Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge. But he did work to shave off some of the more blatantly outrageous constitutional abuses in the Act by imposing some civil liberties protections in the gathering and use of intelligence, on the use of torture in interrogations, and requiring at least some semblance of due process in court proceedings. But that paled in significance when Obama in a letter and with little fanfare and comment routinely let stand most of the still noxious provisions in the Act.
Business and citizens groups can still have their records examined by the government with minimal checks on how the information can be used and more particularly used against. Individuals often based on flimsiest of evidence can still be targeted for monitoring and surveillance if suspected of being a potential terrorist. Organizations and individuals can still be slapped with so-called roving wiretaps (taps that can be placed on an individual or group anywhere, anytime) again based on the flimsiest evidence or suspicion.
The other provisions in the Act that are just as legally questionable and constitutionally suspect are still firmly in place. Obama has given no hint that he'll change them.
The best known and most controversial is the executive order that grants wide latitude loosely defining what and who is a "terrorist combatant," where and how long that individual can be held (indefinitely) and how they should be legally disposed of (none of the standard constitutional protections).
The order gives the green light to interrogators to dodge the safeguards spelled out in the Geneva Convention against illegal and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Another order authorizes a block on the sale and transfer of property of any individual deemed a threat to the stabilization efforts in Iraq. This means that anyone who speaks out against the Iraq War technically could be branded a security threat and have their property seized.
The Act leaves it still open to individual interpretation of who is a terrorist (suspect) and worse, who makes that determination. The courts for sure don't make that determination. The core of the Bush terrorism war is firmly embedded in the executive orders that permit suspects to be held without trial, gives the military the right to determine what interrogation tactics can be used and when, reinforces the paranoid secrecy that encases the military's dealing with terror suspects. The executive orders were clearly designed to keep the victims from having their day in court, and keeping the courts from giving it to them. Obama has not changed that policy. He has not dismantled Bush's patently illegal domestic surveillance policies.
Obama justifies keeping nearly all of Bush's terror war provisions in place with the standard rationale that the government must have all the weapons needed to deal with the threat of terrorism, even legally and constitutionally dubious weapons. That, of course, was the Bush and Cheney stock line. The one small difference between them and Obama is that Obama has sought to put a softer casing around those illicit weapons. That's no consolation for those who took candidate Obama and later Senator Obama at his word that he'd scrap or at least radically overhaul the Act.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010.
Rob Warmowski: The Real Act Of Patriots: Restoring JUSTICE
Haven't one handful of isolated killers done enough damage? The payoff of the 9/11 attacks was not delivered that day but in the months and...
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: The Right Shoves Obama Even More Rightward
The Right isn't just dominating the political debate. It has driven Obama -- not to the center; he was never really anywhere else politically -- but to the right of center on some issues.
Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Terror Alerts: What Should We Do?
Two recurring news stories always mystify me: Terror alerts and locations that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. So what is a citizen supposed to do with this information?
Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions - Yahoo! News
Political positions of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was a true believer in, " tell them what they want to hear". Well, we get his usual rhetoric while he keeps many of Bush's "executive privileges" and Congress doesn't say "BOO".
I don't get duped often, but I did this time. I did not vote for him in the primaries but once it came down to him or the Hate Talk Express, I gave him my full out support which included donations (ugh) and working in his campaign office. We had a helluva choice, false hope or balls-to-the-walls aggression and stupidity.
It is obvious that Obama is an instrument of the monied powers, the oligarchy that rules the whole show. His eloquence and appeal make him a very powerful instrument as he is much better at duping the people than the smug, smirking dunce Bush Jr.
The fact that he continues this bogus war on terror which successfully robbed us of our freedoms, liberty, money and continues to take the lives of many is the ultimate injustice.
Obama also reneged on his FISA commitment, his government transparency commitment, his "no lobbyist" promise, and so on. He's done some things right -- closing Guantanamo, for instance, but even here there is growing evidence that Gitmo is just moving to Bagram, which doesn't really achieve anything of substance.
We don't get the strong, honest leaders we need by playing into the cult of personality where we elect a celebrity and then place blind faith in him. That's what got us George Bush -- look how that worked out.
No, we get good leaders by electing basically decent men and women and then (this is the crucial part) **holding their feet to the fire**. When they break their promises, we have to scream and yell and find some way to punish them (no more campaign contributions, or something). Yes, this might hurt "our guy's" chances at re-election. But if "our guy" won't keep his promises, is he really "our guy?"
Sycophancy -- covering up and apologizing for the broken promises -- doesn't do anything good for the long-term health of our party. It's only by *FORCING* our leaders -- even the ones we voted for; ESPECIALLY the ones we voted for* to be accountable, that we can hope for real change.
There are numerous tactics he could have used, instead of gleefully traipsing into a bad situation, and making it worse.
You want to blame progressives for wanting to keep Obama accountable, but where's the blame for Obama himself not actually, you know, keeping his promises?
As to "no power," cf the changing nature of the health care debate where a month ago the "public option was dead," and today, with key defections by Burris and Cantwell, the question is "what sort of public option will we have?" Blame progressives for that.
Progressives and liberals and greens and the rest of us "fringe whackos" are the only part of the Democratic party that's relevant anymore; everyone else just blindly does what they're told without questioning.
The "public option is dead" hype was perpetuated by the media. If you were watching the congressional hearings happening at the same time, you would have seen that the public option was alive and well in all of the other major bills, and the real work is being done in the Senate through Kennedy's bill. Baucus' bill was DOA, these "defectors" were just waiting until the bill got out of committee. Wonder how they came out with statements so fast rebuking the bill?
Not a democrat, but I think your last statement insults the many moderates and independents who serve the purpose of keeping both sides in check. I have always been on the progressive side of things, but I must admit, lately I agree with treboi's statements to a degree. There is a fine line between holding someone accountable and making assumptions about future actions.
This is the second African American Democrat who sees through the myth of the Obama presidency. I supported Hillary for the VERY reason that Barack Obama never presented specifics on how he intended to meet his brazen campaign promises, like dumping the USA Patriot Act he chastised Bush/Cheney for.
Why didn't Obama offer specifics? It's becoming obvious that he didn't have a plan that extended beyond getting INTO the White House as POTUS.
The bottom line is that switching one celebrity for another doesn't fix things; it's the cult of celebrity and the blindly doing what we're told by that celebrity that is the root of the problem. No matter who's in the White House, it's our job to hold him or her accountable.
Just maybe Obama knows what he is doing. Try supporting him for a minute.
The Patriot Act is the most dangerous piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Act. Bush and every one of his minions who helped to pass this make me sick. Just as sick as Obama makes me for extending it.
If you thought this was wrong when Bush signed it, but are now silent, YOU are a hypocrite.
For all the detractors out there who play apologist with an inherited mess and its only been a few months, I say BAH! Look at FDR's first 100 days. Look at LBJ and Medicare. JFK risked mutually assured destruction with Russia and they blinked first. Jackson actually balanced the budget. Lincoln re-united a severed nation. Wilson almost single-handedly created the UN w/his League of Nations. Washington led the Army against Shay's Rebellion and established the 2 term tradition. Teddy Roosevelt was shot in the chest and STILL gave a speech with a bullet lodged in him!
There have been presidents who have done amazing things to demonstrate their conviction, political gamesmanship, strength and dedication against insurmountable odds and vast difficulties, Obama is not and is quickly falling into weak irrelevance.