President Obama's decision not to release the photographs of detainee abuse is by now well known and has been much debated. For a flavour of the discussion, especially from the left, one could do no better than to read Glenn Greenwald's commentary in Salon.com. Mr. Greenwald's criticisms of President Obama and his decisions in this and other matters are stinging. For example, he states that "ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping". He quotes ACLU lawyer Amrit Signh, who says inter alia, that "President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court". He quotes Andrew Sullivan, who he describes as "one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters" as saying that "Slowly, but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes."
Mr. Greenwald is also very critical of the "defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders". He explains this remark by noting their willingness to defend whatever Obama decides, whenever he decides it, even if the decisions are logically inconsistent or contradictory. These are the folks whose only actual belief is "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it".
Now as for me. Where do I stand on this? I have been accused by my detractors of my own inconsistencies. According to them, I apparently attack Obama's policies not because I do not like these policies, but because I do not like Obama the "policy maker". Why, my detractors ask, should I criticize Obama for adopting "Bush like" policies which they assume I favour?
First, I do not approve of torture, concealing evidence, depriving detainees of due process, or covering up war crimes. If Bush did approve of any of these things, he did not have my support regarding them. I supported John McCain because I saw him as a person of great character, courage and honesty who would have done the right things.
Second, following from the first, I think the photographs should be released. Covering up the truth, never works. It's out there. Deal with it.
Third, and I have said this several times before, there is a special onus on a candidate whose only stated reason for running for President was to "change" things, to create the new America, to be the anti-Bush, to actually try to do it. There was no portfolio of accomplishment which Obama brought to the Presidency, there was only a "promise" of a future portfolio. So let's see it. Otherwise it was all a sales pitch.
Fourth, and I have also stated this, there is a special responsibility on the part of the Obama supporters to hold your man to account. Or at least admit that what Greenwald said was right. Your only belief is that "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With respect, Prof. Klar, there's no "assumption" that you favour Bush's middle east policies. This link verifies that you believe they were leading to peace: http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/10/george-bush-and.html
ReplyDeleteAs to the "detractors", I really don't see anyone who has pointed out an obsession that you seem to have about Obama as a "detractor". I think the comments on many of your posts indicate that lots of people enjoy them when they are on subjects that you know lots about like law, or when they are provocative and thoughtful. But it also seems that lots of people, me included, have noticed that you seem to have a weird nervous tick when it comes to any subject touching upon the current president.
I don't know how long you have followed politics. I assume from my best guess at your age and from your vocation that it has been a long time. In which case, you should be well aware that there is nothing new about politicians being swept into power on the high hopes of voters and then letting the voters down. Ronald Reagan was going to eliminate wasteful government. So was Brian Mulroney. Richard Nixon was going to get America out of Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson was going to create the Great Society. And so on.
Even where the hopes for a new president are NOT high, the promise of a new administration invariably falls short. For example, in George W.'s first inauguration speech in 2001, he said:
"America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies ... We will show purpose without arrogance. ... And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth."
Hmmmmmmmm ... it didn't exactly work out that way, now, did it?
Your inconsistencies are apparent for all to see, but that is not the problem. The problem is that you seem to think that everything about the Obama phenomenon is something new and unprecedented. You seem to think that no politicians has ever been elected on such a wave of hope and popularity, even though Obama's election was no landslide, compared to 1964 or 1972 or 1984. You seem to think that no politician has ever disappointed his/her constituency, even though one of Mulroney's principal constituencies deserted him to create the REform Party, and even though Ronald Reagan multiplied the national debt. You seem to think that no politician has ever said one thing or done the other, even though the political field is littered with broken promises.
Where have you been these last 60 years?
By the way, it is possible that Obama simply realized that he made an uninformed and rash promise, and has decided to take the political heat rather than proceed with a bad decision. If that's so, then isn't that the right thing to do?
Regards,
Mike
I am generally not a fan of Obama but in this case I support him and it seems to me that he is growing up from the naive, idealistic, and inexperienced candidate to a grown-up who has to deal with the real world now that he is in office.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to conceal the photos was not Obama's but was the advice of his commanders and the experts who understand how war works. I'm glad that Obama got over his enthusiasm for all that is anti-Bush and has started to listen to the people who know.
My good friend Pete Hegseth does a great job defending Obama's position on this one:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/72933/the-obama-administration-torture-photos-too-inflammatory#http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hulu.com%2Ffeed%2Frecent%2Fvideos.rss%3Frd%3D0
Thanks Sammy. I disagree with your view but appreciate your reasoning.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Pete's video cannot be accessed from Canada. Can we find or read it elsewhere? I would be interested in knowing what he has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_COMbuL-Tc&feature=related
ReplyDeleteThere it is on YouTube, hopefully that will work. Pete's a grad student in political science, the director of a non-profit that advocates for truth in war reporting, and he's an Iraq war vet so this issue's really personal to him.
Considering Chris Matthews is totally against Pete on this issue, I think he did a pretty decent job.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI share your opinion on the abuse photos. But you flipped out on your fourth point. What is this "special responsibility" that Obama supporters must accept? What defines one as an "Obama supporter"? And do you really imagine that their only belief is "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it?"
Ron C
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteI am pleased that you agree with my position on the photos.
As for my fourth point. I think that those who supported Obama because they believed in the things he said he would do, have a "special" responsibility to demand that he follow through. Those who did not support Obama presumably did not because they either did not agree with what he was saying, or did not think he would do what he said anyway. They can thus hardly be counted on now to be too upset or surprised.
Obama supporters are obviously those who support Obama; ie voted for him, support him, give him high approval ratings, defend his decisions etc. I agree with Greenwald's comment. When one continues to defend Obama's decisions even when they go against the reasons they voted for him, or are internally contradictory or inconsistent, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that their support of these policies is based on the fact that they are Obama's policies. How otherwise can one support two contradictory policy positions? Read Greenwald who makes this point better than I can.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying whom you include as Obama supporters, i.e., the majority of Americans. But please answer my question: Do you really hold that population in such contempt as to think "their only belief is 'I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it'"?
Perhaps I'm being picky but I have trouble separating your real argument from your hyperbolic rhetoric.
Ron
Let me try this one last time, Ron. Greenwald was referring to those who support whatever Obama decides, even if the decisions are contradictory. Thus, for example, when Obama releases the torture memos over the objections of those who say their release will jeopardize the US mission and soldiers, these supporters say they agree with Obama's decision. Then when Obama does not release the photos because he thinks their release will jeopardize the US mission and soldiers, these supporters again agree with Obama's decision. Greenwald and others see these decisions as inconsistent. They cannot understand how someone could support both decisions. Thus they conclude that it is Obama who they support, whatever decisions he makes.
ReplyDeleteOf course not all supporters of Obama, support all of his decisions. Naomi Klein for example is calling for mass protests against some of Obama's decisions, despite the fact she is a Obama supporter in general terms.
Anyway, read Greenwald. I think you will get his point. You seem to be an Obama supporter who does not like some of his decisions, and are prepared to say so. Thus you would not be included in the group of cheerleaders who defend Obama no matter what he decides.
Let me try this one last time, Lewis. I always got Greenwald's point, endorse it, and applaud you for publicizing it. I just object to your appearing to apply his comment about "defend-Obama-at-all-costs cheerleaders" to the wider population of all Obama supporters. Clearly, however, this was not your intention.
ReplyDeleteRon
I agree with Ron. Who are these mysterious blind supporters of Obama who supposedly "support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." Your post clearly assumes that it is some of your readers, but I haven't observed that at all. I have, however, observed that you do the converse, which is to "oppose what Obama does because it's Obama who does it."
ReplyDeleteIf you are fixated on criticizing Obama, fine. But could you please have a post on something closer to your field of expertise, like the possibilities for Obama's nomination as the next SCOTUS justice?
Regards,
Mike
I am sorry to be coming to this thread so late. On the other hand, there have been some interesting articles published recently that touch on the topics of partisanship and the photos.
ReplyDeleteMcCain, like a great many other Republicans and conservatives, supports Obama on the photo issue. The NYTimes says the toughest criticism is actually from the left (See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15Photo.html). Josh Gerstein blogging in Politico also noted substantial liberal disillusionment with Obama on security and civil rights issues (see http://www.dailykos.com/stories/0509/22604.html).
Welcome to the so-called "Left", Prof. Klar.
Actually, it is not so easy now to divide the U.S. into crude left and right policital hemisphers - in my opinion the division was always lazy, simple-minded and inaccurate anyway. Many who would describe themselves as being at the conservative end of the spectrum (like Jeb Bush, David Frum, et al) are trying to distance themselves and the Republic Party from its most extreme elements - such as the fans and fellow travelers of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, Steyn, National Review, Commentary, Pajamas, Fox "News", et al.
Many of the MSM pundits who in the past beat the drum for for the Bush administration have hopped off that bandwagon completely, now that it has run into the ditch. Note Maureen Dowd's recent and almost gleeful evisceration of Cheney at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=2&em. Basically, the Republicans are tearing themselves apart in order to find a better way to rebuild.
Obama's administration now enjoys more confidence from the U.S. public on security issues that the Republicans. This fact and the Republican woes may not be coincidental.
On the photo issue, there was a good article in last Sunday's New York Times by Adam Liptak, entitled "Images, The Law and War". It gave to laymen a brief explanation of the court's calculus in weighing the public interest against the risk to military personnel from released information. While a number of cases were briefly referenced, the artilce referred to the Pentagon Papers case as the touchstone. In order to prohibit release, the court has to be satified that such release would itself "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our nation or its people". There must be immediate and almost certain harm to identifiable people, not just general or diffuse consequences. And the causal connection must be clear. In an earlier case on those photos released in 2005, Judge Hellerton wrote "The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do not need pretexts for their barbarism". So far, at least, the ACLU has been winning this argument before the courts.
Unfortunately, I get a paper version of the NYTimes and, computer klutz that I am, I have not yet been able to get an electronic address for the article.
Dave