You may not have been following this story. I wasn't, but a colleague (who happens to be an Obama supporter, but of course, who isn't? I do after all work in a university. ) pointed it out to me. I feel duty bound, of course, to pass it on to you.
Apparently the Obama administration's positions on the Guantanamo inmates and the closing down of military commissions to try the prisoners have become a lot less clear cut. The New York Times reported on May 1, that the administration "is moving toward reviving the military system for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees" which Obama himself had previously criticized. The story notes that during the campaign Obama stated that "by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure" and declaring that as president he would "reject the Military Commissions Act".
Reaction to the news has been critical. The Australian opens its account with the words "Barack Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises..." Even releasing all of the 241 Guantanamo detainees now seems unlikely. An ACLU lawyer stated that the revival of the military commission system "would be a grave error and a huge step backward". German newspapers are critical. One editorial wrote that Obama is "discrediting both himself and the US.". Another stated that "whenever (Obama) takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well".
I point this out not to necessarily defend or attack the military commission system. My inclination is to side with human rights and legal rights advocates on this and to hope that the Obama administration carries through with its promises, but I am not an expert on this. As readers of this blog will quickly cotton onto, my point is to again highlight the exaggerated hopes and claims that Obama supporters had and still apparently cling to. After all, it is unlikely that Bush supporters will come out with a condemnation of policies adopted in the Bush administration. That leaves the task of holding the Obama administration's feet to the fire on critical high value issues to those who support him. (See for example Vince Warren's editorial "Obama's rhetoric loftier than actions".)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prof. Klar,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you respecting the unrealistic expectations of some Obama supporters. I say "some", because many who supported Obama did not do so blindly.
I was an Obama supporter, but not one with exaggerated hopes and claims. Hilary had been the best choice, in my view, but she was defeated. McCain seemed to have possibilities un til he humiliated himself by peeling off his apparently thin maverick and bipartisan veneer when he caved in to the luny religious right in his party and selected as his running mate the hopelessly hapless Alaskan Gov. If McCain didn't have the jam to stand up to them (I thought he should have picked Lieberman), then there really wasn't much choice.
Obama was always going to be a problem because he was going to be pragmatic before he was principled, incremental before he was bold in the nature and pace of change, and he was going to be stubbornly inclusive - which is to say compromising and sensitive to the views of Republicans, Blue Dog Dems and the established order, whether they deserved it or not.
Obama's nature was revealed well before the election when he backed down on his own principles and earlier criticisms and voted in favour of legislation granting immunity to the Telecoms in connection with their participation in criminally illegal warrantless spying. On its face, the whole Telecom episode gave the appearance of a powerful moneyed group purchasing exemption from criminal laws. Hilary, by comparison, showed up to vote "No" on the final bill. McCain, who had flipped and flopped all over the place on the issue, showed consistency by not even showing up.
As far as informed and principled criticism of Obama from the so-called "left" is concerned, you could do worse than track the articles of Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com, going right back to the Telecom controversy.
On May 8, 2009, Salon.com published an article on the military commissions system, written by ACLU lawyer, Denny LeBoeuf. It paints a disturbing picture.
David C.
Great comment.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your insightful and balanced perspective.
Thanks for your input.