Who Runs Gov

13 Responses

1. sgwhiteinfla | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:25 pm

   Well of the three things that you noted.
   .
   1. On states secrets he addressed it yesterday and said:
   .

   We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

   .
   I don’t think Bush’s unitary executive position was in line with Congressional oversight. As a matter of fact it would seem that Bush and Cheney were a lot more comfortable with going it alone.
   .
   2. On a probe of terror architects he said.
   .

   I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

   .
   Can you imagine Bush welcoming any probes whether Congressional or through the DOJ into whether or not he ordered torture? I surely can’t.
   .
   And on # 3 I am still at a loss at why what he said yesterday is now being termed “preventive detention” simply because using his words yesterday he is talking about people who have ALREADY committed crimes but we just can’t prove it either because of torture or because of the evidence isn’t strong enough for presentation of court because of Natl Security concerns.
   .

   Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
   .
   I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
   .
   As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

   .
   Now call me crazy but I thought the whole reason Bush/Cheney set up GITMO was to keep the detainees away from any kind of Judicial oversight. And there are of course questions about the level of Congressional oversight Bush provided. So again this is approach is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what Bush was doing.
   .
   Now don’t get me wrong, many people may not be convinced of President Obama’s words. And lets say they might have good reason. Still if you go by his words his approach is to embrace oversight which was the exact opposite of the Bush approach. So I don’t see how even people who disagree with President Obama’s approach are now saying this is “just like Bush”. Simply put, it isn’t.

2. Greg Sargent | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:27 pm

   SG, I agree there’s some daylight between Obama and Bush on some of this stuff. But I fully understand why liberal critics like Greenwald lay down a hard line on this stuff. They see a need for extreme vigilance, and I understand that.

3. sgwhiteinfla | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:37 pm

   Greg
   .
   I have gone a couple of rounds with Glenzilla and I don’t always agree with him but I respect where he is coming from on this. I just wish it would go to the hyperbole about being “just like Bush”. Glen and the other civil libertarians are doing their best to push the Overton window to the left and I applaud that. Especially after all of the bullsh*t Bush and Cheney were able to pull off the last 8 years. Besides that Obama won’t be President forever obviously and by the time another neo con gets into the office we would definitely want some rules in place so they can’t trample all over the Constitution. However I do worry that by using that kind of hyperbole we end up creating a situation where people in the middle who aren’t political junkies end up really and truly believing that there is no difference between Obama and Bush and no difference between Dems and Repubs and thats a dangerous situation when you are talking about future elections. If people in the middle get it in their head that it doesn’t matter who is in office or what party they are from, the same things are going to happen then there is a good likelyhood that they won’t go to the polls and vote to keep Dems in or vote Repubs out. And the truth is while Glenn and the ACLU and most other civil libertarians are dissappointed in Obama I don’t really believe any of them truly wish we had a President McCain in office instead. Yet in a way they may be helping to push people in the middle to that belief. Thats what is frustrating to me. Not that they are making the arguments, but HOW they are making them.

4. Annette | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:41 pm

   I tweet as sweetlucy47 so you know who I am SG… and Greg.. Greenwald is rabid when it comes to the President and has been all along. Pres. Obama is not liberal enough for him and never will be. I don’t think anyone would be, even Paul Krugman.
   However the “preventive detention” as you call it, is what I believe to be what we called POW’s in WWII, and under the Geneva Conventions can be held indefinitely, or until the end of the war. I don’t think they will be held that long or in that way. I think there will be some thing else done with them, and I think there will be a court hearing of some kind at a later date.
   Remember, after AG Holder was there, the statement was made that paperwork was a terrible mess, and some files are missing. Some of these people they know nothing about. If they don’t how can they ever charge them with anything? That may be the ones they are talking about. We really don’t know.
   We may just have to wait and see what shakes out in time.
   We also have to learn to trust again. That is the biggest thing I think we have to do.

5. Greg Sargent | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:42 pm

   SG — agreed, I don’t think anyone of them would say that he’s anything like Obama. You’ll be interested in this: Gonna post a link in a sec to White House officials claiming that they like Greenwald and other criticism from the left.

6. Greg Sargent | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:42 pm

   whoops *anything like McCain. friggin’ tired.

7. sgwhiteinfla | May 22nd, 2009 at 05:57 pm

   Greg
   .
   I believe they DO like the criticisms from the left because when they want to reform something its much easier if they have the cover of people like Glenn helping to turn public opinion. But if you go back to Rachel Maddow’s segment on that meeting with civil libertarians the other day you will recall that Isikoff said the one thing Obama was pissed about was them saying he was just like Bush. And when I heard it on Tee Vee I was like “yeah, that’s what I’m sayin”. So I think it makes sense for them to welcome the criticism but I think it also is apparent why that “just like Bush” criticism would get Obama’s goat.

8. Greg Sargent | May 22nd, 2009 at 06:04 pm

   Fair point. It has to be galling to be compared to Bush on the day you stand up to the conservative criticism and reiterate your arguments in favor of ending torture and of closing Gitmo and housing terror detainees on American soil.

9. AllButCertain | May 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm

   I’m just catching up tonight, and I have to say I think you’re right on virtually everything you’ve written here, SG. All that Obama said was measured and well thought out. He also has indicated that all of this is a process, much of it involved with trying to unsnarl the mess he inherited. And he has always insisted that if he gets something wrong, he’ll fix it. For people on the left to say he’s just like Bush on any of these issues is mindlessly reductive and inflammatory. It’s as if many progressives hear one word out of an argument and instantly go ballistic. Meanwhile, somebody like Chris Matthews gets his advance copy of yesterday’s speech and a minute later says it’s all big picture and Obama isn’t addressing the real issue people are concerned with–terrorists coming to their neighborhood prisons. Instant “analysis” and instant reactions all around. It makes me want to put a bunch of people back in the classroom and teach them how to think.

10. jack parler | June 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Come on dude, these facts* and proof* i mean who is posting* lol

11. Dad0Seven | June 14th, 2009 at 05:11 pm

    Cheney’s criticism is a perfect example of “let’s you and him fight it out”. He musta been a middle child. Poster child of why former “heads of state” need to keep their mouths shut. Sort of a beaurocratic version of a No Compete employment clause. I can always dream…

12. Dad0Seven | June 14th, 2009 at 05:13 pm

    My bad…bureaucratic

13. Private | June 20th, 2009 at 02:49 pm

    Interesting..

Leave a Reply