Monday, August 2, 2010

Torture, Accountability and President Obama

Dear Friends,

The second topic addressed in the American Civil Liberties Union report entitled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration" (here) is torture and accountability.

This section of the ACLU report begins by praising President Obama for his immediate and unambiguous rejection of torture and the torture policies of the Bush Administration and for his subsequent release of the torture memos.  As the report says, "The decision to dismantle the Bush administration’s torture program was a crucial one, not just for the United States but for the world. President Obama deserves credit for the decision, and for his vigorous defense of it."

The problem is that President Obama refuses to hold anybody accountable for the well known and well documented abuses that were authorized by the Bush Administration.  President Obama talks about the need to look forward and not backward.  This section of the ACLU report concludes with the following paragraph:
In fact the choice between “looking forward” and “looking back” is a false one. While it’s crucial that the Obama administration adopt new policies for the future, we cannot ignore the abuses of the past. And while President Obama has disavowed torture, a strong democracy rests not on the goodwill of its leaders but on the impartial enforcement of the laws. Sanctioning impunity for government officials who authorized torture sends a problematic message to the world, invites abuses by future administrations, and further undermines the rule of law that is the basis of any democracy.
As John Cheng says in his article entitled "A Few Not-So-Good Men" in the most recent issue of the Wilder Voice (here):
The U.S. has not, to date, embarked on any path of self-examination and soul-searching commensurate with the crimes of the Bush administration. Any process of legal—and moral—accountability must be painful; it must have casualties, so to speak. The United States, the counterargument from bipartisan quarters goes, ought to be spared gut-wrenching flashbacks to Bush-era abuses. This is a path of false comfort that cannot mask deviations from the rule of law, which are ongoing realities rather than unpleasant memories to be wished away.
While President Obama is not guilty of authorizing torture, by refusing to hold those who did authorize torture accountable, he is in fact guilty of concealing crimes.  As Mr. Cheng states in his article
Since taking office, the Obama administration has operated on a pretense of innocence: It assumes no responsibility for its predecessor’s actions and seeks never to repeat them. While this claim is technically true and uncontroversial in and of itself, it is extremely problematic. By continuing to employ torturers in America’s military-intelligence complex, and by its access to a wealth of information documenting torture, the Obama administration is intimately linked with the legacy of the Bush years, even as it chooses to repudiate their worst elements. Does the Obama administration now have a perverse incentive to do everything in its power to prevent independent investigations of human rights violations? After all, isn’t the current Justice Department now complicit in concealing details about those violations—especially in specific cases such as the so-called Guantanamo “suicides” in which the level of abuse possibly extends to homicide?
The Guantanamo "suicides" that Mr. Cheng refers to are the deaths of Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani while being detained at Guantanamo.  The Navy's report of their deaths that determined them to be suicides is full of absurd statements and more intelligent reporting indicates that the men were undoubtedly tortured to death while in United States custody.  If you want more details, you can read Mr. Cheng's article as well as Scott Horton's article in Harper's Magazine (here).

It is bad enough when a murder is not solved and no one is held accountable.  It is unforgivable for the government of the United States to cover up murders of people while they were in United States custody.  It is not only the people who actually killed these people that should be held accountable, the people who authorized the torture that lead to these killings need also to be held accountable.
 
Unfortunately, just as President Obama has become more secretive during his short term in office, he has also adopted many of the Bush Administration techniques for ensuring that those responsible for the torture and abuse that was carried out in our names are not held accountable by others.  As the ACLU report says:
The truth is that the Obama administration has gradually become an obstacle to accountability for torture. It is not simply that, as discussed above, the administration has fought to keep secret some of the documents that would allow the public to better understand how the torture program was conceived, developed, and implemented.  It has also sought to extinguish lawsuits brought by torture survivors—denying them recognition as victims, compensation for their injuries, and even the opportunity to present their cases.
The ACLU report cites the case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a suit brought by five survivors of the CIA's rendition program.  The Obama Administration adopted the Bush Administration position that the case cannot be litigated because state secrets would be disclosed.  When a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Obama Administration asked for a rehearing by the full court. 

In addition to its use of the state secrets doctrine, the ACLU report cites examples of other extreme positions that the Obama Administration has taken to keep litigation from proceeding:
the Obama administration argued, remarkably, that the government defendants were immune from suit because, at the time that the abuse occurred, established law did not clearly prohibit torture and religious discrimination at Guantánamo.
the administration argued that the Constitution provided no cause of action to an innocent man who had been identified by the United States as a terrorist, rendered to Syria for torture, and not released until ten months later when it was determined that he was not a terrorist after all. 
the administration also argued to the courts that affording Arar a judicial remedy “would offend the separation of powers and inhibit this country’s foreign policy,” and impermissibly involve the courts in assessing “the motives and sincerity” of the officials who authorized Arar’s rendition. 
What happened to the candidate that was to bring hope and change to Washington when he got be President?  While we cannot hold the criminals in the Bush Administration accountable, we can hold President Obama accountable.  Demand that he break from these Bush era policies.  Let your voice be heard.  Write President Obama here.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Minnesota DFL Governor Race

Dear Friends,

The Minnesota primary which will decide among other things the DFL (for those of you not from Minnesota, we democrats in Minnesota are members of the Democratic Farmer Labor party) candidate for governor is August 10th.  I have been adamant that I would not monetarily support any DFLer against another DFLer.  We need to preserve our resources to be sure that the DFL candidate becomes the next Minnesota governor.  In the interest of full disclosure, I was a delegate for RT Rybak, but ultimately he lost the DFL endorsement to Margaret Anderson Kelliher.

On Saturday night I had dinner with some friends, all of whom are liberal, and we could not reach a consensus on who we should vote for in the primary.  There are three DFL candidates (in alphabetical order): Mark Dayton (here), Matt Entenza (here) and Margaret Anderson Kelliher (here).  The Republican candidate is Tom Emmer (here), and Tom Horner is the likely Independence Party candidate (here).

On Sunday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published the results of their most recent poll about the Minnesota governor's race (here).  Here is the chart of the overall results: 

Dayton Emmer Horner Undecided Other
40% 30% 13% 17% 1%
Kelliher Emmer Horner Undecided Other
38% 29% 13% 18% 1%
Entenza Emmer Horner Undecided Other
36% 31% 15% 17% 1%

Based on the results of this poll, it appears that both Dayton and Kelliher are more likely to beat Emmer than Entenza is.  The poll also broke down the support for each candidate based on the respondent's party affiliation.  Here is that chart:

                                             Dayton      Kelliher      Entenza      Emmer     Horner
Party identification               
Republican 7% 6% 6% 72% 9%
Democratic 81% 85% 79% 4% 3%
Independent 29% 26% 25% 20% 30%


In this chart, I found it interesting that Dayton did better among Independents than all of the candidates except for the Independence candidate and in that case there was no statistical difference.  I believe that is a big plus for Dayton in the general election.

On Sunday night, the three DFL candidates held their last debate before the primary.  As I was watching the debate, several things became clear to me.  There are no significant differences in the actually policies of the three candidates.  Mark Dayton is truly passionate about his positions.  He has spent his entire adult life in public service and wants to finish his career being governor.  He is also the only one of the three candidates with experience in the executive branch of government.  In his final statement, Mark said that while we may have differences now, on August 11th we will all be united behind the DFL candidate.  I agree with that sentiment 100%.  I will enthusiastically support whichever candidate wins the DFL primary.  As for the primary election, I have decided that I will vote for Mark Dayton.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal


Sunday, August 1, 2010

Transparency and President Obama

Dear Friends,

The first topic addressed in the American Civil Liberties Union report entitled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration" (here) is transparency. 

As the report points out, President Obama started off his term in office with great pronouncements about the new transparency that he would bring to government.  Almost immediately upon taking office he issued a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (here).  The memorandum while long on platitudes was devoid of any substance.  Nevertheless, it did set forth the ideal -
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
That memorandum was followed by a Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act (here).   This memorandum was intended to set the tone for the Obama Administration's responses to information requests under the Freedom of Information Act.  The beginning of the memorandum was an incredible breath of fresh air after the Bush Administration policy of do not release unless you are forced to.

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.  The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.
The ACLU report points out that President Obama seemed initially to embrace the wonderful sentiments of these memoranda when he did things like release the torture memos and the report on the CIA interrogations.  Unfortunately, as the report highlights, "The administration’s commitment to transparency,
however, has been inconsistent, and it has waned over time."

An audit of the Freedom of Information Act results under President Obama by the National Security Archive released in March 2010 (here) found the following:
  • Ancient requests--as old as 18 years--still persist in the FOIA system.
  • A minority of agencies have responded to the Obama and Holder Memos with concrete changes in their FOIA practices.
  • Only four out of 28 agencies reporting--including Holder's own Justice Department--show releases up and denials down under the FOIA.

The ACLU report highlights a number of cases where the Obama Administration has chosen secrecy over transparency.  As you may recall, it reversed its decision to release the photographs of the abuse at Abu Ghraib.  In addition, the ACLU report notes that the Obama Administration supported legislation that
invested the Secretary of Defense with sweeping authority to withhold any visual images depicting the government’s “treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained” by U.S. forces—no matter how egregious the conduct depicted or how compelling the public’s interest in disclosure. As the ACLU noted at the time, the legislation essentially gave the greatest protection from disclosure to records depicting the worst forms of government misconduct.
The ACLU report then lists some of the other examples:
it has fought to keep secret a directive in which President Bush authorized the CIA to establish secret prisons overseas; the Combatant Status Review Transcripts in which former CIA prisoners describe the abuse they suffered in the CIA’s secret prisons; records relating to the CIA’s destruction of videotapes that depicted some prisoners being waterboarded; and cables containing communications between the CIA’s secret prisons and officials at CIA headquarters. It has argued that the CIA’s authority to withhold information concerning “intelligence sources and methods” extends even to methods that are illegal. The administration has also fought to withhold information about prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Obama administration has released less information about prisoners held at Bagram Air Base than the Bush administration released about prisoners held at Guantánamo.
The ACLU report section on transparency also highlights the difference between candidate Obama's position with respect to whistleblowers and President Obama's actions.  In June, 2010 The New York Times published an article by Scott Shane (here) that contained the following paragraph:
The indictment of Mr. Drake was the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks. 
The reference to Mr. Drake is to Thomas Drake whose leak led to the discovery of the warrantless wiretapping program initiated by President George W. Bush.  The ACLU report also highlights Bradley Manning who allegedly leaked the video of a US helicopter killing two Reuters news staff and several other civilians in Iraq. I discussed the case of James Risen in a post in May here.  The Obama Administration has re-issued subpoenas to try to force the disclosure of Mr. Risen's sources for a book about the CIA.  Even the Bush Administration let the subpoenas it had issued lapse rather than pursue Mr. Risen.

The conclusion is clear.  President Obama's actions do not live up to his words or certainly the expectations that I had for candidate Obama when I supported him.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal