[Peace-discuss] Greenwald on Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

I actually wanted to know.

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