Painful Truth in Cheney's Spat with Obama
The painful truth in former Vice President Dick Cheney's spat with President Obama is that there are still far too many places where Obama's policy resembles Bush policy on the terrorism war. In the waning days of his last term Bush scrapped some of the worst of the legally and morally obscene interrogation tactics. He partially emptied the bulging cells of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. He even tried to do a half-hearted kiss and make up with European allies who vehemently opposed US torture tactics. The courts ruled that the Bush administration grossly violated constitutional and legal precepts by scooping up and holding terror suspects with no or flimsy charges and no trials.
The Bush shifts and changes dovetail with Obama's position on the most blatant abuses. But Obama hasn't yet gone much further than that. During the presidential campaign he strongly hinted that he'd dump most if not all of Bush's executive orders that infringed on civil liberties rights and protections in the war on terror and the Iraq war. There were 31 in all.
The best known and most controversial was the executive order that granted wide latitude in loosely defining what and who is a "terrorist combatant," where and how long that individual could be held (indefinitely) and how they should be legally disposed of (none of the standard constitutional protections).
Bush didn't stop there. He issued Executive Order 13440 in July 2007. The order was deliberately vague and did not spell out what interrogation practices were permissible. The order gave the green light to interrogators to dodge the safeguards spelled out in the Geneva Convention against illegal and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The military took the cue and didn't miss a beat in their prisoner interrogations. That was only the most naked example of using an executive order to subvert the law. More than two dozen other executive orders that Bush signed into law and that quickly became operational between 2005 and early 2008 slipped far under the public radar scope and got little if any public attention but were just as abusive.
Bush signed another executive order the same week he signed the executive order that subverted the Supreme Court's ruling against him on prisoner interrogation practices. That order blocked the sale and transfer of property of any individual deemed a threat to the stabilization efforts in Iraq. Translated, that meant that anyone who spoke out against the Iraq War could be branded a terrorist and have their property seized. This legally dubious executive order received passing press mention and little lawmaker scrutiny, and as far as is known is still on the books.
It is still subject 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. Under Bush policy, targeted killings of terrorists wherever they were or deemed to be, was sacrosant. Obama has not changed that policy. Nor has he dismantled Bush's patently illegal domestic surveillance policies.
Bush made a deliberate legal mess of the terrorism war, and his executive orders horribly show that. Cheney's media grandstanding ploy to rap Obama and absolve himself and his boss from legal and moral culpability for their abuses won't change that. Obama's arm tussle with Cheney then really serves no purpose, especially since some of Cheney's charges about his embrace of Bush policy on terror war are not that far off the mark.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles on Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Posters are saying we need to give Obama time. Poor fellow, he has so much on his plate that isn't his fault! Why then, if he truly wants to change things, did he pick Biden and Hillary for powerful positions? Why McChrystal to lead operations in Afghanistan? Why is Robert Gates still DOD sec? Why no talk of single-payer health care? It should also be troubling that columnists for the major newspapers in the country (besides the Murdoch-owned rags) are usually pretty approving of 'Bama?
Bama ain't weak-spined, or misguided as some of his more fervant, but disappointed worshippers would describe him. Obama is a Clintonian (a more cute and cuddly version of their neoconservative Republican counterparts) and he knows exactly what he is doing. One of his mentors was Dick Lugar, which should worry anyone who hopes that the M.I.C.'s strangehold on this country will end some day.
Once again the Democrats have manipulated the US with a cheap dog and pony trick into thinking they will change things. Of course if one advocates genuine change, as do 3rd party types, then they are brushed aside as being unrealistic or even "crazy." Because giving out 2000 dollars per dead Afghan child is sane, oh yeah.
Face it folks, this country ain't gonna change. We've got deep structural problems that have never been addressed because we've all been too busy dealing with the red herring that is the culture wars.
Thanks for nothing. Obama knows what he is doing. he is trying to clean this up once and for all. Just because it doesn't fit in your timetable it doesn't mean he isn't going to fixit. There are a lot of legal issues here.
Everyone needs to calm down and give Obama a chance to lead. He has only been President for about four months. He has accomplished a lot but not "everythin
Hey people, it is sad to say that the 'time filler talkers' in pundit land will be filling up our world with their constant yabbering all day long for the next few years to come.
They talk for the sake of it and feel that they have to comment on every living thing...bu
When neoCons praise Obama's policy it should be a clue shouldn't it?
Bingo.
And who might they be?
I haven't heard much praise for Obama from that rat's nest, other than the most superficial, such as "he speaks well," " what a lovely family," that sort of thing.
More importantly, whether they praise him on substance or not, drawing inferences from any statement of that nature is a risky business.
Besides, who cares what they say? From now on, it's going to be "tell it to the judge" and "let me remind the witness, you're under oath."
You're absolutely right.
If anything, Obama needs to start comprehending these matters from the perspective of prosperity, for if he keeps pussyfooting the Bush-fanatics while committing himself to undoing the policies of the Bush administration ever-so-gradually, he'll eventually come to be remembered as on par with the Northerners who, during the immediate aftermath of the civil war, prioritized healing the nation's divide rather than finalize the elimination of systematic oppression in the American South. As a result, the South was permitted to persist in rabid discrimination policies if only without the extremity of slavery, and thus Northern politicians have since been justifiably condemned for their complicity.
Obama should realize that, a decade from now, future generations will come to reflect upon Bush policies as the byproduct of sheer insanity and thus the bare-minimum of what could be expected of any sensible successor would include undoing each and every one of the aforemenioned parameters as quickly as possible. Thus, the questions prosperity will continue to ask will include persistent quieries as to why Obama took his sweet time in counteracting policies which never should have been instigated to begin with.
posterity |pä steritē|
noun
all future generations of people : the victims' names are recorded for posterity.
• [in sing. ] archaic the descendants of a person : God offered Abraham a posterity like the stars of heaven.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French posterite, from Latin posteritas, from posterus ‘following
I'll give O the benefit of the doubt for now. What strikes me is that O campaigned on this and this turn around tells me that it's for a good reason. Not because he wants to but because he feels it is warranted, and I trust his judgment.
Attitudes like that are dangerous for a healthy democracy or a republic. Peasants trust nobles and kings to make decisions, citizens should always be sceptical.
Obama's hands are not tide. He could have signed an executive order--as Bush did to get us in to this situation--four months ago. With the stroke of a pen, the Constitution would be restored.
What most U.S. citizens do not understand is that the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeas corpus and the acceptance of preventive detention without cause or legal rights and protections negatively affects them, too, not just the suspected terrorist.
During the early to mid 1900s, The U.S. Supreme Court decided several landmark cases that became the Bill of Rights. These rights protected us from unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and inhumane treatment, self-discrimination and prevented any government from wrongly holding a person against his or her will. Likewise, the Bill of Rights also granted everyone the right to an attorney, the right to confront an accuser, the right to a speedy trial, the right to remain silent, the right to self-expression, speech and the right to assemble (to name a few). The 14 Amendment, although not a part of the Bill of Rights, protected civilians' liberties. In the name of the "War on Terrorism, we have traded our freedoms and protections. We are vulnerable without them and no better than a directorship or a police state. We have lost so much progress.
We should not make any excuses for Obama; there is too much at stake.
For Obama, revoking the executive orders of Bush only requires the strike of a pen.
While he doesn't do that, he implicitly agrees to the content and use of his antecessor's orders.
If Obama doesn't understand and correct that, he's too .d.u.m.b. to be president.
Why some people will never have any credibility: "spat".
What spat is the President having? I am not aware of any.
What I do know that Dick Cheney is, alone with the media, doing everthing they can to undermine the President. While the President is just trying to do his job. Which ticks off the haters even more.
The sad part is that Cheney and what passes for media are willinggly help alone by those who have their own agenda.
Obama says he wants to be bipartisia
grow up people it is and will not be easy for Obama to change or fix everything is 4 months. Also the ACLU is no better than some fringe REPUGs groups. I disagree with your assement in this article.
That's what I keep saying. I'm starting to think Pres. Obama is looked upon as a magician who just has to wave his magic wand and everything will change in an instant! I wish both liberals and republicans get real.
The one thing Obama does control without Congress breathing down his neck ARE executive orders. He could reverse all 31 egregious executive orders Bush instituted, with a stroke of a pen...espe
Ask yourself why he hasn't.
Obama's slowly and carefully considering these matters, along with his advisers. So the sudden precipitous political moves you seem to expect Obama to make, won't affect anyone adversely, on Obama's watch.
Exactly! Obama could have resurrected our civil liberties "four months ago if he wanted to. Because he has not indicated that he has intentions to do so suggests it is not part of the his plan. Why has he been so slow to act on his campaign promise? He does not need congress' support in this matter. Soon, we have to accept Obama for what he truly is: A centrist democrat with right-leaning tendencies.
To be fair, he has done (and is attempting to do) some wonderful things for the country, and I agree with his positions on education and energy dependency. Nevertheless, he appears granacious with respect to gays in the military, restoring our Constitutional rights, helping Katrina victims, and achieving complete transparency (e.g., torture).
Maybe because none of us read the daily security briefings. It's easy to speculate, but I bet he's doing it for reasons you will never know.
since when do you start to change things by going in the opposite direction of where you intend to go?
I have to disagree with your comparing Obama and Bush policies.
In many instances it may not have been the policy that flawed but, the way it was set up, executed and ran.
Take Afghanistan. That would have been a quick war and Bin Laden most surely would have been caught and we would not still be there if someone else was in the Oval Office.
But, 8 years later the war is dragging on, the Taliban is at full strength and able to act with impunity and Bin Laden is cozy in a cave.
So, is that war bad and wrong or was it the way it was handled and executed?
the same with say the Military courts. Actually they are suppose to be quite good and fair but, with Cheney and Bush, they became kangaroo courts and a joke.
That was because of Bush and cheney and not because of the court itself.
We democrats are too quick to judge, fly off the handle immediately and make charges of 'just like Bush' without examining whether the policy was bad or the way it was done was what made it bad.
Well said Sir.
or Mam? lol
Good post-many do not realize what a shambles the Bush team made of the machinery of government, especially the legal machinery. During the campaign there was quite a bit written about the difficulties Obama would face in trying to untangle the legal snarls left behind if elected, which would have to be addressed before even beginning to change anything else.If we are to return to being a nation of laws that must first be set right. And those who countenance changing everything with the stroke of a pen should remember that this is in large part how Bush got us into most of these mulitple messes in the first place, and I'm not sure this would set a good precedent. ( And if he did this I'm sure there would be considerable backlash at his presumption in overriding congressional rule of law -however much that is a farce right now-and no doubt unfavorable comparisons to Bush-from both sides-in ignoring the rule of law.)
If we want to have a truly representative government it will take time to restore that government. And we can do our part by reminding our representatives that they represent US and not some special-interest group in Washington.
You are assuming that Obama and his ilk want to just fight quick defensive wars, which would be a fallacy. Obama is a protege of Dick Lugar, and has surrounded himself with Clintonian nation-builders. Obama has scaled down on the nation-building rhetoric, but his "civilian surge" is basically the same thing.
There is the assumption that Obama is Mr. Smith going to Washington, which is a dangerous one.
For once, I agree with you. One could even suppose that Cheney and Obama are doing a good cop/bad cop routine and absolutely nothing is changing- except Barack's talking about "preventative detention" which is the most terrifying doublespeak I've ever heard. If they can define a terrorist as any one they want, suspend habeas corpus and keep you indefinitely without charge- we have now adopted the worst dictatorship methods of the Chinese or Russians. Barack's a smooth talker, but that makes him MORE dangerous than the bumbling Bush ever was. The scary part is large swathes of the population are perfectly happy with this and asks no questions at all. Charisma can be a very bad thing.
"So this is how Liberty dies...... with thunderous applause"- Star Wars.
I have to say that you, along with many here, do not understand the legal entanglements that the Bush administration, through incompetence and arrogance, left this one to walk through and that in many cases their hands are tied for the time being.
I also think that many here love to judge without thinking about why a certain policy, ect., was bad in the first place.
Or that in some cases they cannot be overturned in the snap of a finger but, have to be untangled carefully over a long period of time.
Try using common sense and research into why something is the way it is before flying off the handle and not just ass--u--me
Exactly. This is a legal minefield and needs to be cleaned up like a toxic waste dump.
Come on, people, think about it. Obama wants to be another Bush? Is part of a big conspiracy? We know what kind of a person he is. We saw it for 2 years. Grow up and become part of the solution,not the problem.
BS, pure and simple. He is a thoughtful, intelligent person who has insights far beyond the people here who just spout simplistic answers and theories.
Facts and myths about Obama's preventive detention proposal
http://www
I'll let a Constitutional lawyer in good standing to win the first Izzy Award for outstanding Journalism excellence explain it to you. Maybe you'll l-ear-n something.
Fanning you for this.
I agree Mammy. Obama doesn't give us much to cheer about. But, unlike Dick (five deferments) Cheney he doesn't seem hell bent on starting a shooting war with Iran. Its better than nothing.
Oh yeah, like being able to choose whether you want to be stabbed or shot. Whoopee.
Part 1
Yermammy wrote:
"except Barack's talking about "preventative detention" which is the most terrifying doublespeak I've ever heard."
Really?
During the transition, President-elect Obama's incoming legal and national security officials were barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees. After the inauguration, they discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.
Evidence gathered for military commission trials is in disarray. And military lawyers lacked the trial experience to prosecute complex international terrorism cases.
FYI: http://www
What you and Rachael Maddow and Jonathan Turley and other ideological purists fail to consider is how big a mess the GITMO issue really is.
The Obama Administration is aware that some of the detainees can never be prosecuted for because in some instances information was obtained by means of torture, in other instances complete files are in total disarray with no way to verify all of the information.
And in many cases the prisoners cannot be returned to their own countries because they would be tortured again.
These people have committed terrible crimes and they are a threat to our national security. If they are extradited to a country where they will be tortured, your crowd would be the first ones to jump on the Obama=Bush's 3rd term meme. You would all sing the tune of Obama has reinstated Bush's extraordinary rendition policy.
"some of the detainees can never be prosecuted for because in some instances information was obtained by means of torture"
In other words because we did something wrong these detainees must pay an even stiffer price than being tortured - they must spend the rest of their days in jail since WE broke the law!
I have never heard of such nonsense. Given this line of reasoning on the domestic scene , police would immediately torture suspects so as to ensure their permanant incarceration.
??WHAT?!?
Someone should be incarcerated for the detainees being tortured but its not them
You are the one here who has a grip on this. Great post.
Others, do some research and keep up. Rethug talking points do not count as research.
You use the term ideological purist like it is an insult. Are you saying that people who value ideals are bad? Are you saying we should support Obama, right or wrong? Once again, this is very dangerous talk for anyone who wants to see the US remain a healthy democracy and republic. I'm disturbed by all the trust displayed on this board. Also, obfuscating the issue by saying it is complicated, i.e. peasants wouldn't understand so lets sit back and let the political high priest do his magic, is not what we should have in this country. The issue is only complex because we make it complex; the US is such a litigious country these days. A vastly over-expanded corps of lawyers and the M.I.C. are what will kill this republic.
You do make a good point about extradition, particularly for the Uyghurs it would ammount to a death sentence.
Part 2
Maddow, Turley and other ideological purists are portraying this issue as President Obama has decided to punish people for what they might do, not what they have done.
That is nothing more than political deception. These are people who have committed crimes or who have been tortured to the extent that they would turn against Americans if they were released.
Should President Obama release the prisoners into the US because their files are not in order? Should the government issue them food stamps, welfare and a housing allowance together with an apology for torturing them?
What would be your response to that?
Many people on this site fail to realize just how complex the GITMO issue really is.
This is not a problem of President Obama's making or choice. But it is a problem he encountered when he became POTUS. He cannot turn back time and wish GITMO had never happened. He also cannot ignore this issue. Nor can he simply allow the detainees to go free because there is not enough evidence to win a conviction.
The President's first duty is to protect the citizens of this country. He is wise to detain these individuals until other options become available.
"Should the government issue them food stamps, welfare and a housing allowance together with an apology for torturing them?"
Now you are just plain making stuff up - nobody has mentioned welfare etc. but yes some kind of reparation is in order. Many of these people were picked up because the were turned in for bounties,others were picked up in sweeps- their families have not only suffered their absence they have suffered material deprivation from being deprived their breadwinner.
I guess you think Japanese imprisoned in WWII deserved it too.
You all seize on an interpretation of things shaded by your own suspicions. War does not lend itself to simple investigations. Torture lies in the definition one uses. Perhaps there are facts which renders those promises foolish to keep
Your last sentence is patently false, the President takes an oath to do is to protect and defend The Constitution. He cannot defend and protect all the citizens of this naiton from every bad thing. He's not our king or our daddy.
His duty lies first and foremost to The Constitution. The Constitution is what protects our civil liberties and our democracy. Not a single man.
A president must endure the gap between what he would like, and what is possible.
My, that's such a soothing platitude. Where'd ya read that- on a cereal box?
The difference between Obama and JFK who first said that words that you are now using is that the delay is being caused by Obama. JFK, in contrast, offered legislative proposals that were being delayed by Congress.
If he truly wanted to reverse the Bush policies as reflected in Bush's executive orders, he has the power to do so by issuing his own executive orders.
If someone wants to believe that Obama wants to reverse Bush's policies but that he is somehow being frustrated by Congress, that belief has to be based upon faith. That faith is not supported by any facts.
Hutchinson is right: "The painful truth in former Vice President Dick Cheney's spat with President Obama is that there are still far too many places where Obama's policy resembles Bush policy on the terrorism war."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
