Obama and Executive Power: How's that Hope and Change Working Out?
It's been a rough few weeks for President Barack Obama's liberal supporters. Last week, former Bush administration legal official and notorious "torture memo" author John Yoo endorsed Obama's undeclared war on Libya as a perfectly acceptable exercise of presidential power. Now, as Radley Balko noted in today's morning links, the Obama administration has reversed itself and announced it will no longer try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court but will instead give him a military trial at Guantanamo. Writing at Slate, liberal legal commentator Dahlia Lithwick gives voice to the outrage of countless betrayed Obama voters:
In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn't just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It's about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others….
Say what you want about how Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts. The only lesson learned is that Obama's hand can be forced. That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave. Nobody claims that this was a legal decision. It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint. The rule of law is an afterthought, either way.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That poor nice Obama, always being picked on by bullies.
That seems to be the slogan the Dems are heading into 2012 with. If they stick with it, Duncan Hunter could probably beat Obama in the general.
What up, bitches!
Maybe if Obama supporters hadn't been so stupid as to be taken in by an obvious con, they wouldn't have to be finally outraged.
If you're easy to con, you're the idiot. And there were plenty of us saying that he was a bullshitter. But Hope! and Change! were too irresistible, I guess.
""But Hope! and Change! were too irresistible, I guess.""
Say what you will about hope, but change is a common theme in almost every election. People fall for it all the time.
A large number of reason staffers voted for the piece of shit.
I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS. I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS!!!!!!
lol
"You can't con an honest man."
If you don't know who the mark is after an hour at the table, it's you.
Not buying that there weren't any jurisdictions that Gitmo detainees could be tried in without political flack. Pick the Bluest spot on the map -- a place with Democratic senators, Democratic representatives, a Democratic legislature and Governor -- say, most anyplace in Massachusetts -- and shame the hell out of any pol there who speak against it.
No fackin' way! Those suicide bombahs can sack my cawk!
Why do you assume they were taken in?
They wanted someone to defeat Bush. Obama suceeded at that. He also gave them a healthcare reform bill.
Anyone who thinks that the majority of Obama supporters were ever commited pacifists rather than political opportunists is mistaken.
There's a core group with some principles, but the majority wanted Obama because he was a Democrat with some charisma who could win and give them all the domestic policy goodies they wanted. The war was just a convenient rallying cry.
I do think a significant portion of the population was genuinely fatigued with the war. Not tired of fighting it or of borrowing money to pay for it, of course. Just tired of hearing about it. Obama promised to make the wars go away, and he did, more or less. He got elected and suddenly the pressed stopped reporting on them. Hope and Change!
Also a good point.
Good point.
Seriously, that jumped out at me too. Even when his supporters finally acknowledge that he's an unprincipled, lying sack of shit, they still have to temper their criticism by implying it's some outside force that's ultimately behind Obama's betrayal.
Oops... That was supposed to be in response to mitch's comment. (Fucking threaded comments; how do they work?)
I alone command threaded comments, bending them to my will with ease and aplomb. (Until we hit that far right wall.)
Allow the Obama faithful a shred of the illusion that once was. Obama is a principled man caught unawares by the political jackals he was too pure to fight. Too beautiful for this world.
Good night sweet prince and may flights of unicorns carry thee to political obscurity.
"Under an oak, in stormy weather,
I joined this rogue and whore together;
And none but he who rules the thunder
Can put this rogue and whore asunder."
-Jonathan Swift
Damn. Wish I'd penned that.
Quit bullying me.
Ok, that just dinged some internal counter in my head. I am now officially sick and fucking tired of that meme. Please cease and desist using it, or warmechs will be sent forth to raze your homes.
I have a large supply of beetles I can send over to your place to gnaw the meat off your pelvis.
Fine, all ancient mummies are exempt from the rule.
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy strikes again!
Halliburton!
No, they just don't want to admit that they like him because of the healthcare bill and other domestic policy issues, and that they really don't give as much of a shit about war as they pretend to.
I blame that woman, Hillary, for The War so don't vote for her in 2012.
It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint.
Lithwick has never written an article about the Supreme Court, nor advocated a position that solely took this into account. Hah. Don't mistake her for principled, Obama's just not team enough for her today.
Sorry, but I blame the American people. Scott Brown, Mr. Popularity, was elected in Massachusetts on a platform endorsing both military tribunals and waterboarding (but only for "bad guys," of course). Republicans demagogued, Democrats collapsed, but it was the American people who made it happen. Actually, Obama has already done far worse when he didn't have to-- sentencing a American citizen to death on the basis of secret evidence, for example.
Pretty sure Scott Brown won because he would vote against Obamacare, but hey, whatever.
Obama wants a second term, and he needs votes from far beyond the idiot left base. Yes he needs idiot moderates and maybe a few stray idiot right wingers.
You rang?
Power glutes ready!
Maybe if Obama supporters hadn't been so stupid
They're not stupid. They're liars.
When they say they're against unconstitutional imperial cowboy war and shit, or they're disappointed in their imperial cowboy for cowboying imperially?straight-up bullshit, in every single case.
Yep.
http://goo.gl/q9ELg
Trying KSM in civilian court would have been far worse for future American defendants. Surely Obama and Holder knew this going in, but they plowed ahead into this blind alley. The outcome is right, the way we got to it was a farce.
Trying KSM in civilian court would have been far worse for future American defendants.
Is that only because Obama admitted that KSM would be indefinitely detained whether or not he was convected?
Most likely. I don't understand the logic here. The man wants to plead guilty. Let him do so, then execute him (if that sentence is available).
Those looney-birds over there will use it as an excuse to go on another rampage, but so what? Maybe another rampage would be the impetus for the more reasonable supporters of the war to finally say, fuck it. These people are beyond help.
I don't know... I think something like that might cause supporters to double down on the war. "Just bomb those savages back to the stone age!"
...back to the stone age
What, last Tuesday?
When you, from a western perspective, bomb someone in to the stone age, you need to also make sure that it means something to those being bombed.
Significant chunks of Afghanistan are CURRENTLY in the stone age, and, not coincidentally, those parts are also the most contested.
The man wants to plead guilty. Let him do so, then execute him (if that sentence is available).
This.
Of course, he may no longer be competent to so plead, what with all that waterboarding.
Nice handle. For all the sad Obama supporters...
He's a shitbucket of a human, but admit it... once he's gone you're going to miss seeing his picture all the time, just like the rest of us will.
We still have that picture of Jared Loughner to get us through the night.
I wonder where all the pictures of Nidal Malik Hasan went. Anybody out there remember him? The media sure doesn't.
Here we go with the pretzel logic.
Barrytown to be specific, right?
If you're going to make a statement like that, I would appreciate the thought behind it. I've yet to hear anybody argue that trial in a civilian court would be bad for future American defendants, and I'm curious to know your angle.
I suspect he's coming from a Ken Shultz type POV, that since KSM is never going to be released regardless of the verdict, it would be bad if this happens after a normal civilian trial.
You mean the same way that "sex offenders" (people who were unfortunate enough to not secure their computer well enough to prevent hackers from storing dirty pictures on their hard drive) can be kept confined for life after finishing their sentence?
Sorry. Barn door open. Horse is gone.
Normally, we exclude evidence obtained as a result of kicking the shit out of someone. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that. KSM's trial will, in all likelihood, require including such evidence.
Also, he's going to have the right to have his lawyers examine the evidence against him. Good chance of losing many of the sources for the non-torture obtained evidence that way, although protective orders can help shield some of them. If you just deny his lawyers that evidence, that's another departure from a regular criminal trial.
I'm sure other people can come up with other reasons. Eventually, you have so many departures from regular criminal procedure that it makes sense to try him outside of the federal criminal process. 'Cause we sure ain't letting him go...
You are right to be concerned about the precedents that would be set by allowing coerced evidence and forbidding defense access.
But should you not also be concerned about the precedent set by trying someone in a military tribunal for civilian crimes committed during peacetime?
If the evidence is too weak to get a conviction, just let him go. It's not like he's going to be able to mastermind another 9/11. Yes, I know our leader pussies aren't willing to do that, but that's what should be done.
I think most everyone incarcerated right now and awaiting trial would be delighted to have the principle affirmed that the government can't just hold you forever without any legal recourse.
How this would be bad for criminal defendants I can't fathom.
A majority of the Supreme Court, including "originalist" Scalia, have affirmed that the state can keep someone locked up forever, even if they have served their sentence. Today it applies to "sex offenders" - including those guilty of consensual crimes. Tomorrow it will include terrorists. The day after that - hey, I know that look! You're guilty of thoughtcrime, buddy - and we know what to do about thought criminals.
Just don't send me to room 101.
You have to understand, Democrats don't mind executive power. They just hate when the executive is a Republican. What exactly about Democratic Socialism implies that they'd have a problem with executive power?
They're our Tomahawks now.
Slate, is that the new Tina Brown project?
can we hit the redo button yet?
I'm willing to go back to--- oh, I'll throw out 1900 - legally and government-size.
As a bonus, Congress will be paid the same amount as they were back then.
How quickly can we but this to a vote?
1900? Yeah, the liberty for us was incredible back then before all the big government!
^^ He has a point. There was a lot of official segregation back then; state enforced laws against inter-racial marriages, all-white juries convicting blacks of "looking" at white women the wrong way, etc. Have to take that into account.
The Federal Government wasn't segregated until the 1910's when Woodrow Wilson imposed his enlightened visions of a government for the whites.
You'll still have a net gain of rights.
So quit yer bitchin'
So your solution to problem of the government not granting rights equally is more government?
Which big government bureaucracy granted you your liberties?
Are you serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Your tears are so yummy and sweet.
Considering that Bush got much more of his agenda through Congress, while having 49, 49, 45, and 51 Democrats in the four Senates he shared Washington with, doesn't the "bullying" excuse make Obama look like a complete weakling for being bullied by 40-41 Republicans?
It also, conveniently, avoids having to take responsibility, which no lefty ever does when things go awry.
Better to be a weakling than to have completely punked a vast majority of Dems, right? They have to protect their fragile egos somehow.
I have to agree with T that their tears are delicious. Man, I'm tired of being right (to quote Ace Ventura).
Allrighty then.
No no no.
It's AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiighteeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen.
What can you say, Republicans stand together better than Democrats do.
Extremists are good for that.
Yawn... Cock.
What's the saying, about something something honor among something something?
How could KSM have been tried in civilian court if he was never mirandized in the first place? Wouldn't a motion to dismiss the charges have been granted and didn't our legal scholar Obama know this going in? So why even bring up the possibility of trying KSM in civilian court except to curry favor with his supporters? Lying sack of dung.
I don't think a failure to mirandize means charges can't be brought, it means any evidence that was discovered as a result of confessions without the warning are excluded.
It's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion and a violation of professional ethics for a prosecutor to bring charges unsupported by admissible evidence.
How is pointing out the FED printing press as a way to fund the governments war not germane to the subject of war?
What the Congress did is unconstitutional. I guess Obummer didn't feel like fighting it.
Why doesn't KSM just accidentally cut his head off while shaving or something? Whatever they end up doing with him, it is going to be a made up farce with no real legal legitimacy. I think having any sort of "trial" at all for a man who they are not going to release under any circumstances is absurd and accomplishes nothing.
We can't lose the chance for our show trial.
Wait a minute...The administration pushed to close GITMO and to have civilian trials and they were blocked by Congress, so this is the administration's fault?
Separation of powers, how does it work?
"Blocked by Congress" =/= "caving to political pressure despite having clear and unambiguous Constitutional authority to do something"
Are you seriously arguing that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
means
"Unless Congress says otherwise, we have no option but to hold a person in prison without any trial for the rest of their life"?
Fucking Constitutions, how do they work?
You gotta love the equivalence offered here, it is not the people who went bat-shit insane and raised cain but the people who tried to do the right thing but yes lamentably backed down to the firestorm the former group raised that is the bad guy!
Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts
Guess you missed that part...
Second warmech deployed.
Yes, it is thier fault. They made promises they couldn't keep - now reap as ye sow.
...The administration pushed to close GITMO and to have civilian trials and they were blocked by Congress
The Democrats controlled both houses by almost fillibuster proof majorities, and rammed a health care bill through using ruthless tactics.
And Obama couldn't get them to close Guamntanamo.
That's not being "blocked by congress", that's "not really trying".
Blocked by Congress completely controlled by Democrats, you mean? And of course, Obama has no problem making dubiously legal end runs around Congress on CO2 regulation and starting wars in North Africa, so pouting about Congress not letting him try KSM in civilian court is ludicrous.
Tulpa|4.5.11 @ 8:08PM|#
"Blocked by Congress completely controlled by Democrats, you mean? And of course, Obama has no problem making dubiously legal end runs around Congress on CO2 regulation and starting wars in North Africa, so pouting about Congress not letting him try KSM in civilian court is ludicrous."
Of course it is, but MNG has an advanced degree in sophistry. C'mon, MNG, try another duck and weave; they're fun to watch!
Warmech deployed.
Obama, there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning.
"It's about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers?first-class law for some and junk law for others...."
You don't say...
mng: Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts
Yeah. Just like we missed the guy holding the gun to Obama's head when he signed the executive order authorizing the assassination by drone of an American overseas.
Fuck you, minge. Obama is a disingenuous piece of shit who values due process about as much as the guy before him did...and he was an asshole for the same reason.
It's interesting how she managed to frame this as an equality issue, rather than a liberty issue. Rather than pointing out the authoritarian powers the government has claimed for itself in the last decade - including secret prisons, detention without trial, warrantless wiretapping, national security letters, and of course the list of people the government wants to assassinate without trial - she focuses on the equality. Like somehow it would be all right if only we were all subject to military trials.
She's not actually saying that, but the framing is clearly targeted at lefty Democrats who aren't naturally sympathetic to anti-government rants. The framing might be more effective for appealing to leftists, but it repelled me even though I strenuously agree with her position.
And just so we all know Obama is the friend of the working man:
"Obama's pricey April SF fundraiser -- $35,800 PER PERSON?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....6397&tsp=1
'Course that working man had better be raking in some dough. Only unionized public 'servants' can afford that sort of grub.
Every time I hear about "military tribunals" vs. "criminal court", an old (13th C) quote about having two legal systems comes to mind: 'If we break the law in pieces then we shall surely break the peace in pieces too.'
It's not KSM that gets the worst end of a military tribunal in Gitmo, it's the U.S.A.
And that's what bin Laden was planning on.
In reversing one of its last principled positions?that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates?the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law.
Our guy is a spineless pussy! Obama 2012!
Fuck yeah, Team Blue!
"That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave."
Given the President's support for a progressive tax system, exceptions to onerous regulatory laws like Obamacare, why would anyone think that equality under the law is a principle Obama and the Democrats hold dear and have to be bullied into abandoning?
*spit-take*
This administration has no commitments except to the aggrandizement of Obama.
This fuckhead wrote an auto-biography before doing jack shit. He is a narcissistic loon.
No! Poor people are crazy. I'm eccentric.
What's with the "Article III courts" lingo anyway? Is Obama the "Article II president" and Harry Reid in charge of the "Article I Senate"?
It sounds like they're trying to make the federal court system of the United States seem like it's just a specialized subset of the judiciary, with coequal status with military tribunals and who knows what other types of judicial bodies the statists want to force down our throats.
I think the arguement is that you also have Article I courts, namely more administrative bodies (even though called Courts, such as the US Tax Court) which have limited powers and tenure. I suppose that the military tribunals will be considered Article I courts.