[Peace-discuss] Greenwald on Obama

[John W.]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

What are you compelled to, by this?


Armed revolution?  Suicide?  Or is this a rhetorical question?



> "...Obama's ... devotion, first and foremost, to perpetuating rather than
> challenging how the Washington establishment functions...
>
> "...Obama ... stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100
> days of his presidency ... [and that we] 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.
>
> "...Obama ... does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level
> lawbreakers in the Bush administration...
>
> "...Obama ... 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."
>
> --Glenn Greenwald <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/11-11>
>
>
> Brussel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> (c) 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090112/a1341627/attachment.html