Speech, Surveillance, President Obama and Justice Kagan

Dear Friends,

The sixth 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 speech and surveillance.  The first paragraph of this article summarizes the thrust of the article.

With limited exceptions, the Obama administration’s positions on national security issues relating to speech and surveillance have mirrored those taken by the Bush administration in its second term.

The report goes on to detail how candidate Obama disagreed with the Bush Administration policy of conducting warrantless wiretaps.  Unfortunately, his actions as a Senator indicated that he just wanted Congress to have some control.  President Obama continues to defend FISA by saying, as the Bush Administration did, that the government's actions under FISA are effectively immune from judicial review.  The Obama administration has continued to argue that you can't challenge the actions of the government unless you can prove that you have been the subject of surveillance under FISA and then of course the government refuses to disclose who has been the subject of surveillance.

The article also reminds those of us that travel outside of the United States, that US border agents are authorized to copy the contents of our computers before letting them back into the country.  They have this authority and need no probable cause to exercise it.

The report also points out how the Obama administration continues to threaten our freedom of speech.  The worst example of this problem involves now Supreme Court Justice Kagan.  The ACLU report says it best.

In an important case that reached the Supreme Court, the Obama administration took the position that it could prosecute individuals under a statute that bars the provision of “material support” to terrorist organizations even if the support in question consists solely of speech—advice on issues relating to international law, for example, or on peaceful resolution of conflicts. In a dispiriting oral argument, Solicitor General Elena Kagan even proposed that lawyers could be sent to prison for filing friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of designated terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted many of the administration’s arguments and issued a decision that can fairly be described as a catastrophe for the First Amendment.

Why is that Republican Presidents appoint ultra conservatives to the bench, and Democratic Presidents appoint middle of the road or pseudo liberals to the bench?  In May, The New York Times published an article entitled "Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings" (here).  Even if you read it when it was published, I would suggest that you read it again before you relax and think that we have a reasonable replacement for Justice Stevens.  For example here is a quote from Justice Kagan's testimony at her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."  

There are many things that President Obama has been unable to accomplish at least in part because of the Republicans' just say no to everything, but there are many things that President Obama has done that are very disappointing to those of us that supported him and believed him when he promised change.  We must hold him accountable.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Military Commissions and President Obama

Dear Friends,

The fifth 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 military commissions. The first paragraph of this section of the ACLU report reads:

While campaigning for the presidency, then-Senator Obama made cogent arguments against military commission trials at Guantánamo on both principled and pragmatic grounds. He professed “faith in America’s courts” and pledged to “reject the Military Commissions Act.” In 2007 he pointed out the practical inferiority of the military commissions, noting that there had been “only one conviction at Guantánamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act.”

Of course, President Obama has changed his tune dramatically on this point.  While making some good changes to the procedures, he encouraged the redrafting of the law.  He is enshrining in America a two-class system of justice and the President gets to say in which of those two systems an individual is tried.  One system is enshrined in our Constitution and our system of laws and justice.  The other system is not one that we would recognize as legitimate if any other country were to adopt it.

The first trial is just underway at Guantanamo.  It is particularly obscene that President Obama is letting the first trial be the trial of Omar Khadr, a child soldier who was only 15 at the time of the alleged offense.  This military tribunal trial by the United States government is first time that a child soldier has been tried for a war crime by a Western country since World War II.  The more I read about this case more angry I am about what is being done by my government.

For a history of this case, I would suggest you read "The Case of Omar Khadr, Canada" by Human Rights First (here).  The following are two of the opening paragraphs of that report that address the child soldier issue and the failure of the United States to live up to its legal obligations.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international juvenile justice standards require prompt determination of juvenile cases and discourage detainment of juveniles at all except as a last resort. Such standards have not been heeded by the U.S. government in the case of Khadr. Khadr was held for two years prior to being given access to an attorney, waited more than three years prior to being charged before the first military commission, and is now in his eighth year in U.S. custody. During Khadr's time in detainment, he has been held both in solitary confinement as well as with adult detainees, contrary to international standards requiring that children be treated in accordance with their age and segregated from adult detainees. Khadr also claims he was subjected to abusive interrogation practices in violation of U.S. humane treatment standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and other binding prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which prohibits the use of children under 18 in armed conflict and requires signatories to criminalize such conduct and rehabilitate former child soldiers as well as provide "all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration." The U.S. has failed to heed these legal obligations in the case of Khadr.

The United States law requires us to rehabilitate former child soldiers not try them for war crimes so that we can kill them.

There have been many articles recently about the Khadr case because the trial has finally started.  To get a feel for how the "jury" selection went and why this second class justice system needs to be abandoned, you should read an article entitled "Guantanamo: 'Jury' selected for Omar Khadr's military commission trial" by Alex Neve at the Amnesty International website (here).  Mr. Neve sums up his overall impression of the jury selection process as follows:

What stays with me from these two days is the intensity of the prosecution’s determination to exclude anyone who had an informed view about the well-documented human rights concerns associated with Guantánamo Bay and other aspects of the USA’s post-September 11th counter-terrorism policies.  This was particularly notable in the case of the Army Lieutenant Colonel against whom the prosecution eventually used their peremptory challenge. He spoke openly about his understanding of the concerns that had arisen at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere.  He worried about what he saw as US moral authority having been eroded.  He talked of concerns such as lengthy detention without charge, charges being brought which had limited legal precedent, and the admissibility of information obtained under torture.  He spoke of his concerns about the positions that former White House Counsel and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had taken on the handling of detainees and interrogation methods.  Ultimately he repeated several times that he supported President Obama’s position that it would be best to close down the Guantánamo detention facility.
The prosecution was vehement in laying out their case for why this Lieutenant Colonel should be excluded.  He was accused of disloyalty for his criticism of Alberto Gonzales.  He was described as having a hostile attitude towards the government.  And he was repeatedly chastised for having said that he “agreed with the President” when it came to Guantánamo Bay, for which he was accused of clearly being biased against the government.  One was left wondering just who the prosecution thinks the government is.

I also read a report about the proceedings that took place today posted by Daphne Eviatar for Human Rights First (here).  Ms. Eviatar's description of the courtroom proceedings is excellent.  After describing the testimony that had taken place particularly the answers to the questions asked by defense counsel, she gives her reflections on today's testimony:

After the first day of testimony for the government, I’m left wondering who really is the criminal here. Sargeant Major D described how he entered the compound, armed with an N-4 and a Glock-9mm. The compound had just been shot up by U.S. Apache helicopters and bombarded by two 500-pound bombs. After sensing a grenade and small arms fire coming from an alleyway, Major D ran to the alley and shot a man with an AK-47 and a grenade in the head and killed him. Omar Khadr, however, was seated on the ground, unarmed, in a dust-covered light-blue tunic, his back to the Major D. Khadr was not holding or aiming a gun at the Sargeant, or threatening him in any way. Yet Sargeant Major D shot him twice in the back. He then walked over and thumped him in the eye, to see if he was still alive. Surprisingly, he was.

Lt. Col. Jackson, Khadr’s defense lawyer, asked Sarg. Major D if he knows the laws of war, which prohibit killing a civilian not actively participating in hostilities. Jackson also pointed out that there was an armed civilian CIA agent accompanying the US forces that day.

Which got me thinking: who is the real war criminal here? And who gets to decide?

A big part of the hope and change that candidate Obama promised in his campaign was to restore America's image in the world and to bring back the rule of law.  President Obama has not done either of those things.  Not because the Republicans have stopped him from fulfilling a campaign promise but because he chose to break a campaign promise.  President Obama has chosen to violate our laws and our international obligations and to prosecute a child based on evidence that at best is flawed and obtained by torture and at worst is completely without foundation.

We must hold President Obama accountable especially when he has chosen to violate his oath of office, our laws and our values.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Unpatriotic, Drugged, Crazy Liberal

Dear Friends,

When George W. Bush was President, he referred to me as being unpatriotic because I did not support his immoral and illegal war in Iraq.  The truth is that I did not really support anything that he did.  He had the nerve to say that even though I was a veteran who had served in a combat zone, and he was the one who got into a rich boys unit and avoided any real military service.

I love my country enough to want to change it if it is doing something wrong.  I love my country even though we have done some terrible things.  I want the country that I love to learn from our mistakes so we do not make them again.  I was hurt by constantly being called unpatriotic.  I was even called a yellow bellied chicken during an anti-Iraq war protest in Washington, D.C. by a kid who was certainly of the age that could have enlisted.  He did that even though my hat identified me as a veteran.  While I was hurt by these comments, I could take some solace in the fact that I was being called unpatriotic by people whom I did not respect. 

I was actually surprised today by how hurt I felt when I heard what Robert Gibbs had to say about criticism from the left in an interview with The Hill (here).  Here are two paragraphs:

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

It is hard to know where to start with Mr. Gibbs' comments.  I will start with the words themselves.

I have given President Obama credit for the things he has accomplished. Just because President Obama has done some things well and has accomplished much does not mean that I will not point out things that he has not done, promises that he has not kept and bad policies that he has adopted.  President Obama has said on many occasions that we need to hold him accountable, and we need to push him to do what he said he would do.  I intend to keep doing that.

I do not need to be drug tested although if Mr. Gibbs would like to accompany me to be tested I would be happy to go with him.  Also I am not crazy.  What is crazy is calling me, someone who supported Mr. Obama when he first ran for the United States Senate and when he ran for President, crazy for trying to holding President Obama accountable.

I will admit that in the last month or so I have written about how President Obama's policies are similar to or extensions of President Bush's policies, including topics such as targeted killing of American citizens, indefinite detentions, accountability for torture, transparency, national parks, shutting out the media, burying bad economic news, education policy, drug war budget, national security strategy, shield laws, abuse of the environment by mining, Afghanistan, deportation of undocumented workers, offshore oil drilling, Guantanamo, financial regulation, use of contractors like Blackwater, use of drones bombing, etc.  But in all cases, I have carefully documented my position.

But I think that what really hurts me is that Mr. Gibbs was probably reflecting the way the White House really feels about the base that got President Obama elected.  Even when he and others tried to walk back the comments, they never really disavowed them.  As David From, a journalist and former speech writer for President George W. Bush, has said (here) "my first rule of party leadership: while Republican politicians fear their base, Democratic pols hate theirs."

I am afraid that Mr. From is correct.  How does it make you feel when somebody that you have supported, given your time, energy and money to and more importantly placed your hopes in hates you and has played you for a fool?  It makes me feel foolish and ashamed for being hoodwinked.  Am I just a rube from Minnesota that was taken in by the smooth talking con man from Chicago?  I am not sure that I want to know the answer to that question.

I suppose that President Obama is not really worried about whether or not I will vote for him in 2012.  I cannot imagine a set of circumstances where I would not vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012.  But does that mean that President Obama should kowtow to the Republicans who want to destroy him while loathing me, the one that supports him? 

While it seems to me that if the Obama Administration can throw people like Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones under the bus for doing nothing wrong, they should certainly fire Mr. Gibbs.  But that would not give me any satisfaction or lead me to believe that President Obama understands that he needs to listen to his base and give it the respect it deserves.  If President Obama wants to signal that he gets it, he needs to fire Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, and he needs to get out of the White House and back on the campaign trail using his incredible oratorical skills to win back the American voters to get this country headed in the right direction again.  Instead of giving into the Republicans he needs to win over the American people.  As President Obama has repeatedly said, change does not come from the top, it comes from millions pushing from the bottom. 

So I will keep pushing President Obama and holding him accountable even if he doesn't respect me or care what I think or pay any attention because we need to hold him accountable for the good of the country and the world.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal