Various blogs I read or have read to my mind have sentiments that do not fairly provide Obama's position on "civil liberties" or more specifically (accurately) national security issues like detention and so forth. This doesn't mean I think the Administration is great on these issues, especially their push for immunity. But, I still don't like some of the imho slanted (often with a sneer) arguments. This includes some implication that makes Obama '08 come off as some civil libertarian. I didn't see it.
There has been to my understanding a move to make public the names of various people detained has been a concern of various litigation for some time and regardless for whatever reason:
And, the "conflict" at issue here seems to be still ongoing -- that is, the one where force was authorized in 2001 by Congress, Ron Paul voting for it. So, when people are concerned with "indefinite" detention, what does that necessarily mean? People are detained in armed conflicts authorized by Congress. The article references to roadblocks put forth by Congress as does another referenced in a tweet conversation where I also learned about the first article cited. A lot of blame can be spread around here, Obama's far from great policies at times to the left of his own party in Congress. The ACLU in that article is cited as putting blame on Congress but noting the buck eventually stops with Obama. The buck is shared.
It is noted that as compared to 750 detained by Bush that a single person was detained by Obama. No, his policy has been to kill them. It is not like the Bush Administration was concerned with trial as such -- GITMO was set up to avoid that sort of thing. The point of the detention was largely for interrogation. And, there was plenty of killing going on there too -- see Iraq, where Lancet estimated over 100K.* Criticism for Obama's drone policy (drones were around under Bush too) is valid in some ways, but Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama had his own "surge" there -- no surprise, since he campaigned on it) shows the alternative ways of fighting against the people and groups involved leave something to be desired.
But, obviously, especially given traditional moves to give executive broad discretion, at least unless you try to bring people into civilian courts or something, Obama has a big role to play here. Drone attacks are ultimately his responsibility. They are not "assassinations" unless they do not involve legitimate targets. OBL, for instance, is someone who can be killed during an armed conflict. Some civilian deaths could very well be allowable in the process and the way he was killed was particularly yes commendable on that front. One person kept on harping to me that one of his wives was shot in the leg. That is the best you got?
Targeting OBL was logical given his importance and similar actions would not be done, thus the use of drone attacks against others even in Pakistan. The use of drone attacks in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, a "hot war" zone I would think is hard to see as something illegal. If we can send troops in, we can bomb people, including more precision bombing than the sort used during WWII. I don't like it as policy and safeguards might be lacking (human rights officials focus on lack of proper oversight), but that is a lesser thing. And, in other areas, like Yemen, it would be much harder to send in ground troops.
If we don't like using armed conflict against Al Qaeda, perhaps revoke the authorization. I personally don't think as a whole the drone strategy was helpful though who knows as to specific cases. It seems a sort of whack a mole strategy with possible blowback. And, increasing the fighting in Afghanistan (Maddow reported the troop levels have been cut back) also doesn't appear to have been advisable. Some involvement with other countries in the Libya civil war was at best questionable and should have required Congress involvement though they themselves play a large part in delegating their powers there, if they were violated.
But, sadly, this is the mainstream position in D.C. these days. Just targeting Obama or wondering "what happened to St. Obama who promised a rose garden" is stupid, especially since he never was really saintly and never promised (all such promises should be taken with a grain of salt anyhow) a rose garden. And, to the degree he did promise stuff, he did deliver some and Congress blocked him in key ways from doing more. Again, the net result is some stuff I don't like, but I'm not going to join with the bludgeon approach some prefer either.
Much props though for all those who stick their necks out and put the Administration and others to the test. A long lonely fight.
---
* [Update]: The perspective of wrong, so to speak, is underlined by a comment made on an interesting Chris Hayes discussion on Sunday that reminded there is a war in Pakistan, against Pakistan. The evidence? Well, four thousand people were killed since 2006 (note date). This is serious business, but this is the heart of Al Qaida territory and such, and compare this to the death toll in Iraq. No, I won't forget the difference. Even Bush at one point, not in January 2009 at that, spoke about 30K dead.
To blithely speak of Obama in Glenn Greenwald tones like nothing has changed is aggravating, especially since, let me repeat, I am not a big fan of this approach at all. Big picture, we can see a united approach, but that sort of thing also misleads, disrespects the actual people harmed.
There has been to my understanding a move to make public the names of various people detained has been a concern of various litigation for some time and regardless for whatever reason:
The U.S. Government has for the first time issued a public list of Guantanamo prisoners cleared for release or transfer, but who remain at the island prison because of difficulties finding a country willing to take them or because of concerns about sending them to their home countries.The list shows that 55 (maybe more since some names were left out because of lack of judicial clearance) of 167 still in Gitmo are there because of that reason, Yemen a primary concern given there is no guarantee according to the Administration that people won't just go back to fighting given the state of the country at this time. Sixty eight have been sent back to their countries or some third nation, so the call for resettlement by the ACLU does not mean efforts have not been made.
“Congress has made it impossible for Obama to close Guantanamo,” says Larry Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. ”They made it very difficult for him to try people in civilian court. That has really made it very tough for him to do the things that he would like to do.”
And, the "conflict" at issue here seems to be still ongoing -- that is, the one where force was authorized in 2001 by Congress, Ron Paul voting for it. So, when people are concerned with "indefinite" detention, what does that necessarily mean? People are detained in armed conflicts authorized by Congress. The article references to roadblocks put forth by Congress as does another referenced in a tweet conversation where I also learned about the first article cited. A lot of blame can be spread around here, Obama's far from great policies at times to the left of his own party in Congress. The ACLU in that article is cited as putting blame on Congress but noting the buck eventually stops with Obama. The buck is shared.
It is noted that as compared to 750 detained by Bush that a single person was detained by Obama. No, his policy has been to kill them. It is not like the Bush Administration was concerned with trial as such -- GITMO was set up to avoid that sort of thing. The point of the detention was largely for interrogation. And, there was plenty of killing going on there too -- see Iraq, where Lancet estimated over 100K.* Criticism for Obama's drone policy (drones were around under Bush too) is valid in some ways, but Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama had his own "surge" there -- no surprise, since he campaigned on it) shows the alternative ways of fighting against the people and groups involved leave something to be desired.
For instance, the operation that targeted Osama bin Laden probably involved "undue risk" to the troops involved, especially when compared with dropping a huge bomb on the house he was living in. The administration seems to be saying it needn't risk an on-the-ground operation when a drone strike will do the trick. (Of course, bombing bin Laden's house would have likely caused civilian casualties, including those of children. )The problem here is not ultimately Obama in an important sense because the Constitution doesn't just put everything in his hands. Congress authorized military force in 2001 against Al Qaida related groups and if Congress wants, it can declare that conflict over and not authorize funding. Congress blocked attempts to bring KSM to trial in civilian court; is Obama supposed to go all unilateral and go over its head? Congress blocked attempts to move people from the middle of nowhere to domestic detention where lawyers and others have easier access and perhaps (being on domestic soil) a clearer case in court (GITMO falls under the Insular Cases type "due process semi-lite" regime).
But, obviously, especially given traditional moves to give executive broad discretion, at least unless you try to bring people into civilian courts or something, Obama has a big role to play here. Drone attacks are ultimately his responsibility. They are not "assassinations" unless they do not involve legitimate targets. OBL, for instance, is someone who can be killed during an armed conflict. Some civilian deaths could very well be allowable in the process and the way he was killed was particularly yes commendable on that front. One person kept on harping to me that one of his wives was shot in the leg. That is the best you got?
Targeting OBL was logical given his importance and similar actions would not be done, thus the use of drone attacks against others even in Pakistan. The use of drone attacks in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, a "hot war" zone I would think is hard to see as something illegal. If we can send troops in, we can bomb people, including more precision bombing than the sort used during WWII. I don't like it as policy and safeguards might be lacking (human rights officials focus on lack of proper oversight), but that is a lesser thing. And, in other areas, like Yemen, it would be much harder to send in ground troops.
If we don't like using armed conflict against Al Qaeda, perhaps revoke the authorization. I personally don't think as a whole the drone strategy was helpful though who knows as to specific cases. It seems a sort of whack a mole strategy with possible blowback. And, increasing the fighting in Afghanistan (Maddow reported the troop levels have been cut back) also doesn't appear to have been advisable. Some involvement with other countries in the Libya civil war was at best questionable and should have required Congress involvement though they themselves play a large part in delegating their powers there, if they were violated.
But, sadly, this is the mainstream position in D.C. these days. Just targeting Obama or wondering "what happened to St. Obama who promised a rose garden" is stupid, especially since he never was really saintly and never promised (all such promises should be taken with a grain of salt anyhow) a rose garden. And, to the degree he did promise stuff, he did deliver some and Congress blocked him in key ways from doing more. Again, the net result is some stuff I don't like, but I'm not going to join with the bludgeon approach some prefer either.
Much props though for all those who stick their necks out and put the Administration and others to the test. A long lonely fight.
---
* [Update]: The perspective of wrong, so to speak, is underlined by a comment made on an interesting Chris Hayes discussion on Sunday that reminded there is a war in Pakistan, against Pakistan. The evidence? Well, four thousand people were killed since 2006 (note date). This is serious business, but this is the heart of Al Qaida territory and such, and compare this to the death toll in Iraq. No, I won't forget the difference. Even Bush at one point, not in January 2009 at that, spoke about 30K dead.
To blithely speak of Obama in Glenn Greenwald tones like nothing has changed is aggravating, especially since, let me repeat, I am not a big fan of this approach at all. Big picture, we can see a united approach, but that sort of thing also misleads, disrespects the actual people harmed.