Below is today’s column in USA Today. It is a follow up to my speech at the National Press Club on the 4oth anniversary of Watergate. The event included a number of Watergate figures from Daniel Ellsberg to Liz Holtzman to Alexander Butterfield and others. It was an extraordinary event organized by Common Cause.
This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon’s impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.
Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an “imperial presidency” with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:
Warrantless surveillance
Nixon’s use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned “probable cause” into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.
Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That’s only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.
Unilateral military action
Nixon’s impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress’ sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan “mission,” Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a “war” and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation’s capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.
Kill lists
Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the famed Pentagon Papers to the press, and later tried to imprison him. Ellsberg was later told of a secret plot by the White House “plumbers” to “incapacitate” him in a physical attack. It was a shocking revelation. That’s nothing compared with Obama’s assertion of the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction, based on his sole authority. A recently leaked memo argues that the president has a right to kill a citizen even when he lacks “clear evidence (of) a specific attack” being planned.
Attacking whistle-blowers and Journalists
Nixon was known for his attacks on whistle-blowers. He used the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. Nixon was vilified for the abuse of the law. Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined. While refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, the Obama administration has prosecuted former CIA employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program. The Obama Administration has also threatened action against journalists in receiving precisely the same type of information published in the Pentagon Papers during Nixon’s administration.
Other Nixonesque areas include Obama’s overuse of classification laws and withholding material from Congress. There are even missing tapes. In the torture scandal, CIA officials admitted to destroying tapes that they feared could be used against them in criminal cases. Of course, Nixon had missing tapes, but Rose Mary Woods claimed to have erased them by mistake, as opposed to current officials who openly admit to intentional destruction.
Obama has not only openly asserted powers that were the grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, but he has made many love him for it. More than any figure in history, Obama has been a disaster for the U.S. civil liberties movement. By coming out of the Democratic Party and assuming an iconic position, Obama has ripped the movement in half. Many Democrats and progressive activists find themselves unable to oppose Obama for the authoritarian powers he has assumed. It is not simply a case of personality trumping principle; it is a cult of personality.
Long after Watergate, not only has the presidency changed. We have changed. We have become accustomed to elements of a security state such as massive surveillance and executive authority without judicial oversight. We have finally answered a question left by Benjamin Franklin in 1787, when a Mrs. Powel confronted him after the Constitutional Convention and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His chilling response: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
We appear to have grown weary of the republic and traded it for promises of security from a shining political personality. Somewhere, Nixon must be wondering how it could have been this easy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
USA Today March 26, 2013
Darren,
“Unfortunately it says a lot about our country when so many turn a blind eye to the actions of this president.”
Many turned a blind eye to the things Bush did too. There were even members of the media who were cheerleaders for the war with Iraq. In addition, many have turned a blind eye to terrible offenses that happened during other administrations–including those of Clinton and Reagan.
Blouise,
In Ford’s defense, he was an idiot doing what he was told by “the Party”. He did, however, come to realize the grave nature of his error later in life and said he regretted pardoning Tricky Dick. Too little, too late.
Obama and Bush are one and the same. How can anyone not see it
Time… It’s just a matter of time…. For the intrusion in ones life by the government…
Need a revolutions? Yeah, but I think the Supreme Five figured they pulled one off in 2000.
And not for nothing did Bush The Lesser indicate he might vote for Obama. Obama is Bush/Cheney in Dem clothing.l
Excellent article.
A couple points.
Those who speak out opposing any Obama policy are immediately labeled as racist by the Obama acolytes. Thus, many sit silent rather than be called a racist.
With so many Obama Acolytes, any national strike or other civil protest will not get close to a start. Too many don’t want to be called a racist and still believe the pied piper Mr. O.
And lastly, please, please, please, there are more than two political parties. Do Not vote for a DemoRepo or a RepoDemo, the are one and the same. There are a number of other options, choose the best of what is left.
Let us not leave out ol’ Jerry Ford who wanted so badly to put all this behind us that he pardoned Nixon because the citizens and the economy couldn’t handle further Watergate fall out that would occur from putting Nixon on trial.
And what ap said.
And the worst of it still hasn’t come to light.
The time has come to question whether or not a political Revolution has become necessary to save the US Constitution.
I am of the mind that it is. Starting with a National strike and retail boycott to force the resignation of our so called leaders. I cannot see Obama stepping aside easily however. Too much arrogance.
Wow, not a mention of the Bush II regime in today’s post.
Very much like the recent Republican Convention.
The reason “Nixonism” has succeeded is because we do not see the problem, as Gene H alluded to up-thread, we see a mirage of a personality.
The power that has moved us into the “homeland” state of a plutonomy, mastered by a warmongering plutocracy, is more power by far than any one individual personality can muster.
It is inane to think otherwise, and intuitively we know that to be true because otherwise we would not condemn Citizens United.
Instead, we would say “no biggie that the big bucks are injected into American elections and politics, because any individual personality who believes strongly enough can grasp the vast reins of American elections and move himself or herself into that vast seat of world influencing power.”
We should know that no single individual effort can get anyone into the presidency, much less command worldwide militancy, on their personality or anything else any one individual can conjure up (Epigovernment: The New Model).
Members of Nixon’s administration exercised power in accord with the policies of the Nixonian mindset — “If we need money I can get it” he said on the tapes — because he had epigovernment sources and was a tool.
Those very same members of Nixon’s administration have more recently exercised orders of magnitude more power as members of the Bush II administration (e.g. Cheney, Rumsfeld).
They commanded enough power, even though their Nixon Administration had been woefully shamed by criminal acts, to once again perform anything from “unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance” not mentioned in the pos.
But this time they did it with impunity and with immunity, even adding torture to their sordid mix.
And they have extolled the virtues of such activities in public.
Whether Barack Obama would want to single handedly put such dark powers into play is irrelevant — compared to the question of “could he?”
When we face reality that individual personalities are substantially puppets we can begin to hopefully reign in the epigovernment beast.
Until then the epigovernment will continue to oppress, dominate, and practice their psychotic imaginings through the crucible of war.
Thank you Professor Turley.
How quickly constitutional protections have evaporated. Sad.
“Let others wallow in Watergate/”
-Tricky Dick
9/11 has its parallels. That word parallel does not go far enough. On 9/11 we had historical copycats who operate without copwrite. Eleven al-qaeda guys from Saudi Arabia with box cutters get on four planes and hijack. They fly two into the World Trade Cente Towers, three towers fall, one into the Pentagon and one attempt on the White House. The President asks for the Patriot Act and Congress gives it. Subsequent acts are passed that are worse. In 1933 someone burns down the Reichstag which is the German Parliament bldg. The President of the German Republic, von Hindenburg is pressured into issuing the Reichstag Fire Decree which abrogates their constittuion and all civil liberties. The Third Reich is ushered in with Hitler, Goerring et al. Holocaust, WWII, and Nuremburg Trials bring some of the worst to justice. Goerring admits that he set the fire while he is locked up prior to his suicitde. It was not the commies after all.
The 1933 Parallels. Coming to a theatre near you.
I have said before that Obama is just like Nixon. Nixon, GW Bush and Obama have alot in common.
The reason it goes unnoticed is because the Leftwing is too busy being happy a Republican is not President to realize that a right leaning Fascist is. Willful ignorance. One day they will wake up and realize they elected GW Bush for 4 terms in a row.
I am a Liberal and I find the Democratic party to be a corrupt vile entity now. Liars thieves and hypocrites.
Half the Democrats voter base is a foaming at the mouth fanatical Fascist who are now whipped up into a frenzy of which is just crazy when you consider this was the party of the Hippies.
How the hell did that happen? Well I think the fact that the rightwing was close to the same way during the Clinton and Bush years kinda pushed alot of leftists over the edge of reason. Which is ironic because now the left has gone over the deep end so far that it is pushing the right towards True Liberalism even as they drive themselves and the Democratic party into a Bizarre version of the Fascist right. Never in a million years did I expect to see Democrats support a President using Drones to blow up little kids, provoke war or revoke Civil Liberties and rights. Pure Craziness.
Fact is I am not sure who I trust the LEAST now. The Religious Right Fascists or the Pro Big Brother Anti Gun Left Fascists. Both are equally dangerous to the Bill of Rights and our Freedom.
I think the only answer is for all the moderates and reasonable people of BOTH parties to flee to either a newly created party or the Libertarian or Green.
But one thing is certain…..
THE SINGLE MOST GRAVEST THREAT TO THE COUNTRY IS NOT A FOREIGN POWER OR DEBT. IT IS FASCISM WITHIN OUR OWN POLITICAL SYSTEM and yes that includes BOTH parties.
It MUST be Eliminated.
This whole situation is so bloody sick! Its exactly as stated & worse. Only a few countries in Africa & several Arab ones have less freedom on the law books. Where are the riots?
Unfortunately it says a lot about our country when so many turn a blind eye to the actions of this president. And you hear nothing substantive coming out of his own party, who claim to be the ones who champion the civil rights of the citizenry. Yet, they either don’t have the courage to demand the administration change its ways or they actually agree with it. Either way it is contemptable. But, nothing is done. Instead there are shills in the party who demonize the republicans for taking away civil rights of the people but they only need to look at their own president if they want to criticise someone.
But, I can see, though I don’t agree with, why people don’t call him out on his actions. They will be attacked in one way or another.
The only ones that are going to reign in this disgrace of a president are those in the democratic party. The republicans are nearly all against his actions and they are not going to acomplish much. The democrats are the only party that can do so, but they won’t do enough.
sic transit gloria mundis…
Never thought I’d say this: Oh, for the days of Nixon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o-fxjuwEvA
He’s no Kennedy or Gandhi, that’s for sure.
From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon’s impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.
The next question is why is it NOT illegal when Obama does it yet Congress thought it illegal 40 years ago? Have the players changed and the rules stayed the same or have the rules changed and we’re just now catching on?
When did violating the First Amendment become legal?
The same to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth…