Why Barack Obama Got My Vote

I just flew back from Australia, where I was speaking about the erosions of our civil liberties. Believe me, the rest of the world is agog at our inaction as what makes us Americans is being set aflame; and they are more scared of what an unsheathed US could do to the rest of the world than we are.

They also get more news out in the rest of the world about these depredations than we do here in our media bubble.

For instance: As the Australian reported earlier this week, New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib is suing the Australian federal government -- which under the Howard administration had colluded with the US in committing various abuses against detainees and due process -- for having allowed him to be arrested wrongly in Pakistan in 2001, kidnapped and sent illegally to Egypt. There this Justice of the Peace was illegally imprisoned and tortured for six months. After that the United States held him for FOUR YEARS in Guantanamo. His complaint notes that he is a law-abiding citizen who was swept up under false pretexts. "It turns out that Habib has incontrovertible proof of his good standing," the Australian noted. "[H]e is a fully accredited Justice of the Peace in NSW. A search of the NSW Attorney General's Department website reveals that not only Habib, but his wife Maha Habib, is a JP." To become justice of the peace in New South Wales, the Australian added, "you have to be NOMINATED BY A MEMBER OF THE NSW PARLIAMENT and submit to a full character inquiry, including a criminal records check by NSW Police." (ALL CAPS mine)

Get that? A justice of the peace in a developed-world democracy. Had you heard of that?

Me neither.

This gave me chills because, once again, it is so scarily predictable: when I first started trying to alert people about the ramifications of the Military Commissions Act, and how it gives the US power to seize innocent people off the street simply by the President's naming them 'enemy combatants', I pointed out that nothing would prevent the US from rendering an EU minister off the streets of Belgium -- and flying him or her to a `black site' for torture -- if he or she opposed a US pipeline plan, or was prosecuting US war criminals such as Rumsfeld in the Hague. And that the clear lesson of Germany and other closing societies such as Argentina is that once those 'disappearances' begin, that is it; few are then brave enough to object -- and at that point objection is too weak to be effective anyway.

They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news. So how can we be sure there is something so sacred about an American justice of the peace or even a judge? Say, an American judge who ruled against the Military Commissions?

This kind of leap to the next level of threat to us as citizens seems implausible to many people because they assume that there is an orderly and effective democratic response to this kind of eruption of lawlessness --- (oh gosh, actually it isn't lawlessness any more, now is it) -- or, I should say, to this kind of abrupt shift to a heightened level of state sadism; Well -- someone would bring charges!, one assumes. Or: someone would sue! Or: surely the ACLU would do something!

But seriously, I ask you to consider: What would indeed happen as a countermove if a US justice of the peace or a judge was rendered? The Bar Association would protest? Scary. Intimidating.

I raise this as an urgent matter in part because of a recent conference call I participated in with Hamid Khan, the head of the courageous movement of Pakistani lawyers and judges. In the call, which he made in spite of great danger to himself and probably to his family, there was a moment when he described the internecine warfare and factionalism of the opposition to Musharraf. In his voice was the tired, frustrated sound I have heard so often in this country when groups on the left JUST CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. No matter how urgent the need is. Whereas in Pakistan's case they were having trouble getting the anti-Musharraf forces to act together -- and there was so much at stake.

What became clear from that call is that we are fools to assume that if the government makes a dramatically violent move, which all the laws I have highlighted now make entirely possible, that anyone will know clearly what to do or how to implement what should be done in response. In Pakistan, it was clear, in spite of this powerful grassroots movement, no one had a clear Plan B when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and began rounding up the lawyers and arresting the judges. No one had an unquestioned leadership structure in place for the countermovement; no one had a subcontinent-sized phone tree or a nice big -- oh, nation-sized -- conference room in which to meet.

We need to consider this right now when we think about our own country: In a sudden sharp move on the part of the US government, even a `small' one such as this imagined scenario of the rendition of a handful of US judges, there is nothing a democracy is prepared effectively to do; that is the nature of democracy. There is no War Room for democracy; no one has an organizational chart detailing who would do what; no one would have a master strategy.

When people think about the many laws that invite this kind of overreaching now in the US -- the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51), for instance, that would give the President control over all branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- in the event of an emergency -- they just assume that, gosh darn it, WE WON'T TAKE IT. And it may well be that we wouldn't want to take it and we would be willing in great numbers to run to the ramparts. But here is what I have to report to you, that the conference call made clear, and my Pakistani friend would confirm this: in a crackdown, even in the best-case scenario, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE.

Many people have expressed faith in the Military. I am sure most of our military are patriots and cherish freedom; but who would direct a resistance to such an edict? What would be the chain of command? What about ordnance? Many people have expressed faith in the courts, but if they went after the judges -- just a handful of judges -- as they did in Pakistan, would the judiciary prevail? How? All closed societies have judiciaries; the judges just know which way to rule.

Many others assume the media will cover such a depredation and rouse people; well, ideally -- but just days ago we saw a curious blackout of a 60 Minutes report on Don Siegelman, the Democrat probably wrongly jailed in Alabama, by a TV affiliate with close ties to the White House.

Resistance? Sure, but how? The trouble with an aggressive move in any one of these directions on the part of the government is that THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren't surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don't.

So surely, better to roll back these terrifying laws. Just in case.

I have noted it is always true that societies that begin by torturing people at the margins end up torturing members of their own citizenry. Consider again: the Oscar-winning documentary for this year, Taxi to the Dark Side, which proves that any of us can become a monster torturer, following orders, and proves also that the edict to torture was systemic and came from the very top, won't be seen by most Americans. This is because the Discovery Channel bought it hoping to air it -- but then backed out. (Its affiliates have close ties to the military-industrial complex.) Will the Oscar win get it on the airwaves? Doubtful. Watch it somehow and drag all your friends to see it. Then consider that what happened to Dilawar, an innocent Afghani taxi driver, could happen to you or me.

When I went to see it in a theatre there were six people present. So America can't know in time what is being done to others to take steps to protect ourselves.

What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.

Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.

"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"

The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

Senator Clinton also opposed the law. In 2006 she said: "If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse." She gets the danger; many of her colleagues do too. But this issue requires bold language and action. Senator Clinton has not foregrounded the issue of the subversion of the rule of law in her appearances or speeches; and I am very VERY sorry to say that she did not oppose torture until she opposed it.

I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive -- in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men's souls -- and women's also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.

Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture -- always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well -- then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it.

Integrity has something to do with it.

That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.

And if I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else.

Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down.

Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America (Chelsea Green) and the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.

Comments

[speakingtruth2power]

Retroactive lawmaking is a popular thing among the Bushies

that's why in 2009, we should retroactively sign the ICC accords

making them all eligible for war crimes charges at the Hague!!!

[chordchaser]

Senator Obama voted for the Patriot Act, one of the most blatant attacks on our civil liberties in our history. Hope and change are nice; facts should also be relevant to your case.


While it is true he didn’t vote to give George W. Bush the authority to go to war, he also didn’t vote against that authority. He didn’t have a vote because he wasn’t Senator Barack Obama, he didn’t yet hold the office. This critical detail is conveniently overlooked by the media, and by Senator Obama himself.


Making a speech against the war is one thing, being in office and actually voting is another. No one is sure what Barack Obama would have done had he been eligible to vote, not even Obama.


Conversely, and at every opportunity, Senator Obama has voted to continue funding the war, in lock step with Senator Hillary Clinton.


It is my belief that those things you don’t talk about are as significant as those things you do talk about. Given Senator Obama’s health care focused campaign, why isn’t he talking about codex alimentarius?


Google codex alimentarius and learn the facts about the FDA’s role in this insidious attack on our health freedom. “We Become Silent” is a 30 minute video which will give you the basics, google it and learn.


Speaking of the FDA, I see this referenced here in the comments, and because it is directly related to civil liberties, I must address this.


Americans consistently defend the FDA, the IRS, the Dept. of Education, and a long list of other departments of the federal government.


The inference in these comments is generally this: Anyone advocating the elimination of the FDA must be a half-wit and/or conspiracy theorist. I find they do this with no factual basis, only a belief that this is somehow not open to discussion. It is a foregone conclusion.


This is a process of analyzing issues learned in an educational system run by the federal government.


While you’re looking up codex alimentarius, be sure to pay close attention to the relationship between the FDA, the WTO, and the medical industrial complex.


Regarding the dept of education: The Constitution is not taught in any meaningful way in our public schools. I give you the widely held belief that the president has the authority to declare war.


It’s much easier to take away your rights if you don’t understand them, and therefore cannot defend them.


What are your income tax dollars used to fund? If you can’t explain this, and few Americans can, what exactly are you basing your opinion about the IRS on?


Learn the facts before you repeat commonly held beliefs that are, in large measure, myths perpetuated by its beneficiaries.

[JulieSA]

Both Clinton and Obama would ty to take away your Second Amendment rights, if they thought they could get away with it. Fortunately, they learned that the people won't stand for that, but that's the only thing keeping them from trying.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Brilliant dissertation Naomi, Brilliant.

It is refreshing to see a woman be so intellectually objective instead gender of biased.

My respect for you has grown precipitously, thank you for your clear and important observations during this critical time in our countries history.

[CindyMax]

. . . fit to be an American president.

Gender has nothing to do with it.

Race has nothing to do with it.

Integrity has everything to do with it.

Integrity. Constitutional scholar. Fit to be an American president. That's Barack Obama.

[deminmo]

Just a little sarcasam, in the post above. Yes I know there are two Naomi's.

[deminmo]

Ms. Klein I would like to say thank you. I am reading "Shock Doctrine",­.Between the
horror, there is the absolute rage, then I start trying to tell everyone they really have
to pay attention to what Bush is doing. Unfortunately, I have this sick feeling Bush
will declare a National Emergency and Martial Law and the elections will be a fond
memory. We do need immediate action by citizens, lawmakers, everyone to stop
Bush and his policy. However, I am a little surprised that you are supporting
Obama. Aparently some of the Capitalist "think tanks" are also talking to Obama,
and he has said he supports free trade and capitalism. How he will change
trade policy in reality, we just have to guess at. I hope you are right. But at this
point I don"t know if I can fully trust either Democratic candidate to protect
Constitutional rights.

[Hattie]

Oops. Wrong Naomi.

[diamndpeace]

I'm very disappointed in you Naomi. Yes, I barely know you, but I thought you actually cared enough about the Constitution and the rule of law to either vote for the obvious choice or sincerely support the candidate of your choice. Barack Obama is not a defender of the Constitution by any means. He voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, he considers voting "Present" a sufficient opposition to unconstitutional legislation, he's introduced no legislation to restore our liberties or reduce the power of the executive branch and he fully subscribes to the "living document" theory. He may be champion of the people, champion of African Americans or champion of fancy speeches, but he's no champion or defender of the Constitution.

The only way I could have any renewed respect for you is if you admit to misleading us for personal reasons. If you sincerely desire a larger welfare state, socialized medicine and more government regulation then say so! If you sincerely desire a return to the rule of law and the preservation of our liberty then say it loud, say it proud, say you support Ron Paul.

[mthespian]

Uh, Present on unconstitutional legislation? Surely you're not another one of those folks who've become confused by the Clinton propaganda into believing he's voted present in the Senate? There's no such thing as a present vote in the US Senate. If the vote existed in the Senate and was used similarly to send a bill back for reconsideration, I have little doubt many Senators would use it. Sadly it isn't an option.

Barack voted for the modified Patriot Act. Hillary supported the unmodified version. As Naomi said -- the difference is clear in the Democratic Primary. True Ron Paul voted against all versions and that is to be lauded. if I didn't disagree with him on so many other substantive issues, I might have considered him. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter. He's running as a candidate of the Republican Party and he can't win their nomination.

[diamndpeace]

No, I meant he voted "Present" while working at Denny's. Come on. He was an Illinois state legislator and voted "Present" 139 times supposedly in some kind of protest.

As for the reauthorization it was definitely better, but not good enough. He even admits it was less than ideal, but he voted for it anyway just to "get something done". The reauthorization included sneak-and-peak searches (legalized breaking and entering) and roving wiretaps (nameless & numberless). There's no grey area there, it's still a clear violation of our rights.

[ProfessorGee]

You make a good case for your support of the Senator from Illinois. But I am not persuaded. I understand that your prefer Obama to Clinton and that you really, really believe that "leadership" is an important consideration for you. Yet, I'm not convinced that anything other than "personal preference" is going to determine who is the next POTUS. While there will be some who stay home and not vote because they can't stand the idea of a woman or a non-white being president, what is exciting is that the voters in the 21st century have some clear choices in this election. As a Black American female I'm now convinced that this century is more likely to elect an African American male as president before a woman. In fact, I can't think of another woman who is in the pipeline to make a run for the presidency. I prefer Hillary. She'll make a great president and become a new member of an exclusive club that includes 16 other countries which are lead by women. Obama will get another chance. Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to become POTUS!

[thinkbridge]

You expressed my own vacillations on this issue. I think the election results reflect this being torn between two attractive possibilities. That point "Obama will get another chance" keeps haunting me even though at first I was drawn to Clinton, because she seemed less likely to keep us up to our ears in wars. Then others persuaded me that Obama would do better against McCain, and he has a way of inspiring a wider audience, and Hillary is considered by many to be a divisive figure, not because of her performance in the Senate but because of her First Lady history with Whitewater, etc., which dirty Republicans will possibly bring up. It's that pragmatic thing.

[FANDRAL72]

Naomi Wolfe is always good for a laugh.
"8 years of peace and prosperity" under the Clintons?
Wolfe probably supported NAFTA in the hopes that the price of Gucci bags would go down.
The greatest obstacle to real meaningful change are the left wing gate keepers like Wolfe. I don't have a firm opinion on Obama, but his hanging out with Zbig isn't a good sign. Wolfe has a lucrative running schtick an how the Neo-cons are stealing our civil liberties, but she is curiously reticent about the complicity of the Clintons and Gore in the consolidation of media, the privatization of prisons, NAFTA,...E­TC. The lie of the left wing gatekeeper is that the Republicans are the sole authors of our misery. Wait until we get a Dem POTUS. We will see an acceleration of the erosion of our freedoms , and a consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the elites. And gatekeepers like Wolfe will scold us into compliance­..........­..........­..

[mthespian]

When I read your next to the last sentence, I'm forced to believe you've confused the Republican and Democratic agendas.

[sdczen]

Everyone needs to ask themselves (this includes you Naomi). "Will any of the 'leading' candidates roll back the erosion of our civil liberties for the last 95 years?" The answer to that question is No, they won't. They all were for the Patriot act, Military commissions act, the Iraq War (in one form or another) etc....

Obama is a good looking, smooth talking man that has somehow convinced a large portion of the public that he is different than anyone else. The simple fact is that he is the same; He is part of the Status Quo, he's just wrapped up in a prettier package.

I have a bad feeling that this will end up being the "I told you so" decade, and Naomi's own top 10 list of fascist behavior will come from the very person she voted for. Wake up!

[warispeace]

Um, have you ever heard of Dr. Ron Paul??? Do some research before you make sweeping generalizations. Ron Paul voted against all those things you mention, and a lot more. He has never voted for anything that was not in strict compliance with the Constitution. And yes, he would absolutely restore our civil liberties. There is someone who deserves our support. Ron Paul.

[Pyrum]

warispeace, I agree with you, but I also feel the need to point out Ron Paul is not considered by the mainstream media to be a "leading" candidate. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. I will campaign for Ron Paul until he gets the republican nomination or drops out of the race, and I will vote for Ron Paul no matter what happens, even if it means I have to write him in, but I have no illusions the mainstream media is going to have a change of heart when it comes to Ron Paul.

[newunderground]

Ron Paul has excellent, maybe the best foreign policy and civil liberties policies. His economic libertarian policies would be a disaster. No pollution laws? No FDA? No thank-you.

[Blue08]

Thanks for educating us about the torture... it must stop. Obama is a world citizen and has the gravitas to be President. I voted for him and I think he will be a force for good, which our country so needs.

[tish]

Naomi,

Sorry to hear you've joined the boy's club. You Obamatans want to pin all that is bad with the current state of affairs on Hillary. The truth is that Obama has flipped flopped on the war, since he--as a Senator--has voted continually to fund it. This shows that he lacks the courage of his convictions and that he keeps his finger to the wind when it is convenient for his career.

I will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee--I'd rather vote for McCain.

[Fabienne]

Tish, the fact that you will not vote for the Democratic nominee if he is not the candidate of your choice makes you an example of democracy in action. Though I support Obama, I applaud everyone who will not vote for someone simply because he or she is the chosen candidate of a political party. Only independent thinking will save our country.

However, as for boys' club, I think Senator Clinton can lay claim to be a member in good standing. Fight rather than negotiate is one of the main ideas of the patriarchy.

[mthespian]

Making that voting mistake is your right.

For me, voting to give food, medicine, and ammunition to Americans in harm's way is much different than voting to put them there. Voting to put them there because you're afraid to look soft on terror -- that's someone who works for political convenience.

For me, a Senator who will stand in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church and say that the African-American community needs to embrace gays and immigrants as brothers doesn't sound like someone with his finger in the wind.

[MIHOP]

"Naomi - Sorry to hear you've joined the boy's club."

First, this is NOT, for the majority of us, a boy-girl issue.

Second, Obama has half of the women's vote...

[mutron]

For many people this race is NOT about race or gender. For myself, one of the reasons I will not vote for Clinton is because she has not released her tax returns. That to me is a huge red flag.

[Mollye]

I did not vote for Barack Obama...an­d will never vote for Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination, I will write her name in (if allowed to do so) or not vote.

[mansky]

But late than never.