I’ve Seen This Movie Before

I had the most amazing dream last night. Thankfully, Jimmy Kimmel in a diaper wasn’t in this one. Instead, I saw Barack Obama giving a speech about government openness and accountability. He talked about the closure of the U.S. terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay; he talked about ending extraordinary rendition of U.S. terrorism suspects to other countries where they would be tortured; he talked about ending the use of extra-legal means to spy on Americans under color of law, and he talked about an absolute ban on the use of torture.

Recent events have confirmed that this is only a dream. The candidate of alleged change has instead agreed with George W. Bush on almost every torture and secrecy issue. He ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. But, in a brilliant feat of misdirection, none of us ever saw that his Justice Department was working tirelessly to ensure that the same civil liberties that were held to apply to Guantanamo detainees would never apply to detainees held at, for example, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

A Lawless Prison By Any Other Name

Sure, Boumediene v. Bush clearly established that, at a minimum, prisoners in the United States’ Guantanamo Bay facility are entitled to habeas corpus, the 793-year-old doctrine that if a person is to be held in jail, he must be charged with a crime. The Bush administration thought that it had sent 600-some detainees of the War on Terr’ into a “legal black hole” (the Justice Department’s words) where US law did not apply, and therefore, people could be kept there indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to challenge their detention, and without the government having to prove that they were terrorists.

Then the Bush administration relented, wrote the Military Commissions Act, and decided that was good enough. The Act explicitly stripped detainees of their habeas rights and said that the government would create military commissions to evaluate whether or not each detainee should continue to be held. The Supreme Court didn’t like that, either, saying that the MCA process was fundamentally flawed, and furthermore, it was not within Congress’ power to take habeas rights away from anyone.

As soon as he came into office, Obama put a halt to the Military Commissions Act tribunals, recognizing that they were fundamentally flawed. He also said he would close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. While those are both laudable, his next action is, once again, right out of How to Suspend the Constitution Without Really Trying, David Addington’s best-selling Richard P. Cheney thriller. Detainees of the War on Terr’ would instead be moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The argument is that, since Afghanistan is still an active war zone, it would be ludicrous to give prisoners there any habeas rights, since they would be prisoners of war. Then again, that was the rationale used to scoop up hundreds of people on the “battlefield” in Afghanistan in 2001 and send them to Cuba.

Wiretapping? What Wiretapping?

A few weeks ago, the Obama Justice Department moved to dismiss a case in federal court involving illegal wiretapping. In spite of his January memoranda committing the Executive Branch to transparency and accountability, Obama’s reasoning vis-a-vis wiretapping remains unchanged from the Bush years; that is, opacity in the extreme, no accountability (i.e., you can knowingly and maliciously break the law, but you won’t be prosecuted for it), and a firm commitment to using the state secrets privilege to cover up illegal government activity.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration filed a petition to have the entire warrantless wiretapping case dismissed under a never-before-seen doctrine of “sovereign immunity” that comes from the USA PATRIOT Act. It’s not the sovereign immunity itself that is at issue (sovereign immunity is a very old legal doctrine which holds that the sovereign — in this case, the government — is immune from criminal prosecution in some instances). It’s that sovereign immunity has never before been used a a defense in these wiretapping cases. To the Obama administration’s credit, it has interpreted into being a sovereign immunity claim based on the fact that Congress had not explicitly waived sovereign immunity when it came to these cases. Therefore, argues the Justice Department, the courts must err on the side of the sovereign. This is, of course, in addition to the standard-issue “state secrets” defense, which consists of, “In order for you to have a case, you need to prove you’ve been harmed. In order for you to prove you’ve been harmed, you need access to classified information. Because giving you that information would compromise national security, we’re not going to give it to you. Since you don’t have that evidence to prove your case, you have no case. So let’s dismiss the case.”

Let’s Talk Torture

Yesterday, after years of legal battles led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Obama administration released four memoranda from the Bush years in which the Office of Legal Counsel — the legal-advice arm of the White House — declared that, yes, “enhanced interrogation techniques” like water-boarding were perfectly legal. In making these documents public, however, Obama added the caveat that CIA employees who engaged in these techniques, which are correctly and properly called torture, will not be prosecuted.

I am of two minds on this particular issue. On the one hand, we have the Nuremberg Defense, used by various strata of Nazi soldiers in the post-World War II Nuremberg trials. The defense amounted to, “I was just following orders,” the implication being that very low-level soldiers who did the actual dirty work of killing 6 million Jews (and millions of others of various non-Nazi-approved races, nationalities, ethnicities, and sexual orientations) were faced with the choice of either doing what they were told, despite their orders being obviously morally and legally wrong, or standing up to their superiors and facing court marshall or death themselves. The outcome of the trials was Nuremberg Principle IV, which states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” This principle was incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and now U.S. military personnel may refuse to follow an order that they believe violates the law, with the law including the U.S. Constitution and any treaties to which the U.S. may be a party (including the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly forbid the use of torture).

Then again, these CIA operatives were assured that what they were ordered to do was legal. They were assured by the president — who is their boss — that it was okay to do what they were doing. It’s not an issue of questionable legality; they were told — by lawyers, who are alleged to be experts in the field of law — that it was okay to water-board suspects, deprive them of sleep, and occasionally hit them. Must they then be faulted for their lack of follow-up? Are they expected to then second-guess White House lawyers? The issue is murky. Definitely the people at the top who were responsible for crafting these policies — Bush himself, Vice President Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales — must be prosecuted. But what about the people in the field? As Glenn Greenwald observes, the law compels the Justice Department to prosecute everyone who took part in torture. There was a moral choice: CIA operatives could have made the choice not to engage in torture. And if it risked their careers, so be it. They were not themselves ever threatened with death or torture; the loss of one’s job is not morally equivalent to torturing another human being.

It’s certainly true that President Obama has done a number of laudable things in his four months in office. But he can still do better, and all of us need to push him away from the trope of “centrism” (which, in U.S. political discourse in 2009, means “being conservative”). And if he does have a legitimate national security concern, he should let us know. He doesn’t have to go into the gory details, but it would be nice to know why he’s suddenly changed his mind. After eight years of “Trust me, I know what I’m doing,” I voted for a government that doesn’t demand faith from its people.

Starry, Starry Plight: Obama and the Space Program

Space enthusiasts are watching and listening carefully to find out how President Barack Obama will support NASA during his administration. Earlier this year he gave the space agency a glowing endorsement:

When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy.

Before we dive into recent developments, a brief review of NASA under George W. Bush is in order. NASA achieved some laudable feats in the last eight years, notably:

• It greatly expanded the International Space Station (ISS) to add more solar panels, laboratories, and living space (with contributions from other nations, notably Russia and Canada).
• It successfully landed two Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) that have been sending pictures back for 5 years, much longer than originally anticipated.
• It repaired and upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope, which has sent more than half a million images back to Earth.
• It developed the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will take astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
• It launched the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has produced sensational images of Mars.

In particular, the string of successful trips to Mars stands in stark contrast to previous missions. Historically most attempts to explore the Red Planet have failed, including one notorious disaster in 1999 caused by a mix-up of measurements made with the metric and English systems.

Yet since the achievements of the Apollo program that landed astronauts on the Moon, there hasn’t been a program that has evoked the same widespread level of interest here and abroad. Indeed in March President Obama made reference to this in an answer to a reporter’s question about the shuttle program

NASA has yielded — or the space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries. But I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program. And shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director.

Sadly as of this writing, The White House’s Technology Page does not include any mention of the space program. Obama has not yet appointed a new NASA administrator, though rumors have been circulating this year about the possible pick of astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Anyone who has seen Tyson on PBS’s NOVA scienceNOW cannot deny his charisma and enthusiasm for astronomy and space exploration. Tyson is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for advocating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.”

Financial support for NASA remains strong despite the severe worldwide recession. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $18.7 billion is $2.4 billion above the 2008 amount. The first priority listed in their budget summary is climate change monitoring and research. President Obama has repeatedly mentioned addressing global warming as a top issue, as noted in my last article.

NASA scientist James Hansen continues to be a fierce advocate for action to combat global warming. In 2006 he complained that the Bush Administration was trying to silence his dire warnings for political reasons. In December 2008, James Hansen and his wife Anniek Hansen sent an open letter to then President-Elect Obama (and his wife Michelle Obama) urging him to phase out traditional polluting coal plants, support an aggressive carbon tax plan, and encourage R&D of modern nuclear power plants.

Many people are sad to see the end of the successful space shuttle program, currently scheduled for 2010. If and when the shuttle program is canceled, Florida residents may bear the brunt of the employment fallout with 8,000 or more jobs on the line. However a congressman and congresswoman from Florida have introduced legislation to keep the shuttle program alive a bit longer.

The new Orion spacecraft and companion Ares Launch Vehicles are presently in the testing phase. NASA expects to fly the first missions in 2014 or 2015, leaving us with at least a four-year gap in the government’s space transportation system. (Private companies will carry supplies to the ISS, and the Russian Soyuz will be used to rotate crews.)

The James Web Space Telescope (JWST), often described as the successor to Hubble, is currently in development and expected to be deployed in 2013. NASA intends to keep Hubble in operation until at least that time, to avoid any interruption in data collection. JWST is substantially larger than Hubble, though lower in mass. Hubble detects light in the optical and ultraviolet ranges, and can be repaired in space, while JWST will collect data only from infrared light. Nevertheless, JWST will allow scientists to peer substantially further back into the distant past, closer to the origin of the universe.

There have been reports that Obama might combine some space programs from NASA and the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s space budget is significantly higher than NASA’s total budget, and some observers wonder whether the space vehicle gap might be filled in by the military. The merger discussions have been fueled by the fear that China has strong military intentions for its own space program.

While the U.S. must be mindful of threats to our security from other nations, a strong militarization of NASA would be an unfortunate turn of events. NASA was founded during the Eisenhower Administration to conduct non-military space activities. Obviously there is already significant overlap in personnel, and technology flows in both directions. But it would be very sad if NASA becomes distracted or subverted by security issues.

Other controversies still brewing include:

• Arguments about whether robots or humans should be sent to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.
• Whether we should ever bother going back to the Moon.
• Calls for President Obama to fire NASA’s inspector general Robert Cobb — a recent New York Times editorial accused him of being unethical and ineffectual.
• How much we should cooperate with other nations’ space programs.
• An oldie but a goodie–whether NASA should even exist given all the problems we have to solve on Earth.

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the space program is a vital part of our national identity. It has inspired generations of students young and old, capturing their imagination like nothing else. The dream of human flight and exploration will not go away as long as birds take wing and stars and planets twinkle. NASA must survive and thrive during Obama’s time in office, so we may continue to watch over our pale blue dot from space and keep looking at the stars.

(Thanks to Michael Conway for suggesting the title of this article.)

A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

Hillary’s Trip to Asia: A Foreign Policy Reality Check

President Obama ran his election campaign on a slogan we all now know – “Change We Can Believe In.” However,  I have always been skeptical of Obama’s ability or commitment to bring fundamental change in US foreign policy. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s February trip to Asia, as well received and heavily covered as it was, has only confirmed my skepticism. Here’s why.

First, while Clinton’s words in Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China were a departure from Bush’s simplistic might-makes-right foreign policy, they weren’t too different from the foreign policy followed by her own husband, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan (you get the idea). Obama’s foreign policy “change” appears to be a return to how the US has conducted foreign policy since World War II. That is, we work cooperatively within the UN, NATO, and other alliances; we engage other countries diplomatically; we don’t declare preemptive wars; we promote a certain type of economic model; we support nuclear non-proliferation; etc.  While this is undoubtedly better than George W. Bush’s foreign policy, it doesn’t look like a fundamental foreign policy shift. Nor does it bode well for those optimistic that President Obama will base his foreign policy on human rights, as many had hoped for during the campaign.

Admittedly, I did start out happy with how Clinton was conducting herself during this trip. She discussed relevant issues in the countries she visited and met with officials, students, and  activists. People seemed to be generally impressed with and charmed by her performance.  However, after following her trip for a while, I began to feel like it was just that–a performance. She was saying what she needed to say (and not saying what she needed to not say) depending on where she was, and her priority was selling the US, President Obama, and herself to officials and the public. This was sorely needed after eight years of George Bush, and while she showed her serious professional side as well as a softer personal side, Clinton is a seasoned, hard-nosed politician who surely understands the realities of being the only global superpower’s top diplomat. Realpolitik rules. Mushy sentimental support for human rights does not guide international relations or foreign policy. Clinton did after all vote against a Congressional bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas because it would make her look weak on terrorism (her new boss supported the ban). 

The dissonance of her message was most jarring when comparing her speeches in Indonesia to those in China. She wooed and flattered her Indonesian hosts by talking up their democratic government, their thriving and diverse civil society, and the inclusive positive example they show to the Muslim world. China was another matter. Before she even arrived, Clinton emphasized that human rights concerns would not interfere with major issues like the economic crisis and global warming. She curbed her earlier harsh criticism of China’s human rights record in favor of other topics (which, to be fair, were not much easier to confront). While implying human rights are a marginal issue was not music to the ears of human rights advocates, it is consistent with US foreign policy historically. Human rights have had their place when they support US policy, but are always easily swept aside when they don’t. So far, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to offer a change from this realist worldview.

This is not to say that changes are not likely on the horizon. Obama is certainly charting a different course than George Bush did. His early choices about China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria indicate a new tack, and he is making a concerted effort to clean up the US image in the world’s eyes. Human rights may be more important to President Obama than many previous US presidents, but Clinton’s stance in China makes it clear that they will not be the guiding principal of his foreign policy. The US participation as a mere observer at the recent UN Human Rights Commission and its boycott of the UN Conference on Racism also show that Obama’s administration is wary of treading new ground in the defense of human rights.

So then what is Obama’s guiding principle for his foreign policy? Not surprisingly, it appears to be essentially the same as every other US president–to protect and promote American interests abroad. This definition clearly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Obama has pledged deeper and more sustained diplomatic engagement with allies as well as enemies–even Iran! Cuba! Venezuela!–in an effort to forge constructive relationships across the globe. As a caveat to this policy, Obama has explicitly said he will act in such a way only if it is in America’s self-interest.

Fair enough. This is the president’s job, and the reality is that US foreign policy probably will never be guided by any principle other than American self-interest. I understand this, and though it sounds amoral and opportunistic to my ears, I understand the necessity, and benefit, to advance a flexible foreign policy in an effort to engage with as many other countries as possible. And, in reality, should it be any other way? Maybe what Obama is offering is the best we can hope for when it comes to US foreign policy. George Bush’s presidency clearly demonstrated the pitfalls of having a foreign policy that stubbornly brooks no opposition to its moral certainty. Any moral justification can be abused by those in power–even a commitment to human rights or democracy or freedom. (Such a commitment to worldwide democracy is in fact one of the guiding principles of both idealist foreign policy, put in practice historically by those such as Woodrow Wilson, and modern neoconservatism under President Bush.) Promoting and protecting American interests abroad can be abused too, but at least it is an honest selfish justification for how our government behaves overseas. Protecting American interests is perhaps all the president should commit to, and if he (or one day she) is willing to keep as many channels of communication open with friend and foe, this may be the best long-term strategy. To expect anything more just may be naive, unrealistic, and unfair.

Obama’s Use of State Secrets Is More of the Same

Throughout his administration, President Bush invoked a little-known and less-understood doctrine called the State Secrets Privilege. The privilege allows the Executive to suppress evidence in a court case if, in the Executive’s estimation, revealing that evidence in court would compromise national security. The use of the privilege is not unprecedented. Bush, however, didn’t merely use the privilege to get evidence thrown out. He tried to have whole cases dismissed. (Please read this article from Lewis & Clark Law Review for more information about the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege.)

In the arena of warrantless wiretapping, the administration argued that it could not provide documentation to plaintiffs that they were wiretapped, since even providing evidence of wiretapping would compromise national security. And, since the plaintiffs can’t prove they were ever wiretapped, they have no standing to bring a case, so the administration also requested that the case be dismissed. Thankfully, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the Bush administration’s assertions.

But now, the Obama administration is in town, and given his memorandum ordering more transparency in government, he’s going to reject the Bush administration’s assertion that entire cases can be thrown out due to the State Secrets Privilege.

Just kidding! In fact, Obama’s Justice Department has gone even further in asserting opacity when it comes to the State Secrets Privilege. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration’s arguments — which were a continuance of the Bush administration’s arguments — that the State Secrets Privilege can be used to dismiss entire cases.

Immediately following the ruling, Obama’s Justice Department filed a new brief in which it asserted that it will not comply with the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling because — drumroll, please — no court has the authority to compel the Executive to release top secret information, for any reason whatsoever. In case you think I’m misinterpreting the brief, here you go:

In addition, the relevant Executive Branch official must determine that plaintiffs’ counsel have a “need to know” the information. In this case, the relevant official, the Director of the National Security Agency (“NSA”), has determined that counsel do not have a need to know. This decision is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power, either under its supervisory authority, or under authority analogous to that granted by the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access. Therefore, the Government respectfully suggests that the Court should not take further steps at this time that would result in plaintiffs’ counsel being granted access to the classified information at issue.

Any determination made by the Executive that information is top secret is final. It is not subject to judicial review. Ever. At all. Period. What the Executive says, goes. There is no other instance — none! — anywhere in this country where any body has ever asserted that its decisions are outside the scope of judicial review, save legislation passed by Congress restricting review. This is solely Congress’ power, and not the president’s, as articulated in Article III, § 2 of the Constitution:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

There is nowhere to be found anywhere in the Constitution the assertion that the president can make decisions that are outside the scope of judicial review. Indeed, the existence of such a rule would be detrimental to our republic. Imagine: the president asserts the State Secrets Privilege for a malicious, disingenuous, non-secret reason, but because the president’s claims of privilege are non-reviewable by anyone, there is no one to appeal to in order to contest the legitimacy of the president’s assertion. If true, this doctrine would mark the first time in the history the United States that a single branch of government cannot be checked by any other branch. This is extremely dangerous.

What will the Obama apologists say now? I have famously complained that Obama’s policies are “more of the same,” whether they be continuances of Clinton-era policies, or Bush-era policies. Which wedge of the Obama Wheel of Apology does this action fall under? Shall we file unilateral executive authority under pragmatism? Or perhaps it is more akin to the I, Claudius explanation, in which Obama will one day pull his mask off and reveal himself to be a progressive socialist who has been working behind the scenes to undermine the system even as he pretends to uphold it? Can this be explained by team of rivals or bipartisanship? What other buzzword that is used to explain away the lack of significant change is appropriate here? Obama can do no wrong!

Okay, coyness aside. The Obama administration has made a bad decision. This is absolutely the wrong assertion to make. And I find it surprising, especially in light of the memorandum mentioned above, that Obama would claim such broad authority in this matter. Unless, of course, the Justice Department is working independently of Obama’s personal agenda, in which case, it’s time for someone to sit down and have a serious talk with Eric Holder about how the Constitution works.

But I seriously doubt this is the result of a rogue Justice Department. No, Obama has made a bad call, here. He is acting terribly like George W. Bush in his assertion of powers that are not his. It doesn’t matter if Obama is a great guy; no one person — not even a “benevolent dictator” — can be invested with such broad powers. It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, and given Obama’s background as a constitutional law scholar, he should know better. It’s shameful and he needs to stop it. This is not the change I voted for. (H/T Glenn Greenwald, of course.)

Blowback: The Economy or the Military?

During the long years of the Cold War, not many dared to question the US military budget. Since then, however, the budget has continued to expand, often sending troops overseas to situations that were created by previous diplomatic blunders. Some of those blunders have directly created the morasses that we attempt to extricate ourselves from today. As such, let’s take a look at some of the history of what the CIA refers to as blowback for the U.S.

Brief Blowback History

In 1953, Iran, or Persia as it was then called, had a functioning democratic system. A successful coup by the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew the democratically elected government and replaced them with the hereditary Shah of Persia. His abuses and misrule led directly to the Islamic Revolution and the problems we have encountered with their Islamic government ever since. In the early 1980s, Iraq thus was encouraged to invade Iran, by the US in a fit of pique, and was supplied with arms in the resulting war. This assistance helped solidify Saddam Hussein’s military ambitions and indirectly encouraged his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, all of which led to the mess in Iraq today.

Meanwhile during the 1980s, the military assistance given to the tribes opposing the Russian occupation of Afghanistan led to the Taliban taking over the country. These people, who were responsible for 9/11 (despite what the Bush administration’s claims to the contrary), are whom we continue to fight today in Afghanistan. In addition, they also have brought the war on terror to the nuclear-power country of Pakistan.

Bill Clinton didn’t help matters, when he, in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky affair, launched Tomahawk missiles against suspected Al Qaeda munitions facilities at a site in Sudan and the Bora Bora site in Afghanistan where Osama Bin Laden was thought to be. This was in retaliation after US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been previously bombed. One of Tomahawks destroyed a human and veterinary manufacturing plant in Sudan, killing at least 20 Sudanese and putting many out of work. The Sudanese government immediately cut off all ties with the U.S. and released an important Al Qaeda suspect they had been about to hand over to the U.S. The Tomahawks in Afghanistan missed Bin Laden totally–he was in Kabul at the time. He in turn sold an unexploded Tomahawk to the Chinese for 10 million dollars. Worse, almost all of Africa, who had been outraged over the Embassy bombings by Al Qaeda, swung against the US policy after the bombings. Sound familiar?

In addition, it is clear to most of the world, though rarely reported in the US, that huge military assistance to Israel keeps them so dominant that they often disdain from entering into meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians or other nations in the region. Without meaningful legitimate political channels, arguably, that may have in turn indirectly led to the cult of the indefensible and grotesque suicide bomber.

Similar situations of blowback have occurred on all continents. It is alleged that the policy of supporting vain, immoral megalomaniacs as leaders in the more unstable areas of the world could be summed up as, “We don’t care if he’s a bastard so long as he’s our bastard”.

In too many situations today, previous meddling in the internal affairs or politics of other countries has led directly or indirectly to these messes that we may now face. If intervention leads to revolution or serious instability in the country involved, it is often inevitable that the beneficiaries of the situation will be the worst possible choices. It takes many generations for the situation to settle down and for the voices of reason make headway over the radicals who are always the initial power base. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and the Persian [Iranian] Revolution are all cases in point

To return to the end of the Cold War, there was at that time, along with a feeling of relief that we were all suddenly safe, a hope that the troops could come home, and be discharged. That of course never happened. Why not?

The Military Industrial Complex

Today the US spends 46% of the total world’s military budget. The next 4 nations, the UK, France, Japan and China spend between 4-5% each. The US military budget has risen from 250 billion dollars in 2001 to over 700 billion in 2008. Thus, the sensible solution to help our failing economy would logically have to be to cut the military budget and bring everyone home. Wouldn’t that give us iron clad security at home? Maybe we could even make our inner cities safe and bring down the horrendous murder rate from the 17,000 yearly victims it is today.

Of course that is about as realistic as overall world peace. But why?

The answer to why that apparently sensible solution is currently a pipe dream was first given by President Eisenhower in 1961. Eisenhower was the first President, as a former General, to recognize the power of the Military Industrial Complex.

That term refers to an over friendly relationship between the government, the military, munitions manufacturers, and defense contractors. All in this relationship benefit financially, and unfortunately peace can get in the way. Eisenhower as a military man saw what could occur when future Presidents without military experience tried to go up against this Complex. They would be easily maneuvered by the military to react where no reaction was necessary, and to keep the US military equipped with constantly updated equipment and every new technology. Today, there is a defense contractor in every State of the Union. If there are cutbacks, you can be sure these workers will be out in force rallying senators and representatives at every level. The President will be lambasted across the nation and the Republicans will make hay. Any President to take on this issue will be lauded by history, but unlikely to win a second term.

Will Barack Obama be able to break this endless cycle to prevent the never ending cycle of blowback? If recent history is a good predictor, it certainly won’t be easy. For the sake of the rest of the world, let’s hope for the best.

What’s a Republican Governor To Do?

You know, it’s hard out there for a governor, when he’s trying to make the money for his state budget, and all the infrastructure and unemployment insurance money’s spent, and all the RNC leadership is talking … too much.

Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the “bipartisan” H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama last Monday. Republicans were proud of their united opposition to what they called a bill filled with “pork,” though, technically, “pork-barrel spending” is defined as non-essential spending made for specific, pet projects in a congressman’s home district — say, for a $398 million bridge from one scantily-populated town to an airport. Using that definition, there is no pork in this bill, since it allocates money for only large, federal projects, with no mention of specific projects and nothing targeted at specific districts (in fact, the bill’s flaw may just be its breadth, with line-items for things like “Science” within NASA’s budget).

So, anyway, Republicans are very proud of themselves. But it may be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. On the one hand, they want this stimulus bill to be their first major conflict with the Obama administration, so that they have a clearly defined message in opposition to his; i.e., “wasteful spending.” On the other hand, states are seriously hurting for money. Just this last week, the Great State of California finally closed a $40 billion chasm in its budget for next year. (Although, in spite of that, Governor Schwarzenegger terminated 10,000 state employees and cut the salaries of thousands more in an effort to save some cash. Hasta la vista, employees.)

Republican governors are also in charge in some of the poorest states, like Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where this money could be really useful! At what point does adherence to ideology actually start hurting people? You may wish to ask the citizens of Louisiana, where Republican Governor Bobby Jindal may refuse $4 billion in infrastructure funds allocated to it under the stimulus plan, according to CBS News. The New York Times reports that Governor Jindal has already refused expanded unemployment benefits because it would raise business taxes.

Republicans don’t want to appear to be hypocrites, so they’ll do the next-best thing: appear to be obstinate. Of course, all of this posturing isn’t being done because Republicans staunchly adhere to their ideals. What did you think this was, Bizzaro United States? Oh, no; these governors are refusing the money because they plan on running for president in 2012! Refusing stimulus money may cause real damage to millions of people in states where demand for social services and entitlement benefits is on the rise, but that clearly isn’t important to Republican presidential contenders who need to be able to point back to a time when they were 100% in line with the Republican talking points about the stimulus.

Thankfully, Governor Schwarzenegger is not running for president (unless they amend the Constitution. Fingers crossed!). Maybe that’s why he will not only take the stimulus money allocated to California, but why he is urging other Republican governors to do so (although he also said he would gladly take whatever money the other governors don’t want). Unless, of course, the other governors are so unselfish that they’re willing to risk the welfare of their states for a cynical attempt at appearing “fiscally responsible” so that they can make a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by out-conservativing each other. That’s change we can sink in!

Let this serve as another example of why Republicans lost so much in November: as it turns out, they may not care about people. That may be a generalization (and it is!), but I wonder about the guy in New Orleans who’s been laid off and who can no longer make his mortgage payments. I know it will do his heart good to know that Governor Jindal is fighting to prevent him from getting any help because, in so doing, Governor Jindal would boost his chances of being elected president. What does the word “constituency” mean, anyway? Especially when you have to choose between an electorate that can only drag you down and a Republican elite that could be your meal ticket to the presidential nomination.

I’ll give this much to them, though: they stick to their guns, even if those guns will send them hurtling over a cliff. You’ve got to respect someone who is self-centered enough to play chicken with other people’s lives simply to prove a stupid point.

Or not. Which is good, because I don’t.

Could Obama Be the New Bush?

Anyone who has paid any attention to anything political these past weeks and months would easily arrive at this conclusion:

President Barack Obama is the exact opposite of President George W. Bush.

The differences are obvious: party, race, age, background, and experience. The list could go on for a full paragraph. In nearly every aspect, one differs greatly from the other. But it’s the one similarity between the former President and the current President that could lead to 8 years of déjà vu for Americans.

In what now seems like a drug-induced hallucination, there was actually a time when people trusted President Bush to make decisions. It was the weeks and months immediately after September 11. Americans were united. We all turned to our newly-elected Commander in Chief, ready to follow him wherever he led. President Bush could ask for anything, especially if it was in the name of fighting terrorism, and it would be given to him on a silver platter with little to no resistance from either party.

And so it was.

A war in Afghanistan, with “fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here” as its mantra, was approved with ease. Next came Iraq. Although there was some resistance, it was a flaccid opposition at best. Over the next 5-plus years, most of those who weren’t opposed to the Iraq war in the first place changed their minds. But from 2001 to 2003, at the dawn of his presidency, Bush had struck the jackpot. Because of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he had the nearly unanimous support of the American people. But as many politicians do, he overstepped this advantage for the sake of the opportunity for his own personal gain. Instead of doing what was best for America, he did what was best for him. Instead of asking for national sacrifice in light of the new War on Terror, he told us to go shopping and look the other way as America accepted the new Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.

Now, fast-forward 7 years. When it comes to the support of the American people, is Barack Obama much different from the 2001 President Bush? Granted, the reasons behind their followings are very different – one was a result of a terrible national tragedy and the other is a result of his eloquence, ability to inspire, and contrasting policies with the former. However, with Obama now in the White House, Americans could possibly find themselves in similar circumstances to what they faced two terms ago. It’s possible that Americans will get lulled into the same sense of security that accompanied the first years of the Bush administration.  Any potential negative consequences, like running up the deficit for little economic benefit or diminishing national security, won’t be seen until several years down the road, possible after Obama’s reelection campaign.

So between now and then, before Obama’s throngs of followers (possibly) turn against him for some unforeseen reason, what will he convince America is a good idea? Or what liberal principles will traditional conservatives agree with because the country’s fearless leader has made some good choices in the past? Or because he’s trying to save the economy? Or trying to unite the country?

The increased executive power of Bush and Cheney is something Obama has promised to do away with, but with his approval rating so high, will Americans be more willing to let him keep that authority or not question how he exercises it? Obama says he wants to reach across the aisle, but he may end up pulling more people back over to his side rather than meeting them halfway.

More importantly, President Obama is now pushing for a huge stimulus package, which appeals to lots of Americans. Socialist and capitalist principles aside, most people appreciate having more money. However, most people probably don’t fully understand the implications, especially considering many of the included measures are, no matter how noble their merits, not initiatives that would have any immediate effect on the economy.  However, it could be argued, like  post-9/11 executive orders, this stimulus package is just an excuse to implement pet priorities, a reaction to a new circumstance, not necessarily some overarching principle. In other words, President Obama may be merely using the current economic disaster as an excuse to enact a smorgasbord of liberal policies, even if they have no relationship to helping us out of the economic crisis, in the same way that President Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to enact conservative policies that had no relationship to 9/11, such as the invasion of Iraq.

So the dominoes have more or less been set up. With Obama elected, we have another president Americans are ready to follow. Another president they’re willing to trust. Another president who they feel comfortable making decisions.

With so much power, let’s hope, unlike his predecessor, he makes the right ones.

What Do You Think a Stimulus Is?

Yesterday, President Obama finally stood up to the Republicans. For the last week, Republicans have been doing what they do best: controlling the message. They have talked about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 only in terms of its negative components: how much individual elements cost, how there aren’t enough tax cuts. They have, as they always do, derided and made fun of specific parts of the bill, like the part that calls for moving the federal vehicle fleet to hybrid cars. In much the same way that Sarah Palin derided certain research projects during the election (research projects that, by the way, benefit the state of Alaska), Republicans have attempted to hold up individual programs and say, “Isn’t this stupid?” Of course, that message is only suucessful if the audience similarly agrees that the program is stupid.

Yesterday, at a Democratic getaway (which cost $100,000, by the way), Obama defended the stimulus plan and even — what’s that — improvised:

When you start asking, “Well what is it that’s such a problem, that you’re seeing? Where’s all the waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars.”

Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that? That creates jobs for people who make those cars. It saves the federal government energy, it saves the taxpayers energy.

Then you get the argument, “Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” What do you think a stimulus is?  That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point.

Republicans have been pushing more of the same: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. For businesses and for the wealthy. But businesses have shown that they have no tolerance for spending money right now. They’ll take a tax cut and save it rather than use it for new production, or investment, or to hire workers. The wealthy have all the necessities of life they need. Rather than spend a tax cut on a new car or a new house, they’ll save it. The marginal value of a 10% tax cut is greater for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person. The wealthy person doesn’t need another Rolls. The poor person needs to eat.

Part of the Republicans’ problem with the stimulus package is that it involves the government doing things beyond fighting wars. It’s a generalization to say that Republicans hate government, but certainly part of what it means to be conservative is wanting “less government.” Grover Norquist is, of course, the proprietor of wanting to make the government so small he could drown it in a bathtub, which is why the government was so mismanaged for so many years. It’s hard to do a job well when you don’t think that job is worth doing at all. Given the choice between action or inaction, conservatives have preferred inaction (except, of course, when action increases businesses’ profits, as when Congress voted to take up United Airlines’ pension plan). One conservative pundit last week (who may or may not be able to speak for all conservatives and may or many not also be an idiot) claimed that the government has never created jobs, that government can only destroy jobs. It’s like dealing with an economic al-Qaeda: Republicans don’t want to negotiate, they don’t want to be bipartisan. They want to get exactly what they want, in full. They’ve grown accustomed to that after eight years. (Democrats have the exact opposite problem: they’ll capitulate at the drop of a hat. They’ll volunteer to capitulate if no one has asked them. There’s even a picture of Harry Reid in the dictionary next to the word “pusillanimous.” Someone needs to tell the Democrats that Ronald Reagan stopped being the president a long time ago.)

It’s true that, given enough time, the economy could probably fix itself (of course, John Maynard Keynes famously said that, in the long run, we’re all dead). But while we’re waiting for the free market to operate, people are getting laid off and losing their homes. Can we morally permit ourselves to let the economy remain in shambles for an unknown amount of time just to prove a point about capitalism? Of course not; it doesn’t make sense to do something just because it’s liberal or just because it’s conservative. We should do things because they work; Obama said as much in his inaugural address (though, admittedly, he was referring to more government versus less government).

Right now, the free market is broken. Consumers don’t want to spend at any price (and “any price” here means “any price that would be beneficial to the market”; certainly businesses could offer their goods for free, but that doesn’t exactly help us out of a recession). The cycle is supposed to work like this: a recession occurs, consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, consumers start spending again, business make more money, they start hiring people, consumers get employed again, business raise their prices, and we’re on our way back to 99-cent gas and Hummers at a 2-for-1 discount.

Our recession is working like this: consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, businesses lay more people off in order to save money, consumers stop spending even more as some of them get laid off, business revenue decreases, business lay more people off to save money, and so on. It’s a downward spiral that the market can’t correct. The market needs a fresh infusion of cash that just isn’t going to be coming any time soon.

Monetarism has failed. The discount rate — the interest rate that banks pay for short-term loans to other banks — is between 0% and 0.25%. It can’t go any lower, and banks still are reluctant to lend to other banks. This isn’t an issue strictly of price; it’s also one of psychology. Until businesses are ready to produce again, government must step in and fill the void to prevent the recession from getting any worse than it already is. Republicans criticize the size of the stimulus and bring up the issue of how we’re saddling future generations with this debt (these same people, by the way, were remarkably silent as the debt doubled under George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist). They forget the other component of Keynesian economics: once the economy has recovered, the government must increase taxes and cut spending in order to pay back the money it borrowed. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t forget that part.

Update: Daily Kos has an interesting article analyzing media coverage of the stimulus bill. The Liberal Media, as it turns out, are not liberal at all. “Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews.” In addition to Congressional Democrats themselves, cable news networks must be informed that Democrats won the election. Also, some of the Democrats who appeared on cable news networks were “Blue Dog” Democrats who side with Republicans on economic issues. And pretty much every other issue. Why are they Democrats, again?

Will He or Won’t He? The Investigation Question

If it is true that sitting presidents set the political boundaries for future ones, then the recent hand-off of executive power was truly a gift for Barack Obama. When, in modern presidential politics, has a president been provided with so much room to operate? Not only has he enormous public support, his party’s majority in the two houses of Congress, and a huge, urgent financial crisis affording him opportunity for inventive solutions, but most important, he has the George W. Bush administration preceding him. Having Bush brandish executive power over the Constitution like a swinging ax, the boundaries of what is politically acceptable have been pushed so far that, for Obama, it is like playing football on a field the size of Texas.

Within in the context of the last eight years, Obama has been given free reign over an almost full gamut of the political spectrum to execute his ideas. As such, the combination of revulsion toward Bush, and excitement for Obama, causes each conservative move he makes to be acceptable, and any restoration of common sense to be celebrated as progressive.

And this was apparent from the day of the inauguration onward. In his speech, Obama managed set a conservative tone without hardly a whisper of reaction from most progressive commentators. In invoking the Bible to “set aside childish things” (implying collective responsibility for the financial crisis), and adamantly stating that we will not apologize for our way of life, Obama was able to successfully plant conservative memes because they were wrapped in massive progressive celebration. The fact that both The Daily Show and Bill Kristol picked up on this is highly illustrative.

However, the lesson of context is more instructive when considering Obama’s first actions as president. While his executive orders, such as the closure of Guantanamo, the order for the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual for interrogation, and limitations of government secrecy are welcome, are they cause for progressive celebration? A sigh of relief, yes, but the shoots of a progressive agenda? I’m afraid not. After watching Bush spend eight years bending the Constitution to near snapping point, Obama is merely attempting to restore the document to some recognizable form. And more notable, these were the easy moves. In fact, he had to issue these orders. The public outrage over state encroachment of civil liberties had been swelling to bursting point, and was subsequently channeled into the Obama campaign. He had the mandate and the political will to do so, not to mention the founding ideals of the nation on his side. Really, all he has done has been to put back in place what Bush had removed, while at the same time, continuing militarily, very much, in the same vein as his predecessor: bombing Waziristan and killing 14 people. Because the reversals of Bush policy have been rapid, the ones that stayed the same went almost unnoticed.

The great irony of the Bush legacy, though, is that by conducting his office so disastrously, and, by extension, handing Obama so much political breathing space, it is clear that Obama feels he cannot hold Bush accountable, lest that breathing space disappear. The choice between massive political capital and following the Constitution is a very real one, and one with very high stakes. In attempting to bring the former administration to justice, it is very likely, given the tone set by current congressional Republicans, Obama’s agenda would shrink to zero by potentially instigating a political civil war — memories from the nineties, obviously fresh in Obama’s mind. If Obama finds it difficult now, twisting Republican arms in Congress, imagine his options after he attempts to try Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then there’s also a massive economic crisis to address, not to mention his own party’s complicity in the waterboarding program, making it not merely difficult to start an investigation, but nigh on impossible.

To prosecute members of the previous administration would be like lighting a match to a partisan war, causing the mechanisms of Congress to jam up, just when we need it to function as efficiently as possible.

It is clear that Obama regards his options less as a balancing act and more mutually exclusive; a choice between principle and pragmatism. And as you would expect, the choice is not without precedent. There is the much-cited example of Lincoln’s magnanimity toward the South before and after the Civil War, but there is also the more appropriate parallel of the Jefferson presidency. After winning the presidency in 1800, Jefferson struck a remarkably conciliatory tone, when he said at his inaugural address that “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” And this, too, was after an incredibly brutal, partisan election, where it followed an administration that severely curtailed both civil liberties and the freedom of the press. Jefferson prosecuted no one for these infractions of the Constitution, including previous president John Adams. In order for him to keep the union together — a very real concern during the nascent United States — Jefferson had to reach out to northern Federalists. For an avid student of history such as Obama, it would seem he seeks to emulate this pragmatic, albeit contradictory, approach to crisis.

It is easy to imagine the president thinking of how he would best like to be remembered: the man who attempted to bring executive malfeasance to justice, or the man who wrested America from an economic free fall. It is clear which one is most politically viable. And given how difficult it would be to investigate Bush, fixing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression would be easier.

The problem remains though, what to do to prevent future abuse of the executive office? And this is one area where progressives can press Obama to demonstrate some progressive mettle.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously took impeachment off the table due to her own complicity in the CIA torture program and, unfortunately, impeachment was the only opportunity to hold Bush to account. However, if the Obama administration were to propose a framework where the requirements to hold impeachment hearings would be made easier — specifically, more definitive — it would do much to prevent politicians like Pelosi from fudging the issue, and presidents (and vice presidents) from abusing their office. Though this would probably require a constitutional amendment, it would be the only way of protecting the state from future executive abuse. As it currently stands, the definition of crimes tried by impeachment is woefully ill-defined to be effective and consistent:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

As then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford said in 1970, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

By providing clear definitions of the offenses punishable by impeachment, Obama could demonstrate a willingness to address the crimes of the previous administration without having to sacrifice too much goodwill.

For all the celebrations of Obama’s restoring of civil liberties, it is clear that violations of those liberties must not happen again, and this is where the progressive fight to hold those in power accountable should be aimed.

« Previous Page — Next Page »