[Peace-discuss] Greenwald on Obama

[Brussel]

I found Greenwald's analysis "on the mark", "compelling" in that sense.

As for your nudge, it means that "we—those who think like me"—need to  
gear up anew to fight whatever retrograde policies Obama ends up  
pursuing. The honeymoon of uncertainty he has cultivated and enjoyed  
is about to end.

--mkb



On Jan 12, 2009, at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> What are you compelled to, by this?
>
> "...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.
>> © 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._______________________________________________ Peace- 
>> discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http:// 
>> lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss