After the Inauguration, I shared my thoughts on President Barack Obama’s address. I liked the speech but, as with many civil libertarians, I do not share the faith in his commitment to principle — at least not the principles behind civil liberties. Below is today’s print column that touches on some of the same themes with a few additional observations.
OBAMA AND THE LEAP OF FAITH
The theme of President Obama’s second inauguration speech was promoted as “Faith in America’s Future.” Indeed, speaking to a smaller crowd with polls showing his popularity at a low of 49 percent, Obama was clearly speaking to the faithful – a core who continued to rally around this iconic figure. For others, the theme seemed often seemed more “Hope Over Experience.”
Though the president spoke eloquently of fulfilling Martin Luther King’s dream, his first term was most notable for fulfilling Richard Nixon’s dream of an “Imperial Presidency.” From kill lists to warrantless surveillance to drone attacks to secret evidence, Obama eviscerated values that once defined liberals. Then, by sheer power of personality, he made them love him for it.
Notably, the inauguration speech spoke of civil rights rather than civil liberties. The references to gay rights were unprecedented and commendable. However, it also reflected the difference between equality and liberty in Obama’s vision.
Civil libertarians have long complained that Obama has lowered the baseline of rights for all citizens with eroding privacy protections, unilateral presidential powers and limits on due process. We can all be treated equally and have few rights. Equal denial of rights is nothing to celebrate.
While heralding America’s triumph over the “tyranny of a king,” Obama has acquired near authoritarian powers in some areas. Early in his first term, the president shocked many by going to the CIA and publicly assuring CIA officials that they would not be prosecuted for torture — despite Obama’s recognition that waterboarding used by the Bush administration is indeed torture.
Ultimately, Obama has not only embraced the controversial Bush policies on surveillance, secrecy and presidential powers, he has also expanded those policies. Most notorious was his assertion of the power to kill any U.S. citizen considered a threat to the nation’s security.
His administration also has moved to squelch lawsuits designed to protect citizens from warrantless surveillance and investigations. The White House has adopted the rejected Nuremberg defense of “just following orders” in blocking charges against government officials responsible for torture and other abuses. Further, the administration has embraced the military tribunal system and the use of secret evidence in prosecuting certain defendants.
Even on the very values of equality embraced in the speech, Obama was offering hope over experience. Politics rather than principle have long guided this president.
Obama’s passion for gay rights was notably missing in his first term. During much of the past four years, the Obama administration fought against gay rights in a variety of cases in federal court, from challenges to “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Even today, after switching legal positions on issues like DOMA in court, Obama has been unwilling to support the claim that sexual orientation should be given the same constitutional protection as race or even gender. It was Vice President Biden who forced Obama to publicly embrace same-sex marriage toward the end of his first term — public statements that Obama admitted angered him.
Though some insist that the president was merely exercising political realism in avoiding such divisive issues before re-election, it meant that he repeatedly chose politics over civil rights in his first term. The test of principle is to support equality even when it is not to your advantage.
Obama’s repeated insistence that “we must act” may foreshadow even more unilateral action in the future. The president has already proclaimed in the immigration area that he will not enforce certain laws. He has asserted the right to unilaterally define what constitutes a congressional “recess” to allow him to appoint high officials without Senate confirmation. He has claimed the right to attack other nations with drones based solely on his view of national interest.
To put it simply, Obama is the president Nixon longed to be. It will take more than a lip-synched Beyoncé performance to quiet these concerns. What was once a system of checks and balances has been replaced by a leap of faith that these powers will be used by Obama and his successors wisely.
It is faith in Obama, not our future, that has lulled too many into silence in the face of an Imperial President.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
January 23, 2013
If Ron Wyden says that there’s going to be extraordinary anger, why isn’t anyone demanding answers? Instead, there is only extraordinary silence.
Ron Wyden On FISA Reauthorization: ‘There’s Going To Be Extraordinary Anger’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/senator-ron-wyden-fisa-reauthorization_n_2404873.html (with video)
(It’s much worse than many people believe.)
Glenn Greenwald: live Q&A – share your questions
Between 2 and 4pm ET I’ll be taking your questions about my column over the past month. I hope you’ll be able to join me
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/24/glenn-greenwald-live-q-a
Excerpt:
I’m hoping to hear questions about individual liberties, the last month’s news (like Chuck Hagel, Bradley Manning, Aaron Swartz updates) and international issues like the ongoing situation in Mali and the ‘war on terror’.
Leave your questions in the comments and check back around 2pm. If you can’t make it, feel free to leave your question on Twitter using #Glennchat
When the RepubliCons tagged the Affordable Health Care Act as “ObamaCare” we here at the dogpac thought that they were commending our President because he “cared”. But when a RepubliCon speaks or barks the word “ObamaCare” is is always with derision.
My half blind pal human whom I guide around when he is at the marina was reading USA Today about a month ago when he was in the outhouse. He said that the newspaper was rather neutral on the Bradley Manning case and was not calling for an investigation of his torture much less a criminal prosecution of the Commander of Quantico Prison.
Get behind Bradley Manning, do it today in the USA. I know its a paly on words but so is the newspaper. It makes for fairly good wipe paper though. Thats not me barkin but the humanoids at the outhouse.
Hear, hear, HenMan.
“A leap of faith” is when you tell us that Boehner or Boner is not going to jump off of a physical cliff. We pray that he does but he just wont do it. He wont even pronounce it right. He calls it “Fiscal” like he has some midwest accent that wont allow him to pronounce “physical”. He is looking bad too and might need a physical. Dont leap Boehner, down boy.
“Its not faith based, daddy, its fried chicken.”
“Faith based”. Quite a two word phrase. When you ask someone to explain some silly notion that warps out of their religion they respond: Ya gotta have faith. Well you can keep the faith.
Professor Turley-
After well over a year of listening to the “lesser of two evils” rationalizations to ignore President Obama’s dismal record on civil liberties issues, I find your two recent articles to be very much like someone turning the lights on in a very dark and dirty place. I thank you for this, and hope you can find the time to write on civil liberties issues a bit more often here. After all, the name of this website is “Jonathan Turley”, not “A Bunch Of Old Guys And Gals With Too Much Time On Their Hands”.
Regards,
D.H. – (One of the Old Guys)
Well I did the Google search thing and I found some news articles about Bradley Manning in USA Today newspaper but no editorials. So, lets have an exercise in faith here and lobby USA Today to issue an Editorial seeking justice and civil rights for Bradley Manning and that includes a criminal investigation into the torture of Manning. We have a person to appeal to here and it is JT. He is on some Board with USA Today.
Free Bradley Manning!
I notice that JT is on the Board of USA Today. I dont follow the endorsements of newspapers when it comes to voting. But endorsements show where the newspaper might be coming from. Does the newspaper have a right or left field is a question. USA Today does not endorse candidates. Hmmm. I suppose I have a criticizm of that newspaper that JT has for President Obama. Dont take a stand, leap of faith.
What is the stand of USA Today on the torture of Bradley Manning? Have they any editorials on this subject? I am going to go Google that question. I will bark back to ya.
A warning to all readers: do not respond to Mespo.
@ FDL deconstructs Breuer pretty well (I don’t think this has been linked t yet; I’m aware I’ve duplicated a couple of links already. Sorry):
http://my.firedoglake.com/masaccio/2013/01/23/breuer-identifies-real-clients-on-frontline-then-quits/
I imagine well see more comment on this in some later post . . . .
Frontline:
To wit from the transcript:
MARTIN SMITH: You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association. And in that speech, you made a reference to losing sleep at night, worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution.
LANNY BREUER: Right.
MARTIN SMITH: Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?
LANNY BREUER: Well, I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.
In other words, no criminal charges can be levied against anyone who engaged in the crimes leading to the great financial crisis of 2008 because, get this, the implications of pursuing justice may have destabilizing implications!
In other words, the banker threat of Mutual Assured Destruction has metastasized from the legislative, where in 2008 Hank Paulson demanded a blank check from Congress to spend it on whatever he wishes, “or else…”, and has fully taken over the Judicial, where there is Justice for all… and no “Justice” for those who are systemically important.
Ted Kaufman summarizes:
TED KAUFMAN: That was very disturbing to me, very disturbing. That was never raised at any time during any of our discussions. That is not the job of a prosecutor, to worry about the health of the banks, in my opinion. Job of the prosecutors is to prosecute criminal behavior. It’s not to lie awake at night and kind of decide the future of the banks.”
Zerohedge
A Leap of Faith would be something dumber than putting your face or facts on FaceBook. I mean everyone knows that it is dumb to put your Face photo or arse photo on Facebook. Or any facts about yourself. I mean, no one who comments on this blog is dumb enough to use Facebook are they? Lets see a show of hands.
I think the choice of words, Leap of Faith, is inappropriate to a politifcal discussion. I lived in Missoura for a while. The phrase Leap of Faith is appropriate if you are a Baptist and cross yourself when you walk by a Catholic Church or when you are one of the Akin klan and vote Democrat. Only in that second context does the phrase have any context in politics. In politics a Leap of Faith would be to jump over the fiscal cliff and think that you will land in sand and all will be well when you hit bottom. A Leap of Faith is when Ronald Raygun left the Democrats and became a RepubliCon. Or when John Kennedy porked Marilyn right after Bobby did and neither used a condum. Or when he let the Cubans go into the Bay of Pigs without air support. Or when Bobby, scion of bootlegger Joe, prosecuted Hoffa.
I took a few classes at the Art Institute in Baltimore. Charm City was a great art town way back then. Still is obviously.
Gotta love this:
Artist Hasan Elahi meticulously documents life after FBI investigation
University of Maryland professor to open exhibit in Baltimore
University of Maryland professor to open exhibit in Baltimore
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-um-professor-art-20130117,0,3085981.story
Excerpts:
“Rather than shy from government attention, Elahi embarked on a self-surveillance project. He maps his location on a website, along with photos of beds on which he has slept, lots where he has parked and meals he has eaten.
“I’m telling you everything and nothing simultaneously,” said Elahi, who is opening an exhibit Thursday at Maryland Art Place in Baltimore. “It’s a code you have to crack. You really have to re-enact the role of the FBI. In the process, I’m hoping that the viewer realizes that he or she could just as easily be the subject.”
….
Elahi’s website, trackingtransience.net, grew out of these meetings with and emails to FBI agents. He decided to flood them with information and, in the process, create art.
…
Constellations of larger screens hang on the walls, including six that project images from the Baltimore Street police station across from the gallery.
Amy Royce, executive director of Maryland Art Place, said the “idea of being watched and watching others” should resonate with viewers, particularly those who feel they have been unjustly accused.
The exhibit, “Thousand Little Brothers,” examines what happens when people turn the camera on the many manifestations of “Big Brother” that mark 21st-century life.
“Big Brother doesn’t like all these Little Brothers looking at it,” said Elahi, noting several incidents in which citizens have used hand-held cameras to document government abuse, beginning with the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police in 1991.”
Raff–“I understand, but every election is a choice between two or more candidates who have strengths and weaknesses. We have to choose the one that we believe comes closest to the ideal that we are looking for.”
Which is why I sat this cycle out because neither one came close to the ideal or ideals I was looking for. Voting for what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils is still, in the end, voting for something or someone evil.
“I don’t see them voting to “undo” the Patriot Act, Torture and address the broken criminal justice system, sentencing reform and prison reform.” (CC)
Just have faith. The pundits tell we’ll now see the real Obama unleashed; the actual progressive he’s kept so cleverly hidden.
————————–
@ap – I heard that piece too. Strangely sad, and moving, when an act of basic decency is so unique anymore.
Thank you for your well-informed comment. Now what do we do next?
Concerned Citizen, in case you haven’t seen it:
This is brilliant. I’ve been waiting for the transcript. (Watch the video — it’s worth it.)
Edward Tufte’s defense of Aaron Swartz and the “marvelously different”
http://danwin.com/2013/01/edward-tufte-aaron-swartz-marvelously-different/
Well, during our experimentation, AT&T, on the second day it turned out, had tapped our phone. But it wasn’t until about six months later when I got a call from a gentleman, A.J. Dodge, a senior security person at AT&T. And I said, “I know what you’re calling about”.
And so we met. And he said what we’re doing is a crime…But I knew it wasn’t serious because he actually cared about the kind of engineering stuff and complained that the tone signals we were generating were not up to standard. Because they recorded them and played them back into the network to see what numbers we were trying to reach and they couldn’t break through some of the noise of our signal.
He asked why we went off the air after about three months…And I said, well, we regarded it as an engineering problem and we made the longest long-distance telephone call…and that was it.
And so the the deal was, as I explained to my email to Bill Bowen, was that we wouldn’t try to sell this…we wouldn’t do any more of it, and that we would turn our equipment over to AT&T. And so they got a complete vacuum oscillator kit for making long distance phone calls.
But I was grateful for A.J. Dodge and, I must say, even AT&T, that they decided not to wreck my life.
And so I told Bill Bowen that he had a great opportunity here to not wreck somebody’s life. And of course he thankfully did the right thing.
Aaron’s unique quality was that he was marvelously and vigorously different.
There is a scarcity of that.
Perhaps we can be all a little more different too.