Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Why Is Obama Desperate to Hide the Truth About Bush's Lawbreaking?
On Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the federal government's latest attempt to block the most viable lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's illegal warrantless surveillance program. Glenn Greenwald slams the Obama administration for doggedly pressing the Bush administration's argument that the case cannot be tried without compromising national security:
Manifestly, the Obama DOJ has one goal and one goal only here: to prevent any judicial ruling as to whether the Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program was illegal. And they're engaging in extraordinary efforts to ensure that occurs....
Here we have the Obama DOJ...not merely trying desperately to keep the Bush administration's spying activities secret, and not merely devoting itself with full force to preventing disclosure of relevant documents concerning this illegal program, but far worse, doing everything in its power even to prevent any judicial adjudication as to whether the Bush administration broke the law by spying on Americans without warrants.
Greenwald notes that the Obama administration's position flies in the faces of what Dawn Johnsen, Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, said a year ago about the danger posed by letting Bush's lawbreaking slide:
I'm afraid we are growing immune to just how outrageous and destructive it is, in a democracy, for the President to violate federal statutes in secret. Remember that much of what we know about the Bush administration's violations of statutes...came first only because of leaks and news coverage. Incredibly, we still don't know the full extent of our government's illegal surveillance.
The Obama administration's obsructionism also seems to contradict the president's own position on Bush's decision to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In December 2007, The Boston Globe asked the candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations, "Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?" Here is his reply:
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
Then again, here is what Obama had to say about a proposal by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) for a "truth and reconciliation committee" to investigate the Bush administration's illegal actions:
My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.
But that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.
In January I welcomed Johnsen as a lawyer who might be (in her words) "prepared to say no to the President." A couple of years ago, I noted that the Bush had unsuccessfully pushed a state-secrecy argument in another FISA suit (although the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in that case ultimately was overturned on lack-of-standing grounds). In 2007 I regretted that Congress (with then-Sen. Obama's support) had repealed the warrant requirement that Bush ignored.
Kyle Jordan|3.2.09 @ 1:16PM|#
"The Obama administration's obsructionism also seems to
contradict the president's own position on Bush's decision to
circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
More change I can believe in!
Yo, fuck Barack Obama.
(Shout out to X.)
|3.2.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Articles like this and the one on Obama's new improved Iraq withdrawal timetable make me miss joe.
|3.2.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Say hello to the new boss...same as the old boss.
I mean really, did we expect any different? Remember what party
supported the Patriot Act even before 9/11. We of all people should
not pretend to be shocked by this.
|3.2.09 @ 1:20PM|#
"Heavy lies the crown" et c, et c.
if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, we must do
everything in our power to keep them from being exposed.
|3.2.09 @ 1:20PM|#
"Why Is Obama Desperate to Hide the Truth About Bush's
Lawbreaking?"
Because he intends to do the exact same things. Again, it was all a
lie. You either have to turn on Obama or admit that maybe Bush's
law breaking wasn't quite such a big deal after all.
|3.2.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Articles like this and the one on Obama's new improved Iraq
withdrawal timetable make me miss joe.
Why do you think he left (the real reason, of course)? Because we
would eat him alive.
|3.2.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Just remember, an unhealthy dose of skepticism is a great idea
when evaluating political candidates. Also, voting for people with
a track record you can review is preferable to electing ciphers and
the inexperienced. If we didn't learn that in part from Bush, we're
learning it again from Obama.
America! Restore your greatest virtue! Distrust those in power! And
those who want it! Craft your laws and Constitution with that holy
writ in mind!
|3.2.09 @ 1:28PM|#
The difference is Obama's base won't let him get away with anything just because he's on our "team." We actually have principles, you know. Of course the wingnuts have discovered they have principles now that Democrats are in power.
|3.2.09 @ 1:33PM|#
The difference is Obama's base won't let him get away with
anything just because he's on our "team." We actually have
principles, you know.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kyle Jordan|3.2.09 @ 1:33PM|#
"The difference is Obama's base won't let him get away with
anything just because he's on our "team." We actually have
principles, you know. Of course the wingnuts have discovered they
have principles now that Democrats are in power."
Dude, you need to be a comedian because that was fucking
hilarious.
|3.2.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Sure there's a lot of idolization of Obama, but this very post
cites a prominent liberal blogger who has no compunction of calling
Obama out for the same reasons he called Bush out.
Now find me one single wingnut commenter who doesn't twist himself
in to knots defending anything and everything their wingnut leaders
do, no matter how immoral or illegal?
JB|3.2.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Um, because this is still going on and has been going on at
least as far back as Bill Clinton.
Jacob, why don't you do some actual research and look into the NSA
and Echelon?
Most Senators don't have a clue what goes on; journalists have even
less of one.
tarran|3.2.09 @ 1:39PM|#
The difference is Obama's base won't let him get away with anything just because he's on our "team." We actually have principles, you know.
Tony, sweetie... He's president now. He doesn't need you. He's
dumping you guys faster than a lawyer dumps the plain girl who
supported him as he went to school so that he can marry a trophy
wife.
I feel sorry for you guys.
|3.2.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Now find me one single wingnut commenter who doesn't twist
himself in to knots defending anything and everything their wingnut
leaders do, no matter how immoral or illegal?
Sorry, Jacob-
In January I welcomed Johnsen as a lawyer who might be (in her words) "prepared to say no to the President." A couple of years ago, I noted that the Bush had unsuccessfully pushed a state-secrecy argument in another FISA suit (although the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in that case ultimately was overturned on lack-of-standing grounds). In 2007 I regretted that Congress (with then-Sen. Obama's support) had repealed the warrant requirement that Bush ignored.
Did you even read that, Tony?
Jerry|3.2.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Because Obama voted for telco immunity: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/BADF165O4N.DTL&tsp=1
|3.2.09 @ 1:51PM|#
I heard a woman on CNN this morning talking about how wrong it is to criticize the President in a time of war and crisis. No shit. She said it without a hint of irony.
|3.2.09 @ 1:52PM|#
My guess is that Obama is scare shitless there will be a
terrorist attack on his watch, so he's private letting the
intelligence community have whatever they want. He knows what
happened last time there was a terrorist attack on US soil.
Tony, lots of Republicans turned against Bush. people just forget.
Andrew Sullivan supported the Iraq war initially. Pat Buchanen came
out strongly against from the start. George Will has had a lot of
critical things to say about the Bush administration. So has Robert
Novak. There are lots of examples.
|3.2.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Tony, sweetie... He's president now. He doesn't need you.
He's dumping you guys faster than a lawyer dumps the plain girl who
supported him as he went to school so that he can marry a trophy
wife.
LMAO - grade A++ snark
robc|3.2.09 @ 2:09PM|#
Any coincidence that Tony appears shortly after
joe leaves us?
Yeah, yeah, stylistically they are different.
Tony - what is your view on Venezuela as a democracy? I need a new
sparring partner.
|3.2.09 @ 2:09PM|#
My guess is that Obama is scare shitless there will be a
terrorist attack on his watch, so he's private letting the
intelligence community have whatever they want. He knows what
happened last time there was a terrorist attack on US soil."
You would be guessing right
|3.2.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Tony, Tony, Tony.
So much of the commentary here is mocking people who thought Obama
was something special and different.
He's not. The sooner you realize that, the better.
You will also find very, very few Red Team people who hang out
here, just as you will find very few Blue Team comrades to support
any partisan claim that one Team has any inherent
moral/ethical/whatever advantages over the other.
We tend to have vociferous differences of opinion on particular
line items, and may prefer one Team's position over the other on
this issue or that, but please, "Team Blue is much better at
calling out Our Guys when they cross the line" will only draw
derision and well-deserved abuse.
Because Team Blue is emphatically not good at sticking to principle
when there is power or political advantage at stake. Pretty much
like Team Red.
Other Matt|3.2.09 @ 2:29PM|#
He's not. The sooner you realize that, the
better.
He's not!!?!?!?
Damn, I just got done with my stall for my new pony. I just thought
it got held up in the mail or something.
BDB|3.2.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I'm confused.
Is the talking point "He's just like Bush", or is the talking point
"he's a radical surrender-monkey socialist"?
!!!|3.2.09 @ 2:44PM|#
he's a radical surrender-monkey socialist"
Just call him a surrender-nigger socialist already. No one needs to
hear your racist code words.
Next thing you know chimpanzee cartoons will be acceptable
political satire.
|3.2.09 @ 3:14PM|#
BDB, as far as I can tell, the talking points are
(1) He's just like Bush on the war on terror and civil liberties.
Better PR, but to date little to no change.
(2) He's worse than Bush on taxes, spending, and other domestic
policies.
BDB|3.2.09 @ 3:18PM|#
"(1) He's just like Bush on the war on terror"
Shouldn't that make you and John thrilled?
MattXIV|3.2.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Tony,
The Dem base won't do shit. They won't vote a 3rd party candidate
after 2000 and voting for the GOP certainly isn't a good way to
send a message on civil liberties. It was obvious this was going to
happen when Obama supported telecom immunity and the protest of the
liberals who support civil liberties when it's Democrats trying to
take them away were insufficient to make him backtrack. If you
couldn't stop him during the election when the threat of not voting
for him was immediately relevant why would you be able to stop him
now?
|3.2.09 @ 3:19PM|#
BDB,
It's the worst of both worlds.
When is USA Patriot getting repealed, by the way?
BDB|3.2.09 @ 3:28PM|#
"When is USA Patriot getting repealed, by the way?"
Doesn't it sunset? If so they just let it expire.
|3.2.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Or not. I'm not sure what the status is on the various provisions with sunset clauses. Congress renewed some that now expire 12/31/09, but I'll believe they won't be renewed (in some form) when I see it. The M.O. of the Obama administration to date is to do something that looks different while continuing to do the same damned thing.
|3.2.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Obama will use Bush's tools to remove the giant steaming turd from the punchbowl. Said turd was placed there by Bush. Once the newfound diplomacy is wildly succesful, those tools will no longer be necessary. At which time Obama and his people loving democrats will rid the U.S. of all the stupidity that Bush and the hateful republicans enacted. Give the man a little time please. The U.S.of A. won't be rebuilt in a day.
|3.2.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Some of you guys are being quite disingenuous...
The left is criticizing Obama on these issues. And the criticisms
are coming quite early in his presidency.
To try and equate that with the right finally, eventually, during
the lame duck period distancing some of his policies (and only
insofar as Bush's policies cost the GOP votes) is the height of
hackery.
If you want to criticize Obama for not following through on his
promises thats fine (I'll be hapy to join in), but please don't
pretend like the left is celebrating/rationalizing/defending his
positions the way the right celebrated Bush's.
Oh and Andrew Sullivan?? Really? The gay conservative who was more
anti-Islam rather than pro-Bush is the example being cited as the
right repudiating about Bush?? Will "had some critical things to
say"? Those are the saddest examples I have seen. These people
never took issue with Bush and his law-breaking, his violating
civil liberties or his torturing of prisoners.
Wake me when RedState or LGF starts criticizing Bush for his
actions. Because right now Obama is being called out on by
prominent liberals -- the right never did that. Even Rachel Maddow
has been calling out the Obama admin on her show. Has anyone on Fox
(or any mainstream media news outlet) ever called out Bush for his
crap??
Libertarians like to pretend like the two parties are equally
morally bankrupt but it isn't true. The left is more principled
(maybe not by leaps and bounds). Many liberals are angry (myself
included) and are speaking out in much larger numbers than the
right ever did.
|3.2.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Shouldn't that make you and John thrilled?
I'm happy he is not rushing to throw away what we have accomplished
in Iraq.
I'm seriously wondering if we aren't missing an opportunity to get
the hell out of Afghanistan, but I'm torn on that one. Afghanistan
may be the new flypaper for the jihadis now hanging out in
Pakistan; I really don't know enough to say.
The left is criticizing Obama on these issues. And the
criticisms are coming quite early in his presidency.
Good, although the volume and vituperation are an order of
magnitude lower than what they directed at the exact same policies
when Bush was on the letterhead.
To try and equate that with the right finally, eventually,
during the lame duck period distancing some of his policies (and
only insofar as Bush's policies cost the GOP votes) is the height
of hackery.
Oh, horseshit. Bush took a pretty good beating starting years and
years ago from the right for kissing up to the Dems in Congress on
domestic issues.
Paul|3.2.09 @ 4:50PM|#
The difference is Obama's base won't let him get away with
anything just because he's on our "team." We actually have
principles, you know.
Where are we with that?
Paul|3.2.09 @ 4:50PM|#
Afghanistan may be the new flypaper for the jihadis now
hanging out in Pakistan; I really don't know enough to
say.
You mean the new old flypaper.
TallDave|3.2.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Shrug. I told you guys Dems never took you seriously on this
stuff. It was just useful campaign rhetoric.
I'm happy he is not rushing to throw away what we have
accomplished in Iraq.
It's funny, Iraq is a huge success comapred to Afghanistan right
now, and the government we support in Kabui is far more theocratic.
Where is the clamoring to get us out of this unwinnable war? Is
Obama creating more terrorists?
We actually have principles, you know.
Uh huh.
|3.2.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Oh and Andrew Sullivan?? Really? The gay conservative who
was more anti-Islam rather than pro-Bush is the example being cited
as the right repudiating about Bush?? Will "had some critical
things to say"? Those are the saddest examples I have
seen.
So only Republicans who are die-hard Bush fans count? What? In that
case, I am horrified that no die-hard Obama supporters are yet
criticizing Obama. Come on, Greenwald doesn't count! He wasn't
really all that pro-Obama in the first place. Only people with a
Hope and Change or Yes We Can bumper sticker count.
Why don't you try reading what some of these people actually said,
and when they said it, rather than assuming that they didn't
criticize until (say) last year?
Bob Novak was against Iraq from the beginning, George Will got off
board sometime in 2005, IIRC. There are other examples. Francis
Fukuyama, the famous neocon boogeyman, also became an Iraq war
critic back in 2004 or 2005. William Kristol lambasted Donald
Rumsfeld's handling of the war way back in 2004 too. These are some
of the more prominent conservative commentators out there.
|3.2.09 @ 5:49PM|#
It's funny, Iraq is a huge success comapred to Afghanistan
right now,
Please refrain from using the phrase "huge success" in reference to
a military adventure that has cost trillions of dollars, resulted
in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands
of US soldiers, and permanently wounded God knows how many Iraqis
and more thousands of Americans--and whose reason for doing has
been shown to be utterly false.
Things are going better in Iraq than they were two years ago. I'll
give you that. But don't fucking pat yourself on the back, and keep
your fingers crossed, as I do, that the whole thing doesn't fall
apart the moment we leave.
|3.2.09 @ 5:56PM|#
The left is criticizing Obama on these issues. And the
criticisms are coming quite early in his presidency.
The warrantless wiretapping program was not publicly known of until
2005, so that's when you should set the clock ticking on the
Right's attitude toward Bush on this issue. The Left was on the
clock in early 2008 when Obama voted for telecom immunity....yet I
still remember them gushing over Hopey McChange ever since.
|3.2.09 @ 6:05PM|#
Ya the moral equivalence is just such laziness. It leads to a
media that reacts with equal outrage over a BJ in the white house
as it does (eventually) to torture. No matter how much liberals and
Democrats work at being above reproach in order to stand in moral
contrast with the right, it's never enough because no matter the
differences, the two parties are a priori equally corrupt. It's
conventional wisdom!
The rightwing is very authoritarian in nature. This alone should
make libertarians run far from them. Liberals have been in the
wilderness for a long time during the completely useless Reagan
revolution and the rightwing governments that followed. Now that
we're empowered we feel the need to prove ourselves, and that means
not keeping quiet if Obama goes against principles.
|3.2.09 @ 6:15PM|#
Tony,
Honestly, man, give it a rest. The evils done by Democrats in power
are legion. Bush was God-awful, but that doesn't make the left
pure. In fact, they played a large role in supporting what Bush
did.
And if you think Clinton was a great president except for a little
sex with an intern, you weren't paying attention. He abused power
almost as much as Bush, with far less provocation (i.e., no
9/11).
|3.2.09 @ 6:15PM|#
Alright, now I'm convinced that Tony is just a Juanita-style
performance artist, regaling us with a subtly exaggerated and
ironic impersonation of an Obamanaut. But this just gives the game
away:
No matter how much liberals and Democrats work at being above
reproach
Comedy gold.
|3.2.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Tony,
Ask any regular if I've ever criticized Bush.
Ask if I've agreed with Bush when I (rarely) thought he was
correct.
Ask the same two questions about me and Obama while you're at
it.
Admit it, Obama appears to not wish to surrender any of the
prerogatives Bush assumed as president. Whether they involve
immoral or unconstitutional acts or not.
|3.2.09 @ 6:46PM|#
And if you think Clinton was a great president except for a
little sex with an intern, you weren't paying attention. He abused
power almost as much as Bush, with far less provocation.
Pro Libertate is right, and no, we're not talking about Waco: We're
talking about the bombing of another country with no provocation,
killing innocents and bringing in Muslim terrorists to destabilize
the region - we're talking about the Balkan War, Clinton's dirty
little secret.
ktc2|3.2.09 @ 6:48PM|#
I'm guessing this is just a dog and pony show:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos
Seriously, that's not snark. This must be the public face while the
court fight to keep the secrets is the less public.
|3.2.09 @ 8:31PM|#
And if you think Clinton was a great president except for a
little sex with an intern, you weren't paying attention. He abused
power almost as much as Bush, with far less provocation.
Remember how he launched the war in Kosovo on the eve of the Starr
report? or was that Iraq? Or the Sudan pharma plant? Or those tents
in Afghanistan? I can't remember ... .
MJ|3.2.09 @ 11:18PM|#
Are the progtrssives being set up for a "Night of the Long
Knives" for the few principled progressives*.
* Progressives like to think of themselves as pragmatic, which
essentially means their main principle is not actually having any
other principles.
|3.3.09 @ 1:27AM|#
J Sub D and RC Dean regularly insult me and I cna tell you for a
fact that they criticized Bush often. I did as well. I'm also
pretty sure that most democrats would call me a conservative (err
rightwing nutjob).
Tony you are being silly.
Rick Ellers \"Wilson\" Ellison|3.3.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Sure there's a lot of idolization of Obama, but this very
post cites a prominent liberal blogger who has no compunction of
calling Obama out for the same reasons he called Bush
out.
Greenwald's a liberal now? But he claimed to be conservative
throughout Bush's terms.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245