The Rich and Powerful are protected by the Rich and Powerful

Dear Friends,

Two items in the news yesterday, combined with the Republican presidential debate and the cold, rainy weather we are having, have left me feeling very sad about the state of my country and what we do compared to what we say we stand for, i.e. our hypocrisy.

I was dismayed by the assassination of Osama bin Laden when it occurred concluding in a blog post in May 2011 (here)

Justice was not done by assassinating Osama bin Laden. Revenge was taken, plain and simple. Justice is a critical and core value of a great society. Vengeance has no place in one.

So when The New York Times reported (here) on the legal justification for assassinating Osama bin Laden, it raised a painful memory for me.  At best the legal justification was a real stretch.  I found this sentence in the article particularly disturbing.

The legal analysis offered the administration wide flexibility to send ground forces onto Pakistani soil without the country’s consent, to explicitly authorize a lethal mission, to delay telling Congress until afterward, and to bury a wartime enemy at sea.

The lawyers said that the United States could violate the sovereignty of another country, explicitly authorize the killing of a person without due process, not tell Congress and violate the person's religion by burying him at sea.

Every one of those conclusions is doubtful.  The four lawyers even went to the extreme position that
the President was obligated to follow domestic law but not international law if a covert action were involved.

Consider another scenario.  Dick Cheney is a war criminal because he lead the planning and execution of an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, causing the death of thousands of people and is continuing to espouse similar activities. So the Iraqi government decides to send its forces into the United States without asking permission from the United States to kill Cheney and dump his body at sea.  The only difference between the two scenarios is that the powerful get to write the rules and history.

The second item was the vote by the Parliament of the European Union to urge its member states to drop all charges against Edward Snowden, treat him as a “whistle-blower and international human rights defender” and shield him from extradition and rendition. While the message is important and powerful, it is not legally binding.  This courageous vote by the European Union stands in bright contrast to the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration insists that Edward Snowden violated the law by disclosing the illegal activities that were being conducted by the Untied States government, and he probably did violate the law.  It is also clear that Vice President Cheney and President George W. Bush violated both domestic and international law in connection with torture, spying on US citizens and invading Iraq under knowingly false pretenses.  If President Obama insists on prosecuting Edward Snowden, then to be consistent, intellectually honest and moral, he must also prosecute Bush and Cheney.  Since it is very clear that he will never do that, he has no moral authority to prosecute Edward Snowden.

President Obama's lawyers can find legal justification for assassinating people, both American citizens (see my post from April 2010 here) and others without due process, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and spying on American citizens, but surprisingly cannot find any reason to prosecute the war crimes committed by the the highest members of the United States government.  We see the same rule applied when it comes to Wall Street crimes.  The big corporations get fines but none of the leaders are criminally prosecuted, just the occasional little guy.  

The rich and powerful are protected by the rich and powerful.  That should never be the rule in my country, the United States of America.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Clinton/Sanders - Domestic Spying

Dear Friends,

On the topic of domestic surveillance by the NSA, there is a clear difference between the position of Senator Sanders and the position of Senator Clinton.  Bernie Sanders is strongly opposed to secret spying on the American people by their own government, and Hillary Clinton talks in platitudes about transparency while not being overly critical of the NSA.  Hillary Clinton supported the USA Freedom Act and Bernie Sanders voted against it because it did not go far enough to protect Americans from spying.

The attitude of these two people towards Edward Snowden, I think, says a lot about their real views on American's civil liberties.  Hillary Clinton initially was outspoken in her condemnation of Edward Snowden.  As she has watched the feelings of Americans change and has been pushed by Senator Sanders, she has softened her position but it seems clear to me that she would prosecute him to the full extent possible.  Senator Sanders' position seems to recognize the complex issues involved.  Edward Snowden did violate the law but he also bravely disclosed illegal and immoral activities by the United States government.  Bernie Sanders does not believe he should suffer a long criminal sentence or permanent exile.

I would go further than Bernie Sanders.  My position is that unless the United States government is willing to prosecute those at the highest levels of government who broke the law by spying on US citizens and took us to war on false pretenses, then the United States government has lost the moral right to prosecute the person who disclosed the illegal activities.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Edward Snowden

Dear Friends,

In case you have not seen the John Oliver interview of Edward Snowden on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" on HBO, you really should watch it.  John Oliver does what a real journalist should do, he questions Edward Snowden about why he did what he did and what the real impact of his actions might be.  John Oliver also uses a wonderful example to try to get the attention of the American people about what the United States government is doing.  Here is the entire program.  The interview with Edward Snowden begins at about minute 15.  It is well worth you time to watch the entire program.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

The Many Faces of President Obama

Dear Friends,

After the last midterm elections when President Obama was free to do what he truly wanted to do, he began to do things that I thought were great, e.g. the climate change deal with China and his actions on immigration reform.  Unfortunately, it appears that he is unable to chart a clear course.

Yesterday, Jeffrey Sterling was convicted of violating the Espionage Act by disclosing a secret plan to damage the Iranian nuclear program by providing intentionally misleading documents to the Iranians.  On its face it seems like a rather strange idea and has been characterised as a poorly conceived and executed plan.  Mr. Sterling went first through the chain of command to object to the program and then according to prosecutors went to the press, James Risen in particular.  The prosecutors tried for years to force Mr. Risen to divulge his source, and he refused.

Eventually, right before Mr. Sterling's trial, Attorney General Holder dropped his attempt to get Mr. Risen to testify.  So here is the first reversal.  Under President Obama's watch, Mr. Holder and the Justice Department have been very aggressively attempting to force journalists to reveal their sources.  Now that Mr. Holder is considering his Justice Department legacy, he reversed course on demanding that Mr. Risen divulge his source.  That is a good thing.  However, the Justice Department continued to prosecute Mr. Sterling.

President Obama is all about prosecuting the people that are responsible for letting all of us know the terrible things that our government is doing in our names, including Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou.  Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou have both been convicted.  Edward Snowden will never be able to come home without being prosecuted.  These whistleblowers are prosecuted, but the people that committed the crimes that were disclosed by these whistleblowers and others have never been prosecuted - the people that ordered torture, the people that carried out torture, the people that lied about and covered up the torture, the people that destroyed evidence of torture, the people that hacked into the Senate staff computers over the torture investigation, the people that ordered, carried out and hid the illegal spying on Americans, etc., etc., etc.

On another front, a couple of days ago President Obama indicated he would seek further protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve which would make it impossible to drill in this area.  That protection would be great.  Unfortunately since it requires Congressional approval, it will never happen so long as the Republicans control Congress.  In support of President Obama, one could argue that he was forcing the Republicans to demonstrate once again that they really do not care about the environment if there is money to be made by big companies.  I am afraid there is another reason.

Yesterday, President Obama indicated that he would permit drilling off virtually the entire Atlantic coast of the United States.  Big oil has been after this area for a long time, but has been unsuccessful at getting any administration to permit it.  The problem here is that President Obama does not need Congressional approval to open the Atlantic coast offshore area to drilling.  He can just do it.  So perhaps the more realistic, even if somewhat cynical, explanation for the ANWR move is to provide President Obama with cover to open up the Atlantic coast.  I can find no logic for denying drilling in ANWR and then permitting it off the Atlantic coast.

Someday President Obama has to make up his mind what he believes in, what he stands for, how he views the Constitution and for whom he is working.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal