Kevin Graham wrote:Well I guess if you're more concerned about the things he hasn't done and less concerned about the things he has done, then I could see your point.
No, not at all. The problem isn't what Obama hasn't done. It's what he has done. His administration has worked very hard to defend and expand the civil rights abuses, secrecy, and militarism associated with "the war on terror" that were inherited from Bush. You appear to have bought into the erroneous notion that Obama simply has failed to roll-back these problems when the reality is that he has actively supported them and, in some important respects, ratcheted them up. This includes strong-arming through legislation, using the DoJ to defend those policies, using diplomatic pressure on other nations, and taking unilateral executive action. Every substantive issue associated with the war on terror that supposedly was an anathema to liberals under the Bush administration has been supported and worsened under Obama. It's been able to be worsened because Obama has cover by virtue of being a candidate of liberal Democrats and the Republicans really don't oppose this either.
The only exception I'm aware of is the isssue of torture. Obama claims we no longer torture, full stop. Granted it's well supported that we still outsource our torture through extraordinary rendition. So we still do very much engage in torture in that we use other nations as a go-between. Also, the facts of the Bradley Manning case demonstrate we at least still engage in limited torture. Bush denied torture for years as well, so I'm not sure how seriously we should take Obama's claim given the facts as they are, but if we need to grant anything, it's that. We at least have a promise that we aren't waterboarding and the like anymore. Otherwise, it's all GWB, only worse.
The list is too extensive to recall in one post, but for starters:
He has waged an unprecedented battle against whistleblowers and journalists who use them as sources. He has sought to weaken the FOIA to conceal evidence of crime. He has pushed for the use of indefinite detention without due process, the use of kangaroo court military commissions when any sort of due process is offered, and the use of extraordinary rendition. He's fought and so far won the ability to immunize political leaders from accountability for heinous violations of the law through expansive use of the states secrets privilege. Due to a 6-5 ruling in the 9th circuit and a denial of cert from the Supreme Court this has gotten to the point that the executive is effectively immune from judicial review when it asserts national security classification. He has maintained and expanded the use of wiretapping and warrantless searches of US citizens, which in retrospect makes sense given his early flip-flop to support a law to retroactively immunize businesses who illegally cooperated with the government's illegal eavesdropping. It's known that the Obama administration has a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT act's surveillance powers that is more expansive than the general plain language public understanding. It's not known what it is. So far, the best interpretation going is that it is warrantless geotracking. His administration has drastically increased the use of secrecy for ordinary government functions. It has asserted the authority to assassinate US citizens without due process and has done so at least in one case. Contrary to campaign promises, Obama has used signing statements to announce his intent to circumvent congressional legislative limitations on executive power.
Nobel peace prizing winning Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan. The War in Iraq only formally ended because Iraq rejected the Obama administration's terms to extend allied troop presence beyond the initial withdrawal agreement negotiated under the Bush administration. He waged a war in Libya without congressional authorization. There's good evidence the US is engaged in a full-on cold war with Iran right now that has a not insignificant chance of becoming a hot war. His administration has ignored global ban on clusterbombs due to their indiscriminate and inhumane nature. No worry, as it has sought to overturn that ban agreement. His administration has massively increased the use of relatively indiscriminate drone attacks on members of sovereign nations we are not at war with, including killing citizen rescuers and mourners, an act normally considered a war crime. Many, many foreign civilians are dead as a result of this. Here's a particularly heart-breaking case if you are into that sort of thing.
On another war front, Obama has vigorously prosecuted the drug war and its attendant civil liberties problems, including parts he campaigned against.
Regarding the closing of GITMO, even if we did close GITMO, the Obama administration had other sites, including using Bagram Airforce Base, to serve the exact same function. The problem with GITMO wasn't where it was located. It was the indefinite detention of prisoners without due process through use of the category "enemy combatant" to escape American law and international treaties. The administration made it clear it was never serious about ending that. So all closing GITMO would've been was a symbolic bone that wouldn't change the underlying reality. It's no wonder it was only flirted with and easily abandoned.
So what if John McCain won the election and he was doing this? My guess is that Democrats would be blowing their collective tops. Yet, because of the power of partisanship, Obama is doing alright. Sure, the ACLU might hate his guts, but that doesn't appear to have hurt his prospects all that much. It's so under the radar, in fact, that you can write this post and seem to genuinely think my only problem would be that Obama hasn't done enough to reverse course.
