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

[Selam]

As a black and feminist man – I had to ask myself a lot why I support Obama. It is not an easy road to embrace someone, and dump the other but I had to weight the benefits that we will all share by voting from my heart. At times, identity politics is very important. Knowing who you are helps you to transcend, to make you feel comfortable with yourself but sometimes you can get stuck there.

Obama is beyond identity politics. You have to be brave to get where he is – it doesn’t come easy but it is not impossible only if we get out from our comfort zone.

I can see Naomi’s position, a feminist woman voting for, Obama, a black man, would that be a betrayal to her gender? Like myself, a black man, voting for Obama, does that make me a racist or separatist? No.

I’m voting for Obama because I want to help him for what he stood for, and for his vision. If I had a better candidate woman, than Obama, I would vote for her. Right now, he is the only one who can help us to clean the mess.

Brava Naomi!

[truthiness]

Like you I find myself labeled a bad feminist for supporting Obama.

She voted for the war. In the biggest judgment call of her political career, she gave the worst President in our history the authority to wage war. I'm voting for Obama.

[Fabienne]

And Senator Clinton continues to play the patriarchal game by saying she will not talk to leaders of countries with which she disagrees. Right. Let's just keep our failed Cuban policy in place for another 40 years.

[milosarah]

Wonderful and convincing post except for the last paragraph- a feminist, if a man can be one, does not say about a fellow candidate for the nation's highest office "Periodically when she is feeling down..." a dog whistle designed to remind men that she is after all, just a hormonally unbalanced woman.

[Ice9]

Apparently a dog whistle at a frequency so high you are the only one hearing it.

[Palomares]

"Believe me, the rest of the world is agog at our inaction as what makes us Americans is being set aflame."

Naomi, my militant feminist dear, your statement above is a broad stroke, plus it is simply not so. I live outside the U.S., and I see little of this agog-ism that you describe.

[LongBeachDave]

I also live outside the US...Chile­, in fact...and it is rampant here. The Chilean people are simply frustrated, angry and amazed at the arrogance of this administration, it's disdain for the rule of law, and the toleration of American citizens to let them get away with whatever they want.

[Countess]

Thank you for pointing out that real femminists should not define people on the basis of gender. I totally agree with this. The best candidate deserves our support and thank you for standing up for our freedoms.

[Bad actor]

With this country in the sorry state that we all know it is, why do we not get Al Gore to accept a draft ? He stands head and shoulders above anyone else who has shown an interest in the job. I don't know anything about Obama; however, I am convinced that he could not be elected due to his close association with Rezco and others close to the sub-prime loan problems.

[Fabienne]

Al Gore doesn't want to run! He has said repeatedly that the state of politics today is disturbing to him and he doesn't want to be part of it. And, though he has not endorsed anyone, he said absolutely at the beginning of the campaign that he would NOT endorse Senator Clinton, and it is on record that he speaks with Obama frequently.

[Neaguy]

Neither you nor Obama get it. This administration has trashed the Constitution. Other than Feingold and Kucinich, hardly anyone else has tried to do anything about it Congress.

The Democrats, including Obama, have no credibility as a party.

Time to vote Nader, again.

[patriotscholar]

I believe that Chris Dodd got it. It was also one of his talking points.

[slw0606]

You are totally free to cast a protest vote and that is all your vote for Nader would be. He has zero chance of being elected.

The good news is he will not be an electoral factor in the 2008 election like he was in Florida 2000.

So let Nader run and let people support him. It will make both feel good.

[23000Days]

You can't possibly believe that Nader can do ANYTHING, given Kucinich's losing valiant effort, but the wonderful thing about America is that you can throw your vote away if you wish.

[Fabienne]

Feingold would make a great president. He is the best the Senate has to offer (admittedly, that's not saying much).

[TitaniumAvatar]

Naomi, Thank you for coming out in support of Obama.

Keep up the good fight.

[KQuark]

Thank you for being a true patriot that knows the ideals of our constitution and rule of laws should be defended not the brutes who take our "inalienable rights" away. In the fear first environment we live in today it is very hard to take an ethical stance on things that would be seen as purely anti-American just a few short years ago. Please know that most Americans applaud your efforts even if a loud minority wants to rape the constitution for political power or xenophobic purposes.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Great post. I've been pro-Hillary, but would gladly support either in the GE.

Last week, I sat through the 47 minute YouTube video of Naomi Wolf giving her End of America speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

I don't scare easily, but she scared the crap out of me. For which I thank her. America is indeed under attack. From WITHIN.


Great post re 10 steps to close down an open society:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

[KQuark]

Thanks for the link I will check it out when I get a chance.

[itmaybetoolate]

Obama, a Constitutional scholar, has not shown any leadership on the impeachment of george bush. Is this because he doesn't believe bush's behavior does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense? If that is the case, your argument is no longer valid. If he does believe bush acted in a manner that warrants impeachment, why hasn't he called for it? Political expediency? Again, if this is the case, we cannot rely on him to turn back the clock on bush's actions. Do you have a response?

[timinhi]

And meanwhile, BOTH Obama & Clinton have said on the record that they would continue the practice of using "signing statements," made infamous by GWB and insuring the further dismantling of the Constitution.

[KQuark]

Signing statements are not evil in themselves. Bush made them evil by the way he used them to subvert the law. Bill Clinton and presidents before him used signing statements to instruct the specific executive branches how to enforce the law. I believe there needs to be some kind of Judicial or Legislative oversight of signing statements to make sure they are never misused again.

[itmaybetoolate]

doesn't believe bush's behavior does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense? should be doesn't believe bush's behavior rises to the level of an impeachable offense? Editor needed!

[factanonverba]

I just lost all respect for you Naomi. Sorry but you are wrong.

[DLSteinhardt]

Great to see you as such a powerful voice for progressive causes this year, darling Naomi, old friend.

David Steinhardt
vidhardt.blogspot.com

[WilliePilgrim]

While I don't always agree with your point of view, I will admit that your awakening to the current threats and abuses to the Constitution are right on target and well put. I wonder if Obama for all his insight sees that this stems from a powerful-hungry and unrestrained executive branch and if he will work to bring it back into proportion to the other branches while making transparency in legislation a norm instead of the occasional glimps of smoke and mirrors we now get to see? . Will he throw the ring into Mr Doom?

[clevelandchick]

Naomi,

I saw Obama in Cleveland last week and he talked directly about restoring habeas corpus, not giving telecoms immunity for spying on Americans without a warrant, and the fact that as a Constitutional Law Professor and Civil Rights lawyer he will fight to restore the Constitution.

I was an Edwards supporter and to be honest, he never addressed those issues in any speech I have seen. And neither has Hillary, in fact in some of her speeches she has used fear of terrorism as a tool to disparage Obama. Like we'd get hit and he wouldn't know what to do. I expect he will as much as she; but I also expect that he would not use such an occasion to trample the Constitutions or civil liberties. I am not so sure that she wouldn't, she has always been more of a hawk than most Dems.

Now, Obama had an adoring crowd that night and he could have just given the same old speech on hope without discussing the MCA or habeas corpus - he didn't need to do so to please the crowd but he touched directly on many of the issues you speak of in your post today.

That really cemented my support for him. He's the only candidate that has addressed civil rights and the Constitution. And if there is any real threat to the United States at this moment, it is the risk of becoming a fascist state - as you have so eloquently illustrated.

[OSUMercutio]

Agreed. While I was happy to see Edwards apologize against his war vote, he seemed less inclined to go back on his vote for The Patriot Act.

[itmaybetoolate]

"I saw Obama in Cleveland last week and he talked directly about restoring habeas corpus,"
What has taken him so long? And what does he have to say about the man who took HC away?

[JAJ2007]

It's part of his standard stump speech - He's been talking about habeus corpus for at least 6 months if not a year. Go back and watch some of his older speeches on You Tube

[clevelandchick]

Look - I haven't even watching Obama for a whole year. I started out supporting Edwards. This was probably the first speech of Obama's I've seen in it's entirety.

Actually Bush didn't take HC away - Congress gave it away.

[KenTao]

Goddess bless you, Ms. Wolf. Onward and upward. Yes WE can!

Earthlings Unite!