[Peace-discuss] Greenwald on Obama

[Brussel]

Glen Greenwald notes, compellingly,

…I've been saying since the election that it makes little sense to  
try to guess what Obama is going to do until he actually does it.    
That's especially true now, since we'll all have the actual evidence  
very shortly, and trying to guess by divining the predictive meaning  
of his appointments or prior statements seems fruitless.  Moreover,  
anonymous reports about what Obama is "likely" to do are particularly  
unreliable.  I still believe that, but Obama's interview today with  
George Stephanopoulos provides the most compelling -- and most  
alarming -- evidence yet that all of the "centrist" and "post- 
partisan" chatter from Obama's supporters will mean what it typically  
means:  devotion, first and foremost, to perpetuating rather than  
challenging how the Washington establishment functions.

As Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt documents, Obama today rather clearly  
stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his  
presidency.  He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings  
Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more  
difficult than people realize."  Specifically, Obama argued, we  
cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of  
law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our  
having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most  
likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes"  
due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people  
indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction  
in an actual court of law.

Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephanopoulos' asking him about  
the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted  
by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue  
prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration,  
twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look  
forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us  
to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the  
right thing."  Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he  
paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the  
law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these  
decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" --  
but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes  
"past-looking" investigations.  In the U.S., high political officials  
aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and  
that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing.

In fairness, Obama has long made clear that this is the approach he  
intends to take to governing.  After all, this is someone who, upon  
arriving in the Senate, sought out Joe Lieberman as his mentor,  
supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the primary, campaigned for  
Blue Dogs against progressive challengers, and has long paid homage  
to the Beltway centrism and post-partisan religion.  And you can't  
very well place someone in a high-ranking position who explicitly  
advocates rendition and enhanced interrogation tactics and then  
simultaneously lead the way in criminally investigating those who  
authorized those same tactics.

So Obama can't be fairly criticized for hiding his devotion to this  
approach.  But whatever else one wants to say about it, one cannot  
call it "new."  This is what Democrats have been told for decades  
they must do and they've spent decades enthusiastically complying.


© 2009 Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights  
litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times  
Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush  
administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His  
second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.