Panentheist meetings I would probably fit right in. The music/platform supplied/recognized by FFLEO is genius, he’s lightening quick on the uptake and a man of great humor.

    The La Kayim Party, I like it.

    I knew a fellow that read a great book (Stranger In A Strange Land), liked the alien philosophy and the group marriage concept, started himself a religion based thereon and lives his life as a well respected wizard.

    You can follow your own star.

  4. why aren’t people on the left calling Chris Mathews a racist in re to birth certificate?

    I wonder if he will loose his job like Lou dobbs?

    i’m eating pig and typing with my pinky

  5. Doc Harris,

    Thanks for clearing that up for me, you belong to “The La Kayim Party”.

    Then this is what your party platform would encompass:

  6. Chris Mathews is a racist for bringing it up. He just can’t stand the fact that a black man is president. He should be fired just like Lou Dobbs. This is racism straight up.

  7. anon nurse,

    I know Matthews was in the Peace Corps at one time. That’s about all I know of his good work. He drives me crazy at times though. He constantly interrupts his guests, which I find irritating. He–like a number of others in the news media–waste valuable air time talking about trivia like the Obama birth certificate. We have a lot more pressing issues that people like Matthews should be covering in-depth on their programs. If Matthews would like the subject of the Obama birth certificate to be a “non-issue”–he should ignore the subject. He’s just calling further attention to it by having a discussion about it on his program.

  8. “The name of something is never the something named.” (J. Brian Harris)

    That which can not be named is clearly seen in the mind; may often be sensed by the nose; sometimes felt by the relaxed and unsuspecting hand; and literally heard within the inner ear yet try to call out its name and “poof” … everything disappears. At least, that’s been my experience.

  10. SwM,

    No! Everybody, including myself, thought a rail line from Cleveland to Cincinnati was the lamest of lame ideas. But Strickland was going to take a lot of that money and funnel it into Education and technology related industry … but he couldn’t come right out and say that.

    Kasich is a very, very good politician.

  11. Elaine M. wrote:

    “Chris Matthews isn’t the brightest bulb on the string of Christmas lights.”

    “Why is Matthews wasting time on a “supposed” news program discussing this “non-issue” subject?”

    ===========

    Elaine M.,

    Chris Matthews has done a lot of positive work over the years, IMHO, and has a big heart, which counts for a lot, in my book. And he may be having some health problems…

    The governor of Hawaii brought up the “birther” issue again, so Matthews did a follow-up story. He’d like it to be a non-issue and his exasperation was evident.

  12. FFLEO,

    I had intended to put forth a single posting, but computers are like very little children in one particular respect. They do what they are told to do, regardless of what the one who tells them what to do intended to tell them to do.

    As for one aspect of what you wrote, to wit,

    “Ergo, another of Doc Harris’ mysteries shall remain forevermore unsolvable.”

    Here comes before judge and jury, Brian; herewith comes also the unriddling of said allegedly “forevermore unsolvable” purported “mystery.”

    When I was yet not talking in words, I had heard the proverbial saying, “appearances may be deceiving” many times. An explanation of this, but stated as “appearances can be deceiving,” I just found on the idioms section of the Farlex thefreedictionary.com. There I also found an unriddling key.

    Suppose I were to say, “That dark cloud against the setting sun looks beautiful.” Were I to say such, would I not say nonsense? With what does an ordinary cloud go about the sentiently aware activity of looking?

    Appearances never deceive, and clouds never look; for want of greater interpretive experience, to be gained through more interpreting, interpretations may be based on partial knowledge and understanding, and an incomplete interpretation, if interpreted as complete, will lead a person using an incomplete interpretation along a path of experience, which if also misinterpreted, may give rise to an internal interpretation of deception, which interpretation is itself of deception. And the universe spins around its fixed point, the immovable, immutable terra firma. Or not.

    Is “terra firma” a viable synonym for “terra incognito”? Or is “terra infirma” less prone to being misinterpreted as such a synonym? Is the continuing evolution of human society not proof of terra infirma?

    So, with that gobbledygook as prelude, my political party affiliation is forthcoming.

    Words can be misinterpreted because they merely symbolize meaning(s) while themselves being perfectly meaningless absent their relationships (accumulated associations within individual persons) with other words and all available word associations, as actually available to the infima species human who is experiencing words in relationship context.

    Drat! In addition to studying biology, I studied communication theory while at university, before that interlude in my life, and since it. When, when, will I ever learn?

    Erik H. Erikson devised his “epigenetic chart” sequence of so-called psychosocial developmental crises, in which the first named crisis is trust versus mistrust and the final named crisis is integrity versus despair.

    I, as I find do others, interpret Erikson’s approach as taking as a given human conflict, a viewpoint which I find is itself grounded in mistrust which, if not adequately resolved into trust, tends to guide a person toward a life ending in despair.

    I live my life based on trust along a path upon which, at every juncture, I choose the way that I observe is most plausibly likely to take me ever closer to a life ending in integrity. I do so using the conflict-avoiding interpretive process of trust in which mistrust is a tool for enhancing the viability of being trusting and is not ever in actual internalized conflict with trust.

    Politics is a word I find names the process of devising and developing public (shared within and among groups of individual people as individual persons) policies. Two or more people in a group, and the process of politics is inescapable.

    Public policies may be grounded in competitive (conflict-based) interpretations and may also be based on collaboratively conflict-avoiding interpretations. The extensively intensive work of Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D., such as found in “Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life” (Puddle Dancer Press, Encinitas, California, 2003) is essentially of collaboration.

    Every time I was told (almost always by someone other than my parents or brother) that I could and should have done something I had done differently than I had done it, my inner sense of self with its delusion detector system clamored for my attention with, one or another version of something subjectively like, [bold on] [caps on] [italics on] [font size ten billion points on] “impossible!” [bold off] [caps off] [italics off] [font size ten billion points off].

    Ever since I was first told that I could and/or should have done something differently than I had done it, when I hear it told that someone could and/or should have done something differently than it was done, no matter what was done, no matter the consequences of what was done, my neurological delusion detector system activates.

    Intra-personal and inter-personal conflict never fails to activate my delusion detector system. Being an incorrigible skeptic, I am always skeptical of the accuracy of my delusion detector system. Over the years, I became so skeptical (because it seemed plausibly absurd to me that any aspect of life could actually be so consistent) that I sought out people who were willing to listen, read, and study my notions, the better to discern if I was delusional about my neurological delusion detector system and its ways of detecting delusions.

    The people I sought and found became the members of my doctoral thesis committee, and I chose them from among those who indicated willingness to be committee members for the aspects of their research interests which I thought likely to give them the best practicable chance of demolishing my research work and findings.

    Alas, I failed miserably in my search for people who can refute the work after having studied it in sufficient depth and detail as to paraphrase it in ways that make meaningful sense to me.

    I cannot affiliate myself with any political party which competes with any other political party, because competition always activates my delusion detector. Of course, I find competition very valuable, but only as a delusion detection method.

    To what am I willing to profess allegiance? The original (Francis Bellamy) version works for me.

    “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    As it happens, “my flag and the republic for which it stands” are as yet only imaginary at best. And yet, there is that “springing forth eternal hope” that incessantly beckons to me.

    So, my political affiliation is to the super-set (which contains itself as a full member) of all of the public policies which are inextricably bereft of deception.

    If my only-yet-imagined political party affiliation needs to be named, I can think of a name. How about, “The La Kayim Party.”

    Yes, I freely confess to fiddling with what I observe to be destructive aspects of human society. As I am given to life, to live my life, I bow (to?) the strings of existence.

    For those who identify not with “The People of The Book,” a synonymous name may work better. “The Panentheist Process Party”?

    For those who read the writings of Paul Tillich, another synonym may be, “The Eternal Now Party.”

    The name of something is never the something named.

  13. Blouise: Aren’t the people of Ohio mad at Kasich for turning down the 400 million for the high speed trains?

  14. SwM and anon,

    I believe we should be paying particular attention to republicans who ran for and won gubernatorial seats in 2010. There are two potential 2016 presidential candidates: John Kasich – Ohio and Thomas Corbett – PA with Kasich being the stronger possibility.

    I would carefully watch any actions and listen for any comments from Jim Baker and Tom Ridge regarding these two men.

    Republicans like to run governors for president with strong party guys as vice-president … Reagan/Bush, Bush/Cheney …. the Bush/Quayle combo was the exception but only because Bush himself was the strong party guy and they needed Quayle to “pretty” him up.

    Both of these men will do a good job as governor of their respective states to prepare the way for running in 2016 as candidates for the presidency. They will be re-elected as governors in 2014 and use that race to begin to “appear” presidential. They will then immediately hit the campaign trail for the republican nomination. The only unknown will be the choice for vice-president and you can bet the Party won’t allow another Palin on the ticket.

    You realize that all I have written above is simply my own opinion … it’s formed by studying the history of the Republican Party after Eisenhower …

  15. Bdaman,

    Chris Matthews isn’t the brightest bulb on the string of Christmas lights. I think the best thing to do is to ignore the idiot birthers. Why is Matthews wasting time on a “supposed” news program discussing this “non-issue” subject?

  16. Swarthmore mom and Blouise:

    Didn’t someone mention Thune? I don’t know much about him…

  17. Swarthmore mom,

    I honestly don’t think so … they are all old news and the new type of voter who is loyal to the republican party gets bored very easily. I would be very worried if a “new face” suddenly appeared on the horizon.

  20. Chris Matthews: Why Doesn’t Obama Just Release The Birth Certificate?

    On Monday night’s edition of “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews talked about putting the birth certificate controversy surrounding President Obama to rest.

    “Why has the president himself not demanded they put out the original documents?” Matthews wonders.

    “If it exists, why not put it out?” Chris Matthews asks.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/27/chris_matthews_why_doesnt_obama_just_release_the_birth_certificate.html

Comments are closed.