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
ap, He is tweeting from Brazil’s finest beaches. 🙂
I don’t see Greenwald out on the barricades singing ballads. 😉
mespo727272:
glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com
As I said, excellent and worth the read, IMOSHO:
It is an injustice in its own right to allow those with power and wealth to commit destructive crimes with impunity. It subverts democracy and warps the justice system when a person’s treatment under the law is determined not by their acts but by their power, position, and prestige. And it exposes just how shameful is the American penal state by contrasting the immunity given to the nation’s most powerful with the merciless and brutal punishment meted out to its most marginalized. -Glenn Greenwald
“Obama’s Failure to Punish Banks Should Be Causing Serious Social Unrest”
“A new PBS Frontline report examines outrageous steps Obama’s administration took to protect Wall St. Wall Street from prosecutions.”
by Glenn Greenwald
January 23, 2013 |
http://www.alternet.org/economy/obamas-failure-punish-banks-should-be-causing-serious-social-unrest
Excerpt:
“Obama DOJ refused even to try to find criminal culprits on Wall Street. In the book, this career-Democratic-aide-turned-whistleblower details how the levers of Washington power are used to shield and protect high-level Wall Street executives, many of whom have close ties to the leaders of both parties and themselves are former high-level government officials. This is a system, he makes clear, that is constituted to ensure that those executives never face real accountability even for their most egregious and destructive crimes.
The reason there have been no efforts made to criminally investigate is obvious. Former banking regulator and current securities Professor Bill Black told Bill Moyers in 2009 that “Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong.” In the documentary “Inside Job”, the economist Nouriel Roubini, when asked why there have been no such investigations, replied: “Because then you’d find the culprits.” Underlying all of that is what the Senate’s second-highest ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin, admitted in 2009: the banks “frankly own the place”.
The harms from this refusal to hold Wall Street accountable are the same generated by the general legal immunity the US political culture has vested in its elites. Just as was true for the protection of torturers and illegal eavesdroppers, it ensures that there are no incentives to avoid similar crimes in the future. It is an injustice in its own right to allow those with power and wealth to commit destructive crimes with impunity. It subverts democracy and warps the justice system when a person’s treatment under the law is determined not by their acts but by their power, position, and prestige. And it exposes just how shameful is the American penal state by contrasting the immunity given to the nation’s most powerful with the merciless and brutal punishment meted out to its most marginalized.”
I get Greenwald’s tweets. and think he is a very needed voice, but after I read that he supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I became somewhat skeptical. When he started advocating for Ron Paul, I became more skeptical. The other day he said something favorable about Rand Paul. I hope he doesn’t start pushing a presidential run for him.
For context:
mespo727272 on January 24, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“Excellent” and “worth reading” did you say? (directed at me)
Well, maybe, but personally I like the original version from Abbie Hoffman which, if equally insidious, was more honest, “The only way to support a revolution is to make your own.”
“Revolution for the Hell of It,” you say? Seems Greenwald needs a tie-dye kit and some “love beads.”
———
mespo727272:
“Revolution for the Hell of It,” you say?” No, actually I didn’t. Abbie Hoffman did.
AY:
Not really. Just call me Lennay.
Mespo,
Are you still here….
Lol….
DonS:
“But many of us find our creeping right wing progression far more scary.”
***************************
That’s precisely my point. Greenwald make a false equivalency between the radical Republicans and the less-than-courageous Democrats. He detests both parties — and most everyone else he disagrees with. In doing so he blurs the right-wing radicalization of the Republican Party. When he says many progressives would stand with the President if he “raped a nun,” he does us all a big disservice. He’s thin-skinned, lauded far above his accomplishments, and the kind of guy who can’t keep it out of the personal.
Mespo, IMO (though no one asked) Greenwald articulates a lot of what many feel. If his is a brand of civil liberties advocacy is one-sideded, so must be emptywheel, much of FDL, and indeed JT’s own take on many of these issues. I understand you’re not alone in sticking up for the system rather than — horror of horrors — imagine we may fall into anarchy or something worse (fat chance). But many of us find our creeping right wing progression far more scary. If being a ‘radical’ on civil liberties is one-sided I’ll take it, while it’s still permitted. I for one choose not to leave the field to the corporatists, facists, the muddy middle, or the unconcerned sleepers, or the American Dream perps.
Greenwald’s a danger because he is fearlessly unrelenting in his critique. I understand your critique, though it smacks a bit of ad homnem, is one shared by some, that he is a self-promoter. Well, even if so, he’s working pretty hard on it, and, as I see it, on the right side. I doubt he’s spending too much time on the beach. I also find it pretty hard to disparage decamping the US of A and it’s glorious exceptionalist self-congratulation. I spend several months of the year in Canada (not allowed to be there more than 6) and, while I am still beset by reminders of the doings of the Great Satan, gain a slight relief from being directly out of the pot. (I also take a big break from reading blogs, which is a mixed bag)
AP:
Here’s a gem of a conclusion from a lawyer sworn to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution of the US (where he resides — rarely) from the article you cite:
The real mystery from all of this is that it has not led to greater social unrest. To some extent, both the early version of the Tea Party and the Occupy movements were spurred by the government’s protection of Wall Street at the expense of everyone else. Still, Americans continue to be plagued by massive unemployment, foreclosures, the threat of austerity and economic insecurity while those who caused those problems have more power and profit than ever. And they watch millions of their fellow citizens be put in cages for relatively minor offenses while the most powerful are free to commit far more serious crimes with complete impunity. Far less injustice than this has spurred serious unrest in other societies.
“Excellent” and “worth reading” did you say?
Well, maybe, but personally I like the original version from Abbie Hoffman which, if equally insidious, was more honest, “The only way to support a revolution is to make your own.”
“Revolution for the Hell of It,” you say? Seems Greenwald needs a tie-dye kit and some “love beads.”
From the Sirota piece that you posted, Swarthmore mom:
“Now, sure, I guess there’s a chance that after constructing a career like she has, White will suddenly become a tough-on-Wall-Street law enforcer. Anything’s possible, right? But clearly, after reviewing her record, Obama’s SEC nomination looks a lot different than how it is being portrayed. It is not an obviously “tough on crime” move, especially when you consider the fact that there were other well-qualified, truly tough-on-crime regulators for him to nominate. Instead, the White nomination looks like something Wall Street executives will love. They know the average voter will view her prosecutor résumé as proof that she’s tough on crime, but they also know she’s been a huge help to those executives.
In that context, her nomination isn’t some get-tough-on-Wall-Street move by a newly emboldened president. Shrouded in a prosecutor’s tough-on-crime costume, she seems to represent a second-term payback to that president’s Wall Street campaign contributors.
UPDATE: The Huffington Post reports that less than a year ago, White gave a speech at NYU suggesting that banks may not have committed prosecutable crimes in the lead up to the financial meltdown. That’s not exactly encouraging for those who believe the next SEC chief should get tough on Wall Street crime.”
AP:
“That’s just an excerpt of Glenn Greenwald’s posting (refer to previous comment. ) The entire article is excellent as is worth reading, IMO.”
*************************
Any particular reason anybody should trust or accept anything Greenwald says or writes? He writes well and his view is appealing to some though he is a tad one-sided for my tastes. And after all is said and done, he’s an ex-pat lawyer with just over ten years of real law practice and who, when the kitchen got really hot, beat a hasty retreat to the beaches of Rio’ to enjoy Carnival.
Thanks for the links and info, Swarthmore mom.
“Maybe not so good, after all.” Swarthmore mom
It’s hard to know sometimes, isn’t it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578261590608782544.html
Jan. 24, 2013
Excerpt:
“Ms. White could face questions from Wall Street critics in Congress over her defense of Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America Corp.’s BAC +1.23% former chief executive, in a civil-fraud case.
Other clients include the independent directors of News Corp NWSA -0.84% ., who hired Ms. White in 2011 during the company’s U.K. phone-hacking scandal. News Corp. owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.”
Basically, media equates “prosecutor” with “tough on Wall Street crime” even though the record is the opposite: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/24/secs_new_wall_street_enabler/ … Maybe not so good, after all.
Obama sends tough prosecutor to police Wall Street
2:22 PM ET, 01/24/2013 –
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Sorry, Sallie.
After weeks of vetting, courting and grappling, it appears that President Obama finally found his top cop for Wall Street. And no, it wasn’t someone who can easily be identified with the industry — unless you consider organized crime and terrorism branches of modern finance.
There will be no Sallie Krawcheck, the former brokerage chief at Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. . It won’t be Mary Miller, the official in a Treasury Department considered cozy with bank interests. It wont be the internal candidate, enforcement chief Robert Khuzami — who has surprised Securities and Exchange Commission critics by tackling the chronic insider-trading problem. Read full story on Mary Jo White’s nomination.
President Obama, perhaps trying to assuage critics who argue he’s been to lenient on the Street, will nominate Mary Jo White, a former prosecutor. You think Steve Cohen is intimidating? White took on mob boss John Gotti and al Qaeda.
White’s reputation and career is a stark contrast to predecessor Mary Schapiro, a career bureaucrat who was viewed generously as a pragmatist. The critical view was that she may have been decent manager, but as a leader was ineffective and too easily pushed around — as her losing fight to regulate money market funds this summer revealed.
White won’t be and shouldn’t be taken lightly. A 2002 interview with PBS revealed White to have an excellent relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And she spoke in terms of getting bad guys, not working with them: “We know who to look for, how they operated, where they operated,” she said of the terrorists. Read transcript of White’s interview on terrorism.
In some ways, her task taking on the bad guys of finance will be tougher. Unlike gangsters and terrorists, insider traders and fraudsters will argue that they’re doing things the American way — through their high-priced attorneys. Big institutions will lobby against her dictums the way Fidelity Investments did this summer.
But you can bet the public and investors will be better served by White than Krawcheck.
— David Weidner
That’s just an excerpt of Glenn Greenwald’s posting (refer to previous comment. ) The entire article is excellent as is worth reading, IMO.
Obama’s Failure to Punish Banks Should Be Causing Serious Social Unrest
A new PBS Frontline report examines outrageous steps Obama’s administration took to protect Wall St. Wall Street from prosecutions.
by Glenn Greenwald
January 23, 2013 |
http://www.alternet.org/economy/obamas-failure-punish-banks-should-be-causing-serious-social-unrest
PBS’ Frontline program on Tuesday night broadcast a new one-hour report on one of the greatest and most shameful failings of the Obama administration: the lack of even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis: a crisis from which millions of people around the world are still suffering. What this program particularly demonstrated was that the Obama justice department, in particular the Chief of its Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, never even tried to hold the high-level criminals accountable.
What Obama justice officials did instead is exactly what they did in the face of high-level Bush era crimes of torture and warrantless eavesdropping: namely, acted to protect the most powerful factions in the society in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious criminality. Indeed, financial elites were not only vested with impunity for their fraud, but thrived as a result of it, even as ordinary Americans continue to suffer the effects of that crisis.
Worst of all, Obama justice officials both shielded and feted these Wall Street oligarchs (who, just by the way, overwhelmingly supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign) as they simultaneously prosecuted and imprisoned powerless Americans for far more trivial transgressions. As Harvard law professor Larry Lessig put it two weeks ago when expressing anger over the DOJ’s persecution of Aaron Swartz: “we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House.” (Indeed, as “The Untouchables” put it: while no senior Wall Street executives have been prosecuted, “many small mortgage brokers, loan appraisers and even home buyers” have been).
As I documented at length in my 2011 book on America’s two-tiered justice system, With Liberty and Justice for Some, the evidence that felonies were committed by Wall Street is overwhelming. That evidence directly negates the primary excuse by Breuer (previously offered by Obama himself) that the bad acts of Wall Street were not criminal.
Numerous documents prove that executives at leading banks, credit agencies, and mortgage brokers were falsely touting assets as sound that knew were junk: the very definition of fraud. As former Wall Street analyst Yves Smith wrote in her book ECONned: “What went on at Lehman and AIG, as well as the chicanery in the CDO [collateralized debt obligation] business, by any sensible standard is criminal.” Even lifelong Wall Street defender Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chair, said in Congressional testimony that “a lot of that stuff was just plain fraud.”
A New York Times editorial in August explained that the DOJ’s excuse for failing to prosecute Wall Street executives – that it was too hard to obtain convictions – “has always defied common sense – and all the more so now that a fuller picture is emerging of the range of banks’ reckless and lawless activities, including interest-rate rigging, money laundering, securities fraud and excessive speculation.” The Frontline program interviewed former prosecutors, Senate staffers and regulators who unequivocally said the same: it is inconceivable that the DOJ could not have successfully prosecuted at least some high-level Wall Street executives – had they tried.
Richard Faust:
“A warning to all readers: do not respond to Mespo.”
************************
A small P.S. that Richard forgot to write was to also ask you to place both hands over your ears and run around the room exclaiming, “If I don’t respond he isn’t there! If I don’t respond, he isn’t there.”
UN Launches Drone Investigation Into Legality Of U.S. Program
by Joshua Hersh
Posted: 01/24/2013 12:56 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/un-drone-investigation_n_2542809.html
Article:
WASHINGTON — The United Nations opened a major new investigation on Thursday into the United States’ use of drones and targeted assassinations.
The U.N. investigation, led by special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson, is expected to focus on the legal justification for America’s expansive drone program, which has largely remained secretive and unexamined.
“The exponential rise in the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-military contexts represents a real challenge to the framework of established international law,” Emmerson said in a statement released by his office.
“It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirements of international law, including international human rights law, international humanitarian law (or the law of war as it used to be called), and international refugee law.”
Human rights observers have long objected to the use of drones to target suspected terrorists because they often result in wider civilian deaths than administration officials have acknowledged.
But more practical concerns — about the legality and efficacy of the program, as well as the White House’s lack of transparency — have also been growing.
The United States is by far the leading user of drones and unmanned vehicles for targeted assassinations, but it is not the only one. Drone use is expected to expand widely around the world — China and Iran already are known to have the capability — and there have been growing calls for the U.S. to clarify its own internal rules for the appropriate use of the technology.
In a recent conference call organized by the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence under President Barack Obama, urged the administration to make more of its drone policies public.
“There’s been far too little debate” about the tactic, Blair said in the call. “The United States is a democracy, we want our people to know how we use military force and that we use it in ways the United States is proud of.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been waging a years-long effort to compel the Obama administration to release its internal legal considerations, welcomed the U.N. investigation, and urged the U.S. to participate in it.
“Virtually no other country agrees with the U.S.’s claimed authority to secretly declare people enemies of the state and kill them and civilian bystanders far from any recognized battlefield,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement. “To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government’s ever-expanding targeted killing program.”
Also on Thursday, the American Security Project released a new report examining the efficacy of drone strikes and raising questions about the strategy of using unmanned aerial vehicles for counterterrorism.
The report argues that the apparent tactical success of drones — their ability to kill suspected terrorists without significant risk to American forces — does not answer important questions about the strategic benefits of the program, or the broader strategic thinking behind it.