Civil libertarians have long objected to the continuation (and in some cases the expansion) of Bush policies in the national security areas by President Barack Obama. Obama has blocked the investigation and prosecution of Bush officials for torture, renewed the military tribunal system, extinguished dozens of public interest lawsuits against telecommunication companies and agencies as well as other controversial moves. Now, two former Bush officials are considered leading contenders to take over the FBI despite their involvement in some of the worst abuses during the Bush Administration. They are James Comey and Kenneth Wainstein. As discussed below, they are a case of the coronation of the one-eyed man as King of the land of the blind.
FBI Director Robert Mueller’s 10-year term expires on September 4th.
What is disturbing is how Comey has been embraced as a hero of civil liberties because he opposed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and threatened to resign. It is part of the relativism that set in during the Bush Administration. Before the Bush Administration, it would have been obvious and expected for all Justice Department attorneys to oppose a clearly unconstitutional program. However, in the Bush Administration, even the objection to unconstitutional acts suddenly transformed officials into instant civil libertarians despite their involvement in other abuses. This is an example of how, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. Comey was the one-eyed man.
Of course, Comey did not object to other aspects of the surveillance program deemed unconstitutional by civil libertarians. Moreover, while objecting to the surveillance program, Comey was the deputy attorney general involved in other abuses without a peep of protest. The most obvious was the case of Jose Padilla. Comey was personally involved in that case that shocked the world. Padilla was subjected to cruel treatment and was moved around the country to avoid judicial review. Comey and his staff adopted a series of conflicting arguments in court designed to avoid judicial review. Then, on the eve of a review by the Supreme Court, Comey dropped the prior charges and moved Padilla into the federal system on different claims. If you recall, Padilla was originally arrested under a claim by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Justice Department had stopped a nuclear attack on a major city. That claim was later denied by the White House. Yet, the Justice Department continued to hold and abuse Padilla.
In prior testimony, Comey made clear that he supported Padilla being denied access to the federal courts because he might win his release and take advantage of his constitutional rights:
Had we tried to make a case against Jose Padilla through our criminal justice system, something that I as the United States attorney in New York could not do at that time without jeopardizing intelligence sources, he would very likely have followed his lawyer’s advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right. He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hope — pray, really — that we didn’t lose him.
Of course, he was ultimately charged with a federal crime and convicted. This occurred only after the Justice Department succeeded (under Comey’s direction) in evading review of his mistreatment and long confinement without access to counsel or the courts. Is this the model that we want for FBI Director?
For his part, Kenneth Wainstein was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and held various national security positions with President Bush during the periods of greatest abuse of detainees and civil liberties. Wainstein did not resign in the face of those abuses but continued to advance the policies. Since leaving, he has shown the same casual view of constitutional claims, such as his view that Wikileaks can and should be prosecuted: ““By clearly showing how WikiLeaks is fundamentally different, the government should be able to demonstrate that any prosecution here is the exception and is not the sign of a more aggressive prosecution effort against the press.” Most scholars and civil libertarians see a far more difficult case over Wikileaks that threaten first amendment rights. In his testimony, Wainstein continued the Bush-era approach of avoiding the constitutional question by attacking the defendant. Wainstein cited public statements by Julian Assange and assured Congress that this is not a concern over free speech or free press because the disclosures were “more personal rather than simply a public-minded agenda.” It is a dangerous argument since you could take the same tact for any reporter and seeks to avoid the constitutional analysis by engaging in an ad hominem attack.
Wainstein and Comey did raise concerns over the torture of detainees but notably did not threaten to resign over such abuses. They continued to advance policies that were condemned by civil libertarians around the world.
I cannot say that I am optimistic given Obama’s record. He continues to court the conservative base on the theory that liberals have to vote for him in the next election. Indeed, objections from civil libertarians are most likely to increase the attraction to these nominees.
Jonathan Turley
“I’ve been there too and it is a humiliating prospect both ways. Some say a child shouldn’t have to do that, but to that I say that those who would say it are either very lucky to have not had the need, or see it in only their own discomfit. It is unpleasant to be sure, for both parties, but is represents another way of our paying back to those who gave us life and in that respect duty becomes an honor.’
This is what I meant to write but mangled it above.
“Twice I went to the hospital and bathed my mother.”
Bdaman,
I’ve been there too and it is a humiliating prospect both ways. Some say a child those who would say it are either very lucky shouldn’t have to do that, but to that I say that those who would
say so are either lucky to have not had the need, or see it in only their discomfit. It is unpleasant to be sure, for both parties, but is represents another way of our paying back to those who gave us life and in that respect duty becomes an honor.
I am able to swim now and do just about anything. In the last month or so, most of the collateral pain has gone away and so I’m able to fully appreciate the blessing I’ve received.
OS
Yep, that’s me. I still haven’t found out how to work the search function. I’ve tried several different things, but just keep getting the search template back and nothing else. I’ll stick to it, though. After 50 years of hassling computers, I’m not going to let it beat me. 🙂
Your post about Stumpy was so touching. You really are a good writer and I’m looking forward to seeing more of your “diaries” when I have time.
Buckeye, be sure to read the FAQ. Many new users do not become familiar with the FAQ which has a huge amount of information regarding all kinds of things. Familiarity with the FAQ keeps new users from embarrassing themselves. You will be able to post comments 24 hours after registering, and can post diaries one week after registering. The delay is to discourage spammers and drive-by trolls. After three months, you are eligible to become a Trusted User (TU), which comes with a few perks, the most significant of which is that you will be able to see Hidden Comments and you get a ‘Hide” button beside the “rec” button below comments. Some comments are so awful or off topic they should be hidden from the general public, although TUs can still see them. Some trolls are kind of funny, wailing about their comments being “disappeared’ or ‘deleted.’ Nothing is deleted, just hidden if it is offensive enough. You become a TU by commenting quite a bit and having your comments and diaries recommended by others–that happens if they are interesting, informative or funny.
Buckeye, stop back by and let us know what username you choose on other sites. I see a buckeye74 registered on DKos today. Is that you?
Eniobob just so you know, growing up I looked like the young man holding the mic. That was then, bald is now. My brother, ten years older hated his hair through adolescents. He would grease it and slept with a stocking cap to keep his hair straight. 🙂
Thanks man, I felt that comment.
OH !!! see, there, you did it.
Thanks OS. I’ll try that. See you there.
don’t see bye anywhere in it.
Buckeye keep your head up and never say goodbye.
Thanks OS. I’ll try that. See you there.
Buckeye,
There is a registered user called Buckeye on DKos who seems to be inactive. Registered back in October 2004. However, once a username is taken, it is forever. You can register, I think, using all lower case and be OK, or some people will add a number like “Buckeye2” or something if there are multiples.
Good luck on your ventures.
“First, do no harm.”
First, the harm is both done and ongoing since the day Bush was appointed President. Second, I’m not that kind of doctor nor is that part of my oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Buckeye,
Hurry back!
SM
“You might want to check back in at election time to see if they voting republican or writing someone in.” LOL I’ll be watching!
AY Ya, it’s a Buckeye. Lots of them here in Ohio which is why it’s called the “Buckeye” state. Balance? Do you think balance would thrive here? Maybe.
Gyges & S M
I don’t think any regulars here or JT are Tea Pary types (well maybe Jill) 🙂 in any way except in the RESULTS of their “rants”. They, like the radical right, in trying to sway others that changes need to be made, use rhetoric which would lead one to believe both that Obama is wholly venal and that the government is wholly corrupt. They both may be, but I’m not convinced of that.
Perfection in government is a chimera and the public’s perception of their government is “flexible” to say the least. Efforts to disparage beyond the reasonable will have unintended consequences.
First, do no harm.
I don’t mind getting whacked. It hasn’t happened very often, if at all, and if I can’t be convinced my point of view should change, you can believe it won’t change. But I can be persuaded and hope I can admit it when in error.
I’ll certainly follow things here since this is one of the best sites for gaining information; your links will be sorely missed SM. I’m going to try OS’s DK site first. Good luck!
Right on Buddha!! The attraction of this site is the many different opinions that are heard and discussed.
You’ll note that nowhere in the Constitution is EITHER political party protected or exempted from the rule of law – despite what they may think or convey by misdeed. If putting the Constitution before any party affiliation is your definition of extremist? Then I am proud to be an extremist. Given that Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Franklin and Adams were all considered extremists in their day, I would count myself in good company.
If anyone has a problem with any of my consistently stated stance regarding where my loyalties rest?
That would be your problem.
Swarthmore,
I agree that there are not any extremists in our ranks. I may be nuts, but I am not an extremist.
I am taking Notes to report each and everyone of you folks…maybe…
buckeye, The guest contributors are not tea partyers. The professor isn’t or he would have the extremists as guest bloggers. He just throws them a little bait, and they launch into their anti-government or anti-Obama rants. It is predictable. The problem for me and maybe you is that we like to present a few facts and then we get whacked. If you really are going permanently, I will miss you. You might want to check back in at election time to see if they voting republican or writing someone in.
Gyges,
I am going to have to report you……You will understand when the Soup Nazi’s show up…..We are all just bastillions of change….We are the Next Tea Party…..or is that Pee Party…..
Buckeye,
There’s a difference between calling Wagner’s Operas artsy fartsy and thinking that they’re the self-indulgent products of a talented mind that had no capacity for self-limitation.
I’d hope that our criticism of the administration is a bit more substantive than the Tea Party.