You sit there in your heartache, waiting on some beautiful boy
By Thoreau
Look at what I didn’t vote for.
Well, you guys tried to do the right thing. I give you full credit for that. But this thing is on autopilot.
Yeah, the first couple weeks had some impressive stuff. They gave all the right orders. But then a co-equal branch of government decided to hold a hearing on actual abuses of power, and the state secrets doctrine got invoked to avoid scrutiny of very publicly known (i.e. not secret) acts of kidnapping and torture. So, while he may not run the machine at 11, he certainly won’t let anybody claim the authority to stop him from doing it if he should ever feel like it.
He doesn’t look a thing like Jesus
But he talks like a gentleman
Like you imagined
When you were young.
EDIT: To be fair, this isn’t what you guys voted for either. I get that. None of us voted for it. But this is what we all got. The machine is on autopilot, and nobody who wears that Ring is going to toss it into the volcano. Not even Especially not one who is fair-spoken and comes promising gifts.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 9, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
I’ve been looking at what you didn’t vote for for week, thoreau.
Three weeks into the administration, after several setbacks, you actually got an excuse to complain.
You didn’t vote for the end to extraordinary renditions.
You didn’t vote for the executive order ending CIA torture.
You didn’t vote for closing Gitmo.
You didn’t vote for withdrawing from Iraq.
Congratulations – three weeks into the administration, you finally found a reason to believe you weren’t wrong.
Comment by J sub D —
February 9, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
Who’s Next?
Side two.
Track nine.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 9, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
All of those things that you list are great, joe, but they are executive orders, and so the continuance of these good things is contingent on the continued good behavior of the executive branch. What happened today involved checks and balances, and the new administration resisted those checks and balances.
Executive orders can be rescinded or modified at any time. That’s the reason why we need checks and balances. And Obama just said “No deal” to that.
Everything on your list is good as great as it lasts. The thing I’m concerned about is what will ultimately determine whether they last.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 9, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Thoreau, half of that list hasn’t actually happened yet, and the other half are things Obama has just made as unverifiable as they were under Bush.
Joe, I know you Blues hated it when some libertarians suggested that Blue efforts to increase the scope and power of government made it easier for Bush to do what he’s done. It was unfair, it was imprecise, etc.
Well, this is fair and precise – you guys locking arms to stand with this sort of thing? You guys shrugging off criticism with sulky defensiveness? You guys resting on faith in your president’s claims and resenting outsider’s skepticism?
All that absolutely helps the next George Bush.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 9, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Hope and Change: “I’m never going to do these bad things again!”
ACLU: “So, then, you’d be totally cool if we file suit on behalf of people who were harmed by those bad things in the past, yes?”
H&C: “Um, well, um, you see, I, um, well, no. State secrets. All of these allegedly bad things were done in a situation involving sensitive matters of national security, and there’s no way we could possibly permit the disclosure of the relevant information.”
ACLU: “But everybody already knows what happened. We just want to go to court and talk about it, and get redress for the victims. You did, after all, promise not to do these things again. So you must be cool with making amends to the victims.”
H&C: “These are matters of national security that we cannot discuss.”
ACLU: “So, if you’re not going to disclose any information on these things or assist efforts to get civil damages for victims, how will we be able to monitor future conduct and ensure that promises are honored?”
H&C: “Trust me.”
Comment by daveadams —
February 9, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
I admit I don’t know a lot about the details here. I do respect Greenwald’s judgment, so it’s troubling. On the other hand, I’m going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for now. I have a hard time believing that his DOJ staff has really had time to look over this along with everything else Bush left behind. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt this was the wrong decision to make, whoever made it.
But maybe you guys can answer some questions to help me understand. Is Doug Letter a new Obama appointee or the same lawyer who was handling the case in the past? And second, does the court have any say here, or is there some clear Supreme Court precedent that’s shaping the court’s decision? The executive branch is not the only historical bad actor in the stew here.
Comment by PhillipJ. Birmingham —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Shit.
Comment by John O —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:01 am
You’re all correct, but this stuff comes slow, and the bleeding is at least moderately stopped.
And you’re missing the forest for the trees. The American public is going to like being spoken to as adults, and this will congeal into a bit of space on the civil libertarian issues, which are very near and dear to me.
We’re too far down the rabbit hole to expect instant change.
Comment by Mr Duncan —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:51 am
John O,
What’s that supposed to mean? What rabbit hole? Talk about a cop out.
Comment by radish —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:13 am
Note though, that if you look at this from BHO’s point of view it’s practically an existential threat. If he lets even one case like this proceed, then it’s virtually certain that the whole damn thing will come unraveled. There’s no way to let the reality of state-sanctioned torture into the courts and still maintain the polite fiction that it was a few bad apples. That would threaten his power just when he’s busy saving the world. Why on earth would he do that?
.
See, notwithstanding all the talk of change, or the breakthrough of having a black president with a funny name, Obama wanted to lead a restoration rather than a revolution. And to his credit he was pretty up front about that. The change he was offering was basically the status quo ante of The American Dream. That mighty and wealthy postwar empire of legend, where the middle class thrived. With the ugliness out of sight of course — just the occasional muffled, plausibly deniable and quickly-silenced shriek from behind thick curtains. With a bit more equality than before, sure, but definitely the stability of Omelas rather than the chaos of real change. Obama’s not one of the walk-aways.
.
I think he really thought that restoration was within reach. I’m not even sure that he’s figured out yet that it isn’t. Or at least I don’t think it is. I think real change is coming whether he wants it or not, but I can’t say I’m surprised that he’s skittish about it. I’m sure as hell skittish about it.
Comment by max —
February 10, 2009 @ 7:19 am
But this thing is on autopilot.
Just so. BHO is caught between whatever he might (or might not) want to do, and what the DC crew wants, which is all power, all time, with as little accountability as possible. And lots of face time on the TV. Can’t forget that.
So far as I can tell, BHO is barely beating out the Clinton alternative, and still handily doing better than John ‘Hey, guys! Let’s blow up the world for freeeeeeeeeeddddoooooooooommmmmmmm!’ McCain.
Our status: still screwed, but currently not getting even more screwed.
max
['But hey! We were already living in a police state! Whatcha gonna do?']
Comment by abb1 —
February 10, 2009 @ 7:30 am
That mighty and wealthy postwar empire of legend, where the middle class thrived.
Except that they don’t care about the middle class.
As Jon Schwarz might say: crazy evil people have gone too far and so sane evil people had to be brought in to clean up the mess. They are still evil, though.
One way or the other, whatever is done it’s only for the evil people to thrive; if it happens to be helpful for the middle class – that’s good but coincidental.
Comment by Doug T —
February 10, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Horrible. While I supported Obama not because I thought he would be perfect (on civil liberties or any other issue), but because I thought he would be good. And he has made some nice moves, despite the large distraction of the economy. But there is no excuse for this decision, and no-one should be defending it.
Sure, the Obama administration looks to be far better than Bush’s was. But this is a sad and morally bankrupt argument, no different in substance from Bush’s defence that he was better than al Qaeda.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
February 10, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Sigh. I had kept myself in a state of skepticism up through the inauguration, but those first-couple-days executive orders (and the OLC nominations) got my hopes up that Obama would at least go beyond lip service on reining in state power. Time to write a letter of protest, I guess, for all the good that’s likely to do.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
The American public didn’t vote for civil liberties, they voted based on the “economy”. They don’t care about civil liberties, and the fraction of Blues who do got what’s turning out to be a meaningless sop.
Abb1’s precious middle class is nervous, and Team Blue is running the Q3 2001 Red playbook of doing Big Things to assuage their fears. There’s no respect there, and there’s no “bit of space”.
Some point down the line, someone is going to vacantly say, “Well, Obama ended torture back in 2009,” right as yet another guy dies in the course of an intensive American interrogation.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Poseurs. That’s what you are.
You look at people who can still support a political candidate despite not getting exactly what they need in every single case, and pretend that your shallow purity trolling represents maturity and realism and clear-eyed consideration?
You actually think that “He’s not the messiah!” is a novel observation that nobody but you realizes, don’t you?
It must make you feel very smart to say that, but I have news flash for you: everybody realizes that. Everybody realized that BEFORE WE VOTED FOR HIM. No, really!
Tell you what: you keep babbling about messiahs and how disappointed I’m supposed to be that the candidate I settled on isn’t one, and I’ll keep on judging him by the same set of standards I’ve used to judge every other political figure on the national scene.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
But there is no excuse for this decision, and no-one should be defending it.
Nobody is. If this was a post about this decision being a bad one, it would have been utterly uncontroversial.
Instead, it’s a post about how this one bad decision means that ending the Iraq War, ending torture, ending extraordinary renditions, closing Gitmo, and everything else Barack Obama has done are now utterly irrelevant in judging his presidency and the wisdom of thinking it was worth supporting him over John McCain.
It’s understandable that people like Thoreau and Eric would be a little defensive, after the past three weeks threw their Naderite pose into the crapper, but after a year of listening to right-wingers bray about the ambiguous outcome of the Surge voiding every other intellectual and moral failure they’d indulged in, mainly for reasons of boosting their self-esteem, for seven years, it is somewhat annoying to see people who should really know better doing the same thing.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
BTW, this is a hearing before a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If they reject the government’s filing, and the Obama administration doesn’t demand a hearing before the full court, but accepts the panel’s decision, I expect to see a groveling apology for this post.
No, I don’t, really. I expect I’d see nothing written at all about it, and some whining about some other issue that proves – once and for all – how naive it is be believe in messiahs, which everyone who voted for Barack Obama obviously does, because isn’t it nice to think so?
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
If they reject the government’s filing, and the Obama administration doesn’t demand a hearing before the full court, but accepts the panel’s decision, I expect to see a groveling apology for this post.
If their legal argument is shot down, and if they subsequently comply (rather than doing the full Bushie “I don’t care, we’re not complying” routine) then I will be most pleased to apologize quite profusely.
Comment by Nell —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
From your lips to the judges’ ears, Joe.
If they reject the government’s filing, and the Obama administration doesn’t demand a hearing before the full court, but accepts the panel’s decision
Riiiight. It’s a super-rope-a-dope to overturn this abusive claim of a dictatorial national security state power.
There’s no reason whatsoever to expect that this will be the outcome, given the enormous deference all courts have shown so far on the question of the bogus state secrets privilege.
If the court rules against the claim of privilege and the Obama Justice Department demands a full court hearing, I trust you’ll acknowledge you read this wrong?
And I’m pretty sick of hearing that “torture has ended”. Torture is continuing in Guantanamo right this minute. Nothing’s been done to change the daily regime; 50 prisoners are being strapped down and having tubes forced through their noses twice a day, preceded beatings and abuse during “cell extraction”.
Binyam Mohamed isn’t being released because the U.S. and U.K. are hoping he’ll die before getting a chance to speak directly to the press and public.
No prisoners have been released. They’re going to take months to do bullshit reviews of each case. More prisoners will probably die before the hellhole is closed.
And we have no idea what is going on in the CIA prison in Afghanistan, or the black sites, and we’re not going to find out because, oops, that’s a state secret.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
BTW, joe, you know that all the promises of the past few weeks are only meaningful if a court can hold them accountable when people are harmed in violation of those promises. The doctrine being invoked here is an attempt to get around that accountability. How meaningful are the promises, then?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
What controversy, joe? This is a bad decision, full stop. Some people hold out a trace more hope than others that it isn’t as bad as it seems, but you’re the only one here whose response to this was to go into a laughable, disgusting attack on people who are unhappy about it.
Your taking umbrage just isn’t a controversy, joe. The most important thing about this story simply isn’t that someone dares to be disappointed in Your Guy.
You know, for a guy who kept sniffing at objections to his pre-inauguration selections for the Cabinet as premature, you’re really ready to seize upon things that haven’t happened yet or that the Obama administration is trying to make sure nobody can ever verify.
We’re defensive?
We’re the “poseurs”?
Thoreau making a post on a libertarian blog is trolling some Blue guy who makes a hobby of haunting libertarian blogs and forums?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
(rather than doing the full Bushie “I don’t care, we’re not complying†routine) Actually, for all the contempt the Bush administration showed to Congress and the laws they wrote, they were appropriately deferential to Supreme Court decisions. I don’t think this is even a fair characterization of what Bush did, nevermind a plausible prediction of how the Obama administration would behave.
There’s no reason whatsoever to expect that this will be the outcome, given the enormous deference all courts have shown so far on the question of the bogus state secrets privilege.
The Courts shot down Bush quite a few times on executive, commander-in-chief powers he’s claimed. And this is the crazy liberal Ninth Circuit.
If the court rules against the claim of privilege and the Obama Justice Department demands a full court hearing, I trust you’ll acknowledge you read this wrong? One cannot have a wrong reading when on postulates a possible outcome and precedes it with “if.” I didn’t “read” anything anyway. I laid out one possible path the case could follow, and didn’t predict anything.
Just as long as you’re not setting the bar where it can’t possibly be reached, Nell.
Imagine, three weeks, and he’s only begun to undo the horrors of the past eight years instead of finishing the job.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Thoreau can do as he likes, but if the Obama administration get stymied on this and backs off forcing the issue, I’ll be relieved, nothing more.
If Blues start daring to criticize this decision (beyond grudgingly admitting it’s “bad” in the course of whining about criticism of it), and if they try to fight against it and push their President into embracing some change, then I’ll apologize to them for thinking they’re largely yellow dogs like you.
We all know the opportunity for that won’t come up, though. This is just a little decision, after all, notwithstanding that it’s critical to making the promises about Gitmo and torture and rendition anything more than handwaving. There’s a trillion dollars to spend – no time for this penny-ante shit!
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
No, three weeks, and after promising things that have only begun to unfold he argues against basic accountability measures.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Heh, notice the shift, Thoreau? From he’s done so much and you’re bitching about this wafer-thin thing to hey, man, it’s only been three weeks.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
What controversy, joe? This is a bad decision, full stop.
That’s what I just wrote, Eric. Are you unfamiliar with the term “utterly uncontroversial?” Look up “utterly.”
“Laughable” and “disgusting” look really silly together, and you still can’t read. I haven’t criticized anyone for being unhappy with the decision. I said exactly the opposite, and made a different point. Why don’t you go back and see if you can figure out what it is?
The most important thing about this story simply isn’t that someone dares to be disappointed in Your Guy. Nope, try again.
You know, for a guy who kept sniffing at objections to his pre-inauguration selections for the Cabinet as premature, you’re really ready to seize upon things that haven’t happened yet or that the Obama administration is trying to make sure nobody can ever verify. He maintained the established position on one case, that was held over from the past administration, which deals with assurances given to a close ally. Bootstrapping that into an assertion that no one can verify whether American troops are leaving Iraq, Gitmo is being closed, or even whether the state secrets privilege will be invoked in future cases is the sort of reach someone with an agenda would try to pass off.
We’re defensive?
We’re the “poseurs�
Yes. You’ve decided to adopt the faux-worldliness of a Nader supporter, and insist on not acknowledging important distinctions, in order to keep your self-image intact. That makes you a poseur. Then, having been smacked in the face with a great deal of reality over the past three weeks, you grasp at any evidence of the Obama administration not living up to a maximalist ideal to argue not just that he’s wrong in this case, but that your pose hasn’t been blown out of the water. That makes you defensive.
Thoreau making a post on a libertarian blog is trolling some Blue guy who makes a hobby of haunting libertarian blogs and forums?
I could have rubbed your face in it every day for the past three weeks. I’ve had an awful lot of material at my disposal, but I never felt compelled to.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
“Basic accountability measures,” Thoreau? Are you kidding me?
Look, I’d love to see the renunciation of the entire state secrets doctrine, too, but you’d have to be the sort of person who believes in political messiahs to consider that a valid measure of a president. He has chosen not to change the government’s position on the assertion of that doctrine in one case, three weeks after coming into office, one week after his Attorney General was sworn in.
Heh, notice the shift, Thoreau? From he’s done so much and you’re bitching about this wafer-thin thing to hey, man, it’s only been three weeks. There is no shift. He’s done an enormous amount in three weeks, and it is absurd to criticize him for not doing more. You can be really dense when you put your mind to it, Eric.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
It’s funny; it isn’t enough to agree with people like Eric on the merits of the case.
You need to drink the Kool-Aid, and acknowledge not just that his position on the specific question is right, but that this case proves his entire worldview to be unerringly correct, and him your better, or it makes you dishonest, blind, partisan, and every other insult he think of.
This can’t just be a strike against Obama; it has to completely obviate everything else he has done in the minds of those seeking to judge his presidency, and demonstrate his unquestioned superiority.
Oh, and btw: we learn which decisions are the only important ones only in retrospect, when the Obama administration does something Eric doesn’t like. Can there be any doubt that if the situation was reversed, and Obama had jettisoned the state secrets argument mid-case, a week after stating that he would take no action to close Gitmo, that Eric and Throreau would be telling us that the decision to keep Gitmo opened thoroughly refuted those who thought the other actions he’d taken were significant?
Of course they would.
Meet the New Boss – there are no principles more important than being able to write that.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Joe, there is no controversy at all. There’s just you.
Sorry, not playing that game with you, joe. Anyone who reads this can see what you wrote.
I’m the one who can’t read?
Oh, how sinister! I have an agenda. There are things I want – and you caught me!
Thank goodness you don’t have an agenda, joe.
Yeah. That’s exactly what’s happening, here.
I could have rubbed your face in it every day for the past three weeks. I’ve had an awful lot of material at my disposal, but I never felt compelled to.
Whether or not Thoreau touched a nerve, you know damn well that big chunks of that “material” threatens to completely dissolve away. And if the rest somehow fell apart (let us “naderites” cross our fingers that it doesn’t…), you’d be one of the first people here going on about “poseurs” who aren’t mature enough to stand by the team.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
joe, we don’t need a wholesale rejection of the state secrets doctrine. We just need to stop applying it in cases where crimes were committed. Especially when the facts of the case are widely known to the public already.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Joe, there is no controversy at all. There’s just you.
I’ll worry about the fact that my opinion is a minority one among people who disagree with me, oh, next Thursday afternoon or so. No, wait…scratch that. No, I won’t.
Sorry, not playing that game with you, joe.
Actually, you’re already “playing the game” of interpreting what I wrote. You’re just playing it very poorly.
No matter how many times I tell you that I don’t have any problem with dissenting from this actions – no matter how many times I tell you that I AGREE with you about – you still can’t seem to figure out that I disagree with this action.
you know damn well that big chunks of that “material†threatens to completely dissolve away. It must be a great relief to you to be able to think so.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
It would be utterly enough to talk about the merits of the case, joe, instead of attacking those who have the gall to be disappointed with your team or your president. You could just say, “this is bad, and I hope it doesn’t stand” or why you think it isn’t as important as we do, and that there’s actually a good trajectory, here.
That’s not what you’re interested in, though.
Can’t speak for Thoreau, but if Obama had announced that he was keeping Gitmo open, but never allowed his staff to make the secrets argument, I’d feel significantly better. Not great, and I’d have the unspeakable gall to say it was not good in some detail, but I wouldn’t be so disgusted.
Only having one’s team in power.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
OK, good, an actual argument on the merits here:
joe, we don’t need a wholesale rejection of the state secrets doctrine. We just need to stop applying it in cases where crimes were committed. Especially when the facts of the case are widely known to the public already.
First, what makes you think there is no overlap between legitimate state secrets, and cases where crimes were committed? Is it not possible that there are genuine sources-and-methods issues that need to be protected, AND that crimes were committed?
Or, if you won’t go that far, is it possible that, a week after being appointed and being allowed to review the facts of the case, Eric Holder didn’t feel confident enough that there wasn’t any such information that needed to be shielded?
And second, this is a case that Holder inherited, dealing with events that took place years ago – events which included assurances made to a foreign state, a close ally, that their confidences would be respected.
Now, I don’t necessarily consider those arguments to be good enough to justify a state-secrets claim. I don’t know enough to make up my mind one way or the other (a constant problem when evaluating such claims). On the other hand, they do raise some “reasonable doubt” about the Holder’s decision not to drop the state secret argument in this particular case being enough to convict him. For the jury – you, and Eric, and Greenwald – to come back with a guilty verdict based on this evidence alone seems irrational, and makes it look a lot like you’re just out to hang the guy on whatever pretext you can grasp.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
That’s mighty rich posturing from the Blue to the libertarian.
But yeah, your huffing and puffing about Thoreau’s characterization makes this thing, well, your thing, not a “controversy”. The rest of us are just going WTF.
Oh, I utterly accept your stipulation that you disagree with Obama on this piddly issue. You make it clear that you don’t think it’s that important, and that it’s much worse that anyone might hold that decision against your party or your president.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
There could indeed be cases where crimes were committed but there are legitimate secrets in need of protection. Two responses:
1) This case has the additional feature of having a bunch of facts publicly known. Everybody knows that the people in these cases were kidnapped and tortured.
2) Keeping information secret is a privilege enjoyed by people in power. They have that privilege for good reasons, but it is a privilege nonetheless. When they commit crimes, that privilege should be forfeited. If they don’t want their sources and methods revealed, then they shouldn’t engage in kidnapping and torture.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Eric writes, to me, a commenter on the thread:
It would be utterly enough to talk about the merits of the case, joe, instead of attacking those who have the gall to be disappointed with your team or your president.
Let’s go to the tape: here’s what Thoreau wrote in the post, that I objected to:
So, Eric objects to me RESPONDING TO a personal attack that, rather than dealing with the merits of the case, was written instead purely to make a point about how people are supposed to feel about Barack Obama.
However, he not only doesn’t object when Thoreau writes a blog post doing exactly that – I don’t see a single word about the merits of the case in that post, do you? – he feels the need to leap to Thoreau’s defense when I object.
Eric’s passionately opposed to this behavior, except when his team is doing it.
Can’t speak for Thoreau, but if Obama had announced that he was keeping Gitmo open, but never allowed his staff to make the secrets argument, I’d feel significantly better. And oddly enough, it is only in retrospect that anyone, including you, realizes that the different issues prioritize in this manner. Oh, and hey, prioritizing them that way proves you were right!
Congratulations.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
See, that’s the problem. Your stance is that we have a politician taking an office that got hideously empowered by the last guy, but before we are allowed to consider him as anything but pure as the driven snow, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s doing things we think is wrong.
My stance is that he’s a politician whose made promises, and while I was really, really pleased and hopeful he mentioned them again after taking office, I’m awaiting actual evidence, actual things happening beyond his announcements, that the changes I want and he claimed to support are happening. That he’s acted to undermine those changes is a huge strike against him.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
That’s mighty rich posturing from the Blue to the libertarian.
That occurred to me when I read your comment, and responded; a libertarian is snarking that my opinion isn’t popular enough? REALLY?
Thoreau,
1) Everybody knows that the people in these cases were kidnapped and tortured. Right, which makes me doubt that those are the facts being shielded. Again, it’s frustrating that we can’t know.
2) If they don’t want their sources and methods revealed, then they shouldn’t engage in kidnapping and torture. Well, they shouldn’t kidnap and torture anyway, but maintaining the secrecy of sources and methods isn’t a perk that high government officials get to indulge in, like having a nice couch in the anteroom. Keeping our nation’s secrets secret serves an important public purpose. It’s not just something that protects the political leadership.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
February 10, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Suppose Obama is pure of heart on civil liberties, checks and balances, and so forth. Then he would secretly welcome harsh criticism from people like Thoreau–we’re providing him political cover to back down from his Bush-supporting tendencies and do the right thing, assuming he wants to.
I’m undecided on what Obama really wants, but the evidence all along, during the campaign and right up to the present, seems consistent with what radish said in post 10.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
The Hell, joe?
You look at all of this and you see
as a personal attack against you?
Is it really all about you, joe?
…
Yeah, joe. Nobody was pissed about this issue because they thought it was critical, and nobody mentioned that it was a lynch-pin repeatedly in this thread before this point. You never outrighted mocked that concern in this thread.
We just change our opinions and positions so we can better offend you, joe.
Comment by dhex —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
we’re all naderites now, i guess.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
That he’s acted to undermine those changes is a huge strike against him.
I think you’re getting closer to reasonableness here, by talking about this being a strike against him. A mark in the “bad” column, to go with all the marks in the “good” column.
I agree, that’s what this is. It is NOT a reason to do a touchdown dance and gloat about all of your worst assumptions being so totally proven right.
I don’t agree that it justifies crossing all the other marks off, and declaring game over. To get there, you need to make the leap that choosing not to withdraw the state secrets argument in this one case – not even his case, and one with a lot of complicating factors, including the interest in our government’s word to its allied being worth something – provides a very strong reason to believe that the administration’s future behavior will include frequent violations of the law and the use of the state secrets privilege to cover them up.
It’s possible that this one filing – or, rather, decision to stand pat on an existing filing – indicates that, but there seem to be numerous other possible interpretations.
A more likely explanation would be that Obama has taken a “let sleeping dogs lie” approach to going after his immediate predecessor, at least for the time being. That’s not my preference, but it is perfectly consistent with his oft-repeated position that his primary concern is with keeping our nose clean going forward, instead of having a donnybrook over the past.
Personally, I’d rather see that donnybrook. I don’t think we can feel secure in the knowledge that future administrations will behave unless they have the image of Bush and Cheney’s prosecuting haunting them. But that’s a very different question than whether Obama is “the same as the old boss.”
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
I am not gloating, you smug piece of work. I am pissed, and I am disgusted, and your bullshit just intensifies both sensations.
Until troops start leaving Iraq and the people in Gitmo start getting real trials and/or released, those marks haven’t even been made.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Jesus, more with explaining everything three times to Eric.
Is it really all about you, joe?
No, Eric, it’s about US – everybody who had the nerve to argue that there is a meaningful difference between George Bush and Barack Obama. “Personal” doesn’t mean “individual,” but “dealing with persons.”
This wasn’t a post about this filing before the 9th Circuit being wrong. It was a post about “Those people…”
You don’t quote the Killers’ line about looking like Jesus when you want to talk about a lawsuit.
Nobody was pissed about this issue because they thought it was critical, and nobody mentioned that it was a lynch-pin repeatedly in this thread before this point.
Nobody was pissed about this issue, and declared that it was THE most important action for Obama to take, which would render the decision to withdraw from Iraq (yadda yadda yadda – and there are a lot of yaddas) meaningless unless he waived the state secrets privilege in this particular case until AFTER that decision was made.
I read an awful lot of you and Thoreau talking about how important withdrawing from Iraq, ending extraordinary renditions, closing Gitmo, and ending torture were before this decision by the Justice Department was issued. Not once did you condition your comments with “…but only if they don’t assert state secrets.”
Now, on the other hand, those decisions, which were once held to be important, mean NOTHING unless he withdraws the state secrets claim in this one case.
Oh, and “now” means “only after they choose not to withdraw it.”
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
OK, so keeping secrets isn’t just a privilege, but also a responsibility. In that case, they have a responsibility to not commit crimes, since the resulting court proceedings might lead to the public airing of secrets.
The public has an interest in keeping certain things secret, but the public also has an interest in seeing crimes punished and victims compensated. The only way to balance these competing interests is to not commit crimes. If Obama prefers the “We don’t have to tell you because it’s secret” approach, then he isn’t really balancing these interests.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Thoreau is clearly gloating, and you’re throwing a hissy fit at me for objecting to it. Do the math.
Until troops start leaving Iraq and the people in Gitmo start getting real trials and/or released, those marks haven’t even been made.
For this to be true, you would have to argue that it would have been meaningless for the Democrats to override Bush’s veto of the “Timelines” withdrawal bill back in 07, or to refuse to pass an appropriations bill without a timeline. After all, both of those actions would have necessarily come before the actual withdrawal of troops from Iraq, just as Obama’s executive order did.
But you didn’t argue that; you argued exactly the opposite at the time, that taking legal/political actions to bring about the withdrawal some time in the future was incredibly important.
So, why the flip flop? Oh, right. “Meet the New Boss…”
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Whew, you haven’t completely lost it. You were creeping me out a bit, there, joe.
As one of “these people” by your definition, joe, I invite you to go into snippy partisan defensiveness on your own behalf, thanks.
You pointed out yourself that there’s more context than just a little lawsuit. We just disagree about the context.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Um, first, the title is from a song, a song that is not about messiahs, but about loving the wrong guy. And post titles from songs are not generally meant to be taken 100% seriously.
Second, would a gloater write any of the following?
“Well, you guys tried to do the right thing. I give you full credit for that. But this thing is on autopilot.”
“To be fair, this isn’t what you guys voted for either. I get that. None of us voted for it. But this is what we all got. The machine is on autopilot”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Thoreau,
In that case, they have a responsibility to not commit crimes Agreed. And the BUSH administration violated that responsibility. Screw them.
The Obama administration has issued orders, which apply throughout the government, including the covert arms, to obey the law.
This is a dispute about how to deal with past law-breaking, by a different administration. That, combined with the order I referenced above, is why I don’t think the filing, by itself, indicates a great deal about future lawbreaking by the Obama administration.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Both of those actions would have involved something with more standing than an executive order – and you know damn well that if they had happened, you would have been bitching about all the libertarians like Thoreau and myself not staining their shorts in joy, but being suspicious “naderites” waiting for it to actually come about.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Um, first, the title is from a song, a song that is not about messiahs, but about loving the wrong guy. And post titles from songs are not generally meant to be taken 100% seriously. Nobody misunderstands why you quoted the song, both in the title and in the body of the post, because it was perfectly in keeping with the rest of what you wrote; that people who thought Barack Obama would be meaingfully different from George Bush have been proven wrong. You’ve been on this kick for a year, Thoreau. You haven’t been misunderstood.
Second, would a gloater write any of the following? Yep. That’s exactly what someone who had been asserting his own wisdom for treating Bush and Obama the same would write, when gloating about a story that he thinks demonstrates his case.
The “you poor dears, I know you had the best intentions,” more in sadness than in anger tone doesn’t change that.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Both of those actions would have involved something with more standing than an executive order
An order by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to his Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the disposition of troops in the field has even more standing than a conditions Congress places on an appropriations bill.
and you know damn well that if they had happened, you would have been bitching about all the libertarians like Thoreau and myself not staining their shorts in joy, but being suspicious “naderites†waiting for it to actually come about. Yes, I would have. Particularly if those Naderites had spent several months insisting that passing such a bill was the most important issue facing us in our time, then immediately after its passage insisted that it’s not really that important after all.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Time for a blunt admission:
I honestly didn’t think he’d do it, joe. I liked his record on openness, and especially the last couple of months, there was a lot of posturing about “transparency” during the transition. I thought this was a no-brainer, even for a Blue.
I was really fucking wrong.
Comment by dhex —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
“Thoreau is clearly gloating, and you’re throwing a hissy fit at me for objecting to it. Do the math.”
gloating?
sports bar narratives don’t really serve the world we live in very well.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Not when there’s noise (a trial balloon?) about his generals “pressuring” him about not exiting now. At this point, when things start to happen beyond the planning stage, then they’re happening.
The president has control of every step of the way, so he gets the burden of at least doing something before being acknowledged as doing something. Congress just has to actually manage some votes to do its part.
But that’s one of those little distinctions that only exist to irritate you.
*rolls eyes*
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 10, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
See, that’s the thing. I’ve disagreed with Thoreau on this very subject. I had hope for Obama. I was happy he won over McCain, and I was excited when he make some steps towards what Blues and libertarians both say they want on the subject.
This happens, and I get pissed. I read Thoreau’s post, and I get a bit more pissed, just like you.
Except I’m pissed at Obama, and you’re pissed at Thoreau.
Hell, I can’t even stay pissed at you on the subject. You dropped into this thread making exactly the sort of comment I’ve expected Blues making for any about-face by the administration. (I actually expected more of you guys, really. Might have managed a controversy.) I can’t take any more offense.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 10, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
BTW, this isn’t a criminal case. If it were a criminal case, I could see the argument for letting the status quo stand. I would vehemently disagree, but I could see it.
This is a civil case. This is about restitution to victims.
Comment by abb1 —
February 10, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
It’s really in bad taste to defend very powerful people, narcissistic bastards. The (reasonably) worst thing you can imagine about their motives, it’s probably worse than that.
Comment by Doc Nebula —
February 10, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Great minds think alike, I guess.
But I posted my “I’m disappointed with Obama” thingie with the “When You Were Young” references back in June.
Shootin’ the curve…
Having said that, I’ve been more pleased than displeased with Obama so far, which is a pretty dramatic switch from the last guy. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
February 10, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
“It’s really in bad taste to defend very powerful people, narcissistic bastards.”
I think that sentence is missing a word or some punctuation or something, but anyway, I agree. It’s what I can’t stand about political campaigns–so many people seem to adopt the view that the party standard-bearer becomes the repository of all our hopes and to criticize him is to be an egomaniac or some other horrible thing.
Comment by Happy Jack —
February 10, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
It’s what I can’t stand about political campaigns–so many people seem to adopt the view that the party standard-bearer becomes the repository of all our hopes and to criticize him is to be an egomaniac or some other horrible thing.
Arthur Silber’s tribalism posts seem timely right about now.
Comment by GinSlinger —
February 11, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Yeah, dhex, Naderite? Seriously, WTF?
Comment by VikingMoose —
February 11, 2009 @ 11:43 am
oh hay hai gaiz.
what’s going on?
anything cool going down hier?
*ambles off*
Comment by peter soakell —
February 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Diablo
Comment by dhex —
February 11, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
diablo 3?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
February 11, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
So far, from what I have seen…neither did you.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
February 15, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
By that logic, TAO, you’re in no position to complain about this filing, because the case hasn’t been dismissed.