Obama, Bush, & FDR: Together Again

Writing in the Wash Post, Brookings' Benjamin Wittes and Harvard's Jack Goldsmith are disappointed with President Barack Obama's unilateralist view on detaining suspected terrorists. They worry that he is simply following George W. Bush's bad precedent:

Obama, to put it bluntly, seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration's unilateral approach to detention. The attraction is simple, seductive and familiar. The legal arguments for unilateralism are strong in theory; past presidents in shorter, traditional wars did not seek specific congressional input on detention. Securing such input for our current war, it turns out, is still hard. The unilateral approach, by contrast, lets the president define the rules in ways that are convenient for him and then dares the courts to say no.

The authors suggest that Obama follow FDR's lead by getting congressional input instead:

When Franklin D. Roosevelt sought congressional authorization for the Lend-Lease program in January 1941, the isolationist-leaning nation was evenly split over the proposal. After two months of sharp congressional argument and national debate, almost two-thirds of the country supported Lend-Lease, and Congress passed the program by large margins. "We have just now engaged in a great debate," Roosevelt proclaimed. "It was not limited to the halls of Congress. It was argued in every newspaper, on every wavelength, over every cracker barrel in all the land; and it was finally settled and decided by the American people themselves. Yes, the decisions of our democracy may be slowly arrived at. But when that decision is made, it is proclaimed not with the voice of any one man but with the voice of one hundred and thirty millions. It is binding on us all. And the world is no longer left in doubt."

It's really great to argue for more input when it comes to all aspects of war, especially the waging of it in the first place. Wittes and Goldsmith seem incredibly naive, however, in presuming that Congress is champing at the bit to make any hard decisions. Recall that Congress did vote on an authorization of force; recall also that Congress has shied away from actually declaring war for many decades now. They might not like some aspects of the Imperial Presidency, but they are also cowards when it comes to the sort of decisions that they might actually be held accountable for.

In any case, citing FDR in this context strikes me a tin-eared to the extreme. Didn't he use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II? That was a unilateralist action that had moral support in Congress, sure, but was far worse than anything Bush or Obama dreamed up, much less acted on. The order was also refused by Mountain State governors, to their credit. Read Eric Muller's great Reason piece on that racially driven hysterical legacy of FDR.

And watch Reason.tv on Obama's bad rendition and detention policies, which have roots not only in the Bush admin but in Bill Clinton's:

Comments

[Xeones]

Yo, fuck Barack Obama.

[John]

The bottom line is that Democrats face real political consequences for being perceived as being soft on terrorism. In contrast they face no political consequences for continueing Bush's terror policies. Most civil libertarians are Democrats first and civil libertarians second. If the Dems thought there was any danger of them sitting out an election or voting for someone else, they might act differently. But, there is little danger of the ACLU or its supporters or journalists like Glen Greenwald doing anything but shilling and voting for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012 when it counts.

In the end the Democrats just don't give a shit because they don't have to. All of that talk they gave about GUITMO and detention and the dark night of fascism was just that talk. They said it knowing that they would do exactly the same thing when they were in power and knowing that civil libertarians were dumb enough to believe them and committed enough liberals to let them off the hook when the lie became apparent. It was pretty smart politics when you think about it.

[Isaac Bartram]

The order was also refused by Mountain State governors, to their credit.

I'm not sure I'm seeing anything that merits credit here:

Neither did the governors of the Mountain West states, who in April 1942 rejected the federal government's request to allow Japanese Americans freedom of movement and instead insisted that any Japanese Americans in their states be kept behind barbed wire and under military guard.

[emphasis mine]

[Spoonman]

Wait, to their credit?

Neither did the governors of the Mountain West states, who in April 1942 rejected the federal government's request to allow Japanese Americans freedom of movement and instead insisted that any Japanese Americans in their states be kept behind barbed wire and under military guard. Plainly, the MAGIC intelligence could not have influenced them.

[Spoonman]

Damn you, Isaac.

[P Brooks]

You can't have a bunch of Nips roaming the countryside, infecting the good, upstanding people of Colorado with their crazy California ways. That's madness.

[domoarrigato]

Didn't he use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II? That was a unilateralist action that had moral support in Congress, sure, but was far worse than anything Bush or Obama dreamed up, much less acted on.

I'm not sure I think the Japanese interment is worse than Bush's torture regime. Sure, far more people were affected by the interment, but the horrors visited were much less. Both did irreparable harm to our moral authority.

[domoarrigato]

should've said "internment" - they weren't burying the japs... jeebus...

[John]

"I'm not sure I think the Japanese interment is worse than Bush's torture regime. Sure, far more people were affected by the interment, but the horrors visited were much less. Both did irreparable harm to our moral authority."

Yes because someone like KSM is so much more deserving of fair treatment than some Japanese taylor living in San Diago. As far as our "moral authority" give me a fucking break. We have been sending people to other countries to be tortured for years. Moreover, even if we had "moral authority" what the hell good would it do us. When had moral authority ever protected us from anything? I guess in 1940, pre Bush torture and pre Japanese internment, we must have had lots of moral authority. That sure disuaded our enemies from trying to kill us didn't it?

The entire rest of the world either tortures or farms it out to other countries. If only we would have given KSM, a medel of freedom a blowjob and a first rate lawyer the whole world would live us. We could just throw down our weapons and live in peace.

[ajay]

Didn't he use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II? That was a unilateralist action that had moral support in Congress, sure, but was far worse than anything Bush or Obama dreamed up, much less acted on.

Not so. It wasn't as bad as getting several times that number of Iraqi civilians killed.

[John]

"Not so. It wasn't as bad as getting several times that number of Iraqi civilians killed."

Of course by that logic Roosevelt was responsible for the deaths of millions of German and Japanese civilians. He okayed fire bombing of Japanese cities. Had he lived long enough he would have okayed nuking them.

If Bush is responsible for every civilian death in Iraq, the Roosevelt must be responsible for those deaths right. Yes, Bush started the war. Okay, then if Bush hadn't started the war, isn't he then responsible for all of the civilian deaths that would have resulted from the continueing sanctions and Saddam? I mean he could have prevented them but didn't.

Further, aren't our enemies who spent five years killing and terrorizing as many civilians as possible just somewhat responsible for those Iraqi death tolls? It is not like Bush carpet bombed the place. For five years our enemies hid in the civilian population and conducted a campaing of terror blowing up mosques, markets, police stations and every other target that could kill the most innocent people and sow the most terror. Perhaps they bear some responsibility for the deaths since they were the ones you know actually killing the people.

[Isaac Bartram]

Damn you, Isaac.

Great minds, Spoonman, great minds. 🙂

You take the prize for brevity, though. Well done.

[Isaac Bartram]

You can't have a bunch of Nips roaming the countryside, infecting the good, upstanding people of Colorado with their crazy California ways.

Oh, now I see. It wasn't the fact that they were Japanese that bothered the Western guvs, it was that the were from California.

That's OK then.

[domoarrigato]

Yes because someone like KSM is so much more deserving of fair treatment than some Japanese taylor living in San Diago. As far as our "moral authority" give me a fucking break. We have been sending people to other countries to be tortured for years. Moreover, even if we had "moral authority" what the hell good would it do us. When had moral authority ever protected us from anything?

Shorter John:

Bush > FDR cuz he fucked over "unsympathetic" people. moreover, other people break the same rules of human decency so it must be ok. Even if it's not ok, playing by the rules is pointless.

C'mon - have you given up on the idea that the U.S. ought to try not to be an evil country?

[ChicagoTom]

Didn't he use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II? That was a unilateralist action that had moral support in Congress, sure, but was far worse than anything Bush or Obama dreamed up

I don't think so.

Was internment terrible and disghusting? Absolutely.

But last I checked the Japanese that were put into camps weren't systemically tortured, nor were they held there indefinitely as Obama is proposing.

Also the Japanese were allowed to challenge their detention in US courts, and in 1944 the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.

Sure internment was on a greater scale, but to say that Gitmo and the other sites where "enemy combatants" isn't as bad as internment is, I believe, a misstatement.

[gmatts]

"Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

I thought that Obama is no longer a member of Congress?

[gmatts]

"Was internment terrible and disghusting? Absolutely."

I wouldn't mention that if you're ever in the presence of Michelle Malkin.

[ChrisO]

Since when have the Democrats ever been against the Imperial Presidency in practice? They had a large part in creating it.

In fact, I would argue that Bush is more in line with Harry Truman and LBJ than with relative non-interventionists like Coolidge, Eisenhower and Nixon. The positions of two parties on foreign policy are both hopelessly muddled nowadays.

[domoarrigato]

I'm agreeing with ChicagoTom - can the apocalypse be far behind?

😉

[JB]

More Leftists jizz on themselves while thinking of FDR.

I wish we could dig up that crippled, incompetent fuck and put him on trial for war crimes.

[R C Dean]

Sure internment was on a greater scale, but to say that Gitmo and the other sites where "enemy combatants" isn't as bad as internment is, I believe, a misstatement.

I'll take up that gauntlet.

Internment affected millions of US citizens. To my knowledge, there isn't a sigle US citizen at Gitmo.

You can say that the number interned doesn't make a difference, but at this scale, I think it does. At some point, quantity has a quality all its own.

Internment was done without any indication whatsoever of hostile tendencies to the US. The same can't be said of the Gitmo internees (although the quality of the evidence may be debatable).

Those interned at Gitmo are being held as, essentially, war criminals, for which there are no clear provisions for judicial remedy in US law, unlike the US citizens held on US soil without charge by FDR. I'm not sure how many points the FDR internment should get on this count.

When they were interned, the Japanese were to be held indefinitely, so the two groups are on equal footing there.

Given a choice between interning an entire ethnic group of US citizens and a handful of (alleged) enemy combatant foreign nationals, I know which I would choose.

[TrickyVic]

Bush wanted to hold Padilla indefinately, albeit not the scale of FDR's actions. The idea that US citizens can be held indefinately without charges was part of Bush's strategy.

[TrickyVic]

gmatts, neither was Bush and he didn't think it mattered. I suspect most of the right, who had little problem with Bush, will have little problem with Obama. They will just complain that he's not living up to his campaign promises. I suspect those who had a problem with Bush's ideology will remain mostly silent about Obama keeping up the Bush policy.

The left will give Obama passes on many things they were against until it hits a critcal mass. Look how long the right gave Bush a pass.

[domoarrigato]

R C Dean,

I think you have the reasons why the internment were terrible down. But the flipside is official inhumane treat at the hands of the state. You didn't choose to dwell on it, but that doesn't make it ok.

[R C Dean]

But the flipside is official inhumane treat at the hands of the state. You didn't choose to dwell on it, but that doesn't make it ok.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I think that the Gitmo detentions and interrogations were run the way they should have been. I just don't think its right to say they are morally equivalent to the FDR internments. The only way the Gitmo program might be worse than the FDR internments, globally speaking, is that the FDR internments couldn't/didn't set a precedent, but Gitmo can.

[domoarrigato]

I think the torture aspect makes them demonstrably worse as well. That was my point - that I didn't think it's obvious that Bush's policies weren't worse. I reserve judgement, I just think there's a case to be made.

[Mad Max]

'Didn't [FDR] use an executive order to intern what, 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II?'

Congress backed up Roosevelt on that one. They passed a law on March 21, 1942 providing criminal penalties for anyone who disobeyed military regulations in a Presidentially-designated war zone.

'Also the Japanese were allowed to challenge their detention in US courts, and in 1944 the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.'

Uh, no. The Supremes upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans in the Korematsu case in 1944. Korematsu was convicted under the Congressional statute I've mentioned, and Supremes upheld the conviction.

The Supremes *did* say that, if a Japanese-American could *prove* his or her loyalty, he or she was entitled to be released from the internment camp where she was being held, so long as she didn't move to the West Coast, which was a Presidentially-designated Jap-free zone. Few prisoners in the camps availed themselves of this particular ticket to freedom - for one thing, where would they go if they couldn't return to their West Coast homes?