Obama Makes the Case for Releasing the Targeted Killing Memo
As is typical, Jon Stewart conducted a more substantive interview with Obama last night than most “real” journalists (though between the women service members the USO seated in the front rows and Stewart’s admission that he gets fundraising emails from Obama, it was definitely a friendly interview). One huge item was missed by both Stewart and Obama: climate change and energy (Obama even brought up housing, dodging a HAMP question and blaming Congress for blocking refinancing for underwater homeowners).
But Stewart was one of the first people to ask Obama about his undelivered promises on Gitmo and fixing FISA. Josh Gerstein debunked some of Obama’s excuses on that front (and always, every time Obama claims he wants to close Gitmo, he should be asked why he has adopted worse policies at Bagram).
There’s just one detail Gerstein missed, which also deserves mockery.
Obama said this:
One thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is America’s security comes first and the American people need to know how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, national security, and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my Presidency.
Obama’s Administration executed an American citizen with no due process. And yet it refuses to release its legal justification for doing so (to say nothing of the explanation behind Samir Khan and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s death). Now, in the NDAA suit, the government refuses to explain who else might be targeted as a terrorist.
If Obama intends to keep Americans informed about how he makes decisions on war and peace, at the very least he needs to tell them when he can kill or indefinitely detain American citizens.
But I have no optimism that he will get any more transparent about those issues in a second term.
How can anyone with a conscience vote for Obama again and live with themselves?
Daniel Ellsberg, someone I respect, makes the case for holding your nose and making the vote here http://rootsaction.org/news-a-views/534-progressives-in-swing-states-vote-for-obama EW, expect you’ll appreciate that he endorses our take that voting 3rd party in a swing state is unconscionable.
Some Dems in Congress stood up for the Constitution when Duhbya was president. Perhaps that is why there were abuses left for Obama to adopt. Either that or Cheney had higher standards.
@lefty 665 – Consider the alternative. Nader showed us wtf happens when you stray off the reservation.
The rest of the presidential campaign should be devoted to an exploration of LOTE, it seems to me. And not so much because that can inform the votes of “progressives” — though that’s necessary and is materially advanced by the Ellsberg piece linked by Lefty665 — but for how it could affect the demographic that was motivated to get off the couch and elected Obama back in 2008.
The fact is, it seems to me, that “sometimes a LOTE really is a LOTE” and that’s what we have here. I long ago concluded that Obama has betrayed our Constitution and the people who made him President, and not from a Tea Party/Kenyan socialist perspective, but rather from the fundamental Cheney Unitary Executive/Greenwald “Unequal Justice” basic Rule of Law perspective which must be undone. I’ve also been struck by the amazing reality that, notwithstanding the utter depravity, incompetence and near silliness of the nuts comprising the “Republican candidates” in this election, through and including Romney, Obama has somehow managed to allow this election to become a close call. But here we are. I do attribute that phenomenon far more to Obama’s performance disappointing those who voted for him more than to Romney independently convincing people of his superiority.
The question now is: assuming things suck, voting for which candidate presents the greater possibility for correcting them? The article here concludes with the perfectly legitimate observation that, as far as Presidential assassinations and transparency related thereto goes, there is “no optimism that [Obama] will get any more transparent about those issues in a second term.” If it makes any difference, I would have to add that I am absolutely certain there would be no chance whatsoever of achieving any greater degree of possible progress on these issues under a Romney administration. Are they equal? Which is worse?
If those were the only “choices”, I’m left with wondering which hope is the greater: that Obama in a second term might get feisty about respecting the Constitution and take some stands, or (because we can be certain Romney would not do so on his own)that the Democratic members of Congress might grow a spine and force Romney to do so? That people like Feinstein or Harman might act? That Pelosi will assess the electoral climate and two-year House elections cycle and reach any conclusion other than that seeking to challenge a President Romney is “off the table”? Right.
And while the fundamental constitutional conundrums created by Bush thus stew, which presidential candidate would be doing the underlying business of the government and toward what ends? I really can’t contemplate the damage Romney would try do with access to even a single Supreme Court appointment. It is unquestionably more likely that Romney will put us in a war with Iran, even if it’s unquestionably unclear whether Obama might not do the same thing. And nothing could be more clear than that Romney really does think it’s a good idea to double down on exactly the Bush economic insanity that put us in this hole, and that Romney really would allow and encourage decades of social progress to be eviscerated on every imaginable front.
I don’t hold out any “hope” that any sort of armed insurrection or societal collapse is the way to “correct” the course of this nation, I like the idea of being able to buy food at a store or having working traffic lights. The idea that putting Romney in charge might foment a cathartic revolution is silly. And I can’t really congratulate Obama for much of anything except for his rhetoric, which his actions have belied and thus have left us unfulfilled. But Romney doesn’t even have the rhetoric, he advocates malice and division. I couldn’t possibly allow my serious disappointment in Obama to result in support of Romney.
What am I missing? Obama can’t motivate people with “yes we can” this time around, because “no you didn’t” is the natural rejoinder and that’s not particularly motivational. How can it be explained to the “non-political” that they need to actually vote for Obama because allowing Romney to become President will probably screw them over more? Is that unreasonably pragmatic?
@lefty 665 – “Consider the alternative. Nader showed us wtf happens when you stray off the reservation.”
And Obama showed us what happens when you don’t. We got NDAA, with domestic indefinite detention without charge or judicial access. We got presidential ordered killing of US citizens with no judicial process. We got 100% surveillance without even FISA oversight. We got more Espionage Act persecutions of whistleblowers than all others combined since 1917. We got hiding crimes as state secrets, etc, etc, etc… That doesn’t begin to touch the economic end of it.
How can I live with myself if I vote to ratify and encourage more of those acts? Ellsberg argues we have to. I’ll be voting down ticket, but I’m not sure I can vote for Pres. I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place in a swing state. That’s why I’m encouraging discussion here.
“notwithstanding the utter depravity, incompetence and near silliness of the nuts comprising the “Republican candidates” in this election, through and including Romney, Obama has somehow managed to allow this election to become a close call.”
The economic issues are real. With close to 20% unemployed (see U6), the amazing thing is that Obama is in the race at all. Had the Repubs nominated candidates that were not depraved, incompetent, silly nuts the election would be long over. We can thank the worldwide financial collapse for Obama’s election, and the Repubs that he might win reelection.
“That Pelosi… seeking to challenge a President Romney is “off the table””
Collaboration in 2009-10 did her a lot of good didn’t it? Minority status did not stop Kucinich or McKinney. Both redistricted out of seats, but at least willing to stand for something. Where else can it start?
“nothing could be more clear than that Romney really does think it’s a good idea to double down on exactly the Bush economic insanity.”
Yep, and Obama already has, several times. He’s poised to do it again. He’s got the “Grand Bargain” on the lame duck table, and he’s prepping us with variations on “the rich will have to pay a little more and the rest take a little less.”
A bright spot is that Obama seems to have put a cork in Netan-yayhoo.
“How can it be explained to the “non-political” that they need to actually vote for Obama because allowing Romney to become President will probably screw them over more? Is that unreasonably pragmatic?”
No, it is just unreasonable to people who have been screwed by Obama’s policies. Screw me once, shame on you, and we won’t be fooled again. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. F**k off Bro Bo.
I was in a Dem leadership position (local) in ’08, and worked my butt off to help turn Virginia Blue. Seeing what I helped accomplish, how can I vote to ratify it and, worse, to continue and expand it? I quit the party over the stuff above. I refuse to be manipulated through a 4 year calculated reelection plan of “lesser evildom” of positioning 1/2 step left of the rightmost dingbat.
Krugman ca 2002 “Compromise with evil yields only the appearance of progress. Evil takes what you give it then comes back for more”.
I want to believe you guys and Ellsberg. But just buying into “lesser evildom” and saying “Romney’s worse” ain’t convincing. Time’s getting short. Help please.
“And yet it refuses to release its legal justification for doing so (to say nothing of the explanation behind Samir Khan and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s death)”
On that front, today in his NYT story on the CIA effort to find al-Awlaki using a honey trap Scott Shane stated unequivocably that “[al-Awlaki] was added to the Obama ‘kill list’ after intelligence officials concluded that he had helped plan the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas in 2009.”
The time line is very important. How can Scott Shane possibly know when al-Awlaki was marked for death?
Been a die hard Dem all my life and worked my arse off for this party.
This election I intend to vote for Jill Stein