Cheney hearts Obama...

...for all the reasons I hated the previous administration.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com comments on the soon to air interview with Dick Cheney, and Obama's "new boss, same as the old boss" tactics:

Quote :

Cheney was then specifically asked whether he stood by his early attacks on Obama's national security policies -- "You said you believe President Obama has made America less safe. That he's actually raised the risk of attack. Do you still feel that way?" -- and Cheney, not exactly known for changing his mind, essentially said that, thanks to Obama's continuity, he now does not:

Quote :

Well, when I made that comment, I was concerned that the counterterrorism policies that we'd put in place after 9/11 that had kept the nation safe for over seven years were being sort of rapidly discarded. Or he was going to attempt to discard them. . . . As I say, I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did.

It overstates the case to say there are no differences. There were some: Obama formally ended the "enhanced interrogation program" (the authorization for which had been withdrawn when he took office); banned CIA black sites (which were empty when he took office); and has not invoked the Article II lawbreaking theories of Bush's first term (Bush largely abandoned them as well in his second term as Congress began legalizing his programs). And there is a more conciliatory tone, and some greater technocratic efficiency, in some foreign policy pronouncements. But the crux of Bush/Cheney radicalism -- the mindset and policies that caused much of the controversy -- continues and has even been strengthened. Gen. Hayden put it best, as quoted by The Washington Times:

Quote :

You've got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram [in Afghanistan]," Mr. Hayden said, listing the continuities. "And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.

And that list, impressive though it is, doesn't even include the due-process-free assassination hit lists of American citizens, the sweeping executive power and secrecy theories used to justify it, the multi-tiered, "state-always-wins" justice system the Obama DOJ concocted for detainees, the vastly more aggressive war on whistleblowers and press freedoms, or the new presidential immunity doctrines his DOJ has invented. Critically, this continuity extends beyond specific policies into the underlying sloganeering mentality in which they're based: we're in a Global War; the whole Earth is the Battlefield; the Terrorists want to kill us because they're intrinsically Evil (not in reaction to anything we do); we're justified in doing anything and everything to eradicate Them; the President's overarching obligation (contrary to his Constitutional oath) is to keep us Safe; this should all be kept secret from us; we can't be bothered with obsolete dogma like Due Process and Warrants, etc. etc.

This is my main criticism of the Obama administration. They campaigned on changing (and even fought against) some of these abuses prior to being elected. But once in office, they continued and enhanced the same tactics, more often than not using the same justifications Bush/Cheney did, the ones they themselves were arguing against only months prior.

Disgusting, but not surprising. Pandora's box... no government gives up power once they have it.

It's funny... as often as the Tea Party whines about their freedoms being taken away, they never, ever mention any of this.

Thanks for still being Republican puppets!

Heretic wrote:

...for all the reasons I hated the previous administration.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com comments on the soon to air interview with Dick Cheney, and Obama's "new boss, same as the old boss" tactics:

Quote :

Cheney was then specifically asked whether he stood by his early attacks on Obama's national security policies -- "You said you believe President Obama has made America less safe. That he's actually raised the risk of attack. Do you still feel that way?" -- and Cheney, not exactly known for changing his mind, essentially said that, thanks to Obama's continuity, he now does not:

Quote :

Well, when I made that comment, I was concerned that the counterterrorism policies that we'd put in place after 9/11 that had kept the nation safe for over seven years were being sort of rapidly discarded. Or he was going to attempt to discard them. . . . As I say, I think he's found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did.

It overstates the case to say there are no differences. There were some: Obama formally ended the "enhanced interrogation program" (the authorization for which had been withdrawn when he took office); banned CIA black sites (which were empty when he took office); and has not invoked the Article II lawbreaking theories of Bush's first term (Bush largely abandoned them as well in his second term as Congress began legalizing his programs). And there is a more conciliatory tone, and some greater technocratic efficiency, in some foreign policy pronouncements. But the crux of Bush/Cheney radicalism -- the mindset and policies that caused much of the controversy -- continues and has even been strengthened. Gen. Hayden put it best, as quoted by The Washington Times:

Quote :

You've got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram [in Afghanistan]," Mr. Hayden said, listing the continuities. "And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.

And that list, impressive though it is, doesn't even include the due-process-free assassination hit lists of American citizens, the sweeping executive power and secrecy theories used to justify it, the multi-tiered, "state-always-wins" justice system the Obama DOJ concocted for detainees, the vastly more aggressive war on whistleblowers and press freedoms, or the new presidential immunity doctrines his DOJ has invented. Critically, this continuity extends beyond specific policies into the underlying sloganeering mentality in which they're based: we're in a Global War; the whole Earth is the Battlefield; the Terrorists want to kill us because they're intrinsically Evil (not in reaction to anything we do); we're justified in doing anything and everything to eradicate Them; the President's overarching obligation (contrary to his Constitutional oath) is to keep us Safe; this should all be kept secret from us; we can't be bothered with obsolete dogma like Due Process and Warrants, etc. etc.

This is my main criticism of the Obama administration. They campaigned on changing (and even fought against) some of these abuses prior to being elected. But once in office, they continued and enhanced the same tactics, more often than not using the same justifications Bush/Cheney did, the ones they themselves were arguing against only months prior.

Disgusting, but not surprising. Pandora's box... no government gives up power once they have it.

I agree, except perhaps on one point... the article references "due-process-free assassination hit lists of American citizens." As far as I know, this pertains to only one "American citizen" - radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

Quote :

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

Quote :

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

Although I can see the danger in targeting American citizens, I don't think that there is any doubt that this guy is affiliated with Al Qaeda and involved in plots against the United States. I'm curious about what you think should be done in this situation?

Heretic wrote:

It's funny... as often as the Tea Party whines about their freedoms being taken away, they never, ever mention any of this.

Evidently they don't mention it because of the totally irrational way that the conservatives view all Muslims.

I really think that Obama planned to dial back a lot of the more objectionable parts of the security apparatus that Bush and Cheney put into place, but do you remember what happened in 2009 when he tried to simply close Guantanamo?

Obama Faces Congressional Backlash to His Plan to Close Guantanamo Bay Prison

When Barack took office, the idea of closing Guantanamo was pretty uncontroversial, yet his move to close it created a firestorm of fear and outrage. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama proposed rolling back the national security apparatus?

It sucks, but as long as Americans fear Muslims more than they treasure their own freedoms, there is little that Obama can do to change things.

Scorpion wrote:

Although I can see the danger in targeting American citizens, I don't think that there is any doubt that this guy is affiliated with Al Qaeda and involved in plots against the United States. I'm curious about what you think should be done in this situation?

IMO,This guy is a clear and present danger to the US and it's citizens. I think that anyone that conspires with foreigners to attack or terrorize the US or it's citizens should have his citizenship revoked immediately! I would prefer he be captured alive,but if a targeted killing is a quicker solution or the only feasible option,then so be it.

Evidently they don't mention it because of the totally irrational way that the conservatives view all Muslims.

Quote :

I really think that Obama planned to dial back a lot of the more objectionable parts of the security apparatus that Bush and Cheney put into place, but do you remember what happened in 2009 when he tried to simply close Guantanamo?

When Barack took office, the idea of closing Guantanamo was pretty uncontroversial, yet his move to close it created a firestorm of fear and outrage. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama proposed rolling back the national security apparatus?

It sucks, but as long as Americans fear Muslims more than they treasure their own freedoms, there is little that Obama can do to change things.

Anything that can be even slightly perceived as being favorable to Muslims gets righties in an uproar. Look at how they reacted to the building of that community center in a vacant Burlington coat factory. Now you've got Rep Peter King R-NY planning to investigate Mulim radicalization. There's a ready made witch hunt if I ever saw one. Interesting piece Rep. Peter King's plan for hearings on Muslim 'radicalization' draws criticism from all sides from yesterday about it.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Although I can see the danger in targeting American citizens, I don't think that there is any doubt that this guy is affiliated with Al Qaeda and involved in plots against the United States. I'm curious about what you think should be done in this situation?

IMO,This guy is a clear and present danger to the US and it's citizens. I think that anyone that conspires with foreigners to attack or terrorize the US or it's citizens should have his citizenship revoked immediately! I would prefer he be captured alive,but if a targeted killing is a quicker solution or the only feasible option,then so be it.

Yeah, well what do we do when the evidence isn't quite so clear?

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Although I can see the danger in targeting American citizens, I don't think that there is any doubt that this guy is affiliated with Al Qaeda and involved in plots against the United States. I'm curious about what you think should be done in this situation?

IMO,This guy is a clear and present danger to the US and it's citizens. I think that anyone that conspires with foreigners to attack or terrorize the US or it's citizens should have his citizenship revoked immediately! I would prefer he be captured alive,but if a targeted killing is a quicker solution or the only feasible option,then so be it.

Yeah, well what do we do when the evidence isn't quite so clear?

I think you proceed with extreme caution and analyze each suspected target on a case by case basis. Nothing is foolproof and there will never be a perfect system . Our own criminal justice system has flaws that enabled innocent people to be imprisoned or on death row.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

IMO,This guy is a clear and present danger to the US and it's citizens. I think that anyone that conspires with foreigners to attack or terrorize the US or it's citizens should have his citizenship revoked immediately! I would prefer he be captured alive,but if a targeted killing is a quicker solution or the only feasible option,then so be it.

Yeah, well what do we do when the evidence isn't quite so clear?

I think you proceed with extreme caution and analyze each suspected target on a case by case basis. Nothing is foolproof and there will never be a perfect system . Our own criminal justice system has flaws that enabled innocent people to be imprisoned or on death row.

I'd feel better about it if we at least indicted and tried suspects who are American citizens, even if it is in absentia.

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well what do we do when the evidence isn't quite so clear?

I think you proceed with extreme caution and analyze each suspected target on a case by case basis. Nothing is foolproof and there will never be a perfect system . Our own criminal justice system has flaws that enabled innocent people to be imprisoned or on death row.

I'd feel better about it if we at least indicted and tried suspects who are American citizens, even if it is in absentia.

That's where I think the revocation of citizenship comes in. I know I'm in the minority here,but I believe that such a law would provide a much faster resolution to presentation of evidence that involves American citizens conspiring with foreign nationals or Governments to attack the US.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I think you proceed with extreme caution and analyze each suspected target on a case by case basis. Nothing is foolproof and there will never be a perfect system . Our own criminal justice system has flaws that enabled innocent people to be imprisoned or on death row.

I'd feel better about it if we at least indicted and tried suspects who are American citizens, even if it is in absentia.

That's where I think the revocation of citizenship comes in. I know I'm in the minority here,but I believe that such a law would provide a much faster resolution to presentation of evidence that involves American citizens conspiring with foreign nationals or Governments to attack the US.

Yeah. Well how can you revoke a person's citizenship without going through a judicial proceeding? I really don't think that there is a legal way of doing that. IMHO, giving the Executive Branch the authority to specify who is and who is not a citizen is a very slippery slope indeed. I'm pretty certain that our Founding Fathers wouldn't approve.

Scorpion wrote:

Although I can see the danger in targeting American citizens, I don't think that there is any doubt that this guy is affiliated with Al Qaeda and involved in plots against the United States. I'm curious about what you think should be done in this situation?

That was the one scenario I didn't really know a lot about, but the circumstances seemed unique enough that I'm not too worried about it. Like Artie, I would prefer detention and trial, but I have to acknowledge the reality of the battlefield. It's just scary in its implications, but so long as such extraordinary circumstances warrant such a response, I don't think there will be a problem.

Scorpion wrote:

It sucks, but as long as Americans fear Muslims more than they treasure their own freedoms, there is little that Obama can do to change things.

The entire deck seems stacked against him... They blame him for not fixing everything overnight, and then blame him for enacting solutions that cost money (as any solution would). Endlessly frustrating...

Heretic wrote:

This is my main criticism of the Obama administration. They campaigned on changing (and even fought against) some of these abuses prior to being elected. But once in office, they continued and enhanced the same tactics, more often than not using the same justifications Bush/Cheney did, the ones they themselves were arguing against only months prior.

I ran across an excellent essay in the NYT about its dealings with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
It's a fascinating look at the entire process that a major newspaper goes through when dealing with "sensitive" material. The essay is 9 pages long, but well worth reading, if you're interested.

What I found pertinent to this discussion is on page 6...

Dealing With Assange and the WikiLeaks Secrets

Quote :

I have vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade me and the paper’s publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story, saying that if we published it, we should share the blame for the next terrorist attack. We were unconvinced by his argument and published the story, and the reaction from the government — and conservative commentators in particular — was vociferous.

Quote :

This time around, the Obama administration’s reaction was different. It was, for the most part, sober and professional. The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing.

It appears that there is a quite different approach to these kinds of issues between the two administrations. Of course, it's still troubling that many of the Patriot Act provisions are still in effect. I share your concerns, but it eases my mind a bit that the Obama Administration isn't abusing its power by attacking the press, at least...