Last week's controversy over Obama's assassination program forced into light many ignored truths that were long obvious
By Glenn Greenwald
This past week has been a strangely
clarifying political moment. It was caused by two related events: the leak of
the Justice
Department's "white paper" justifying Obama's
claimed power to execute Americans without charges, followed by John Brennan's alarming
confirmation hearing (as Charles Pierce wrote: "the man
whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say whether or not
the president of the United States has the power to order the extrajudicial
killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United States").
I describe last week's process as "strange" because, for some reason,
those events caused large numbers of people for the first time to recognize,
accept and begin to confront truths that have long been readily apparent.
Illustrating this odd phenomenon was
a much-discussed
New York Times article on Sunday by Peter Baker which
explained that these events "underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has
embraced some of Mr. Bush's approach to counterterrorism, right down to a
secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside
forces." It began this way:
"If
President Obama tuned in to the past week's bracing debate on Capitol Hill
about terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have
recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of them
himself.
"Four
years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds
himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of
force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has
sacrificed the country's core values in the name of security."
Baker also noticed this: "Some liberals acknowledged in recent days
that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long
as they were in Mr. Obama's hands, not Mr. Bush's." As but
one example, the article quoted Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor
and fervent Obama supporter, as admitting without any apparent shame that "if this was Bush, I think that we would all
be more up in arms" because, she said "we trust the
president". Thus did we have - while some media
liberals objected - scores of progressives and conservatives
uniting to overtly embrace the once-controversial Bush/Cheney premises of the
War on Terror (it's a global war! the whole world is a battlefield! the
president has authority to do whatever he wants to The Terrorists without
interference from courts!) in order to defend the war's most radical power
yet (the president's power to assassinate even his own citizens in secret,
without charges, and without checks).
Last Week's
"Revelations" Long Known
Although you wouldn't know it from
the shock and outrage expressed over the last few days, that Barack Obama
claims the power to order US citizens assassinated without charges has been
known for three full years. It was first
reported more or less in passing in January, 2010 by the
Washington Post's Dana Priest, and then confirmed
and elaborated on by both the New York Times and the
Washington Post in April, 2010. Obama first tried to kill US citizen Anwar
Awlaki in December 2009 (apparently before these justifying legal memoranda
were concocted) using
cruise missiles and cluster bombs; they missed Awlaki but
killed 52 people, more than half of whom were women and children. Obama finally
succeeded in killing Awlaki and another American, Samir Khan, in October 2011,
and then killed
his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman in a drone strike two weeks
later.
That Obama is systematically
embracing the same premises that shaped the once-controversial Bush/Cheney
terrorism approach has been known for even longer. All the way back in
February, 2009 - one month after Obama's inauguration - the New York Times'
Charlie Savage reported
that "the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's
approach to fighting Al Qaeda" and
that this continuity is "prompting growing worry among civil liberties
groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies"
(I actually wrote
at the time that Savage's alarmist conclusions were premature
and overly pessimistic, but subsequently told him how right, even prescient, he
turned out to be). In April, 2009, the Obama-friendly TPM site announced
that "Obama mimics Bush" when it comes to assertions of
extremist secrecy powers. In June, 2010, Obama's embrace - and expansion - of
many of Bush's most radical policies had become so glaring that ACLU Executive
Director Anthony Romero gave a speech to a progressive conference and began by proclaiming
himself to be "disgusted with this president",
while Bush's most hawkish officials began
praising Obama for his "continuity" with
Bush/Cheney policy.
That many Democratic partisans and
fervent Obama admirers are vapid, unprincipled hacks willing to justify
anything and everything when embraced by Obama - including exactly that which
they pretended to oppose under George W Bush - has also been clear for many
years. Back in February, 2008, Paul
Krugman warned that Obama supporters are "dangerously
close to becoming a cult of personality." In May, 2009, a once-fervent
Obama supporter, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, wrote a
column warning that Obama was embracing many of the worst
Bush/Cheney abuses and felt compelled - in the very first sentence - to explain
what should be self-evident: "Policies that were wrong under George W.
Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." The
same month, former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith - who provided the legal
authorization for the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program - went to the
New Republic to celebrate that Obama was not only continuing
the core Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism, but even better (from his
perspective), was strengthening those policies far beyond what Bush could
achieve by transforming Democrats from opponents of those policies into
supporters.
And exactly as Goldsmith happily
predicted, polls
now show that Democrats and even self-identified progressives
support policies that they once pretended to loathe now that it is Obama rather
than Bush embracing them. On MSNBC, Obama aides and pundit-supporters now do
their best Sarah Palin impression by mocking
as weaklings and losers those who think the President should
be constrained in his militarism and demonizing
as anti-American anyone who questions the military (in
between debating
whether Obama should be elevated onto Mount Rushmore or given
his own monument). A whole slew of policies that would have triggered the
shrillest of progressive condemnations under Bush - waging war after
Congress votes against authorizing it, the unprecedented
persecution and even
torturing of whistleblowers, literally
re-writing FOIA to conceal evidence of torture, codifying
indefinite detention on US soil - are justified or, at best, ignored.
So none of this - Obama's
assassination program, his general embrace of Bush/Cheney radicalism, the
grotesque eagerness of many Democrats to justify whatever he does - is at all
new. But for some reasons, the events of last week made all of this so glaring
that it could no longer be denied, and it's worth thinking about why that is.
What Made
Last Week's Revelations So Powerful?
What this DOJ "white
paper" did was to force people to confront Obama's assassination program
without emotionally manipulative appeal to some cartoon Bad Guy Terrorist
(Awlaki). That document never once mentioned Awlaki. Instead - using the same
creepily clinical, sanitized, legalistic language used by the Bush DOJ to
justify torture, renditions and warrantless eavesdropping - it set forth the
theoretical framework for empowering not just Obama, but any and all
presidents, to assassinate not just Anwar Awlaki, but any citizens declared in
secret by the president to be worthy of execution. Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee wrote
that the DOJ memo "should shake the American people to
the core", while Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman explained
"the revolutionary and shocking transformation of the meaning of due
process" ushered in by this memo and said it constituted a repudiation of
the Magna Carta.
In doing so, this document helpfully
underscored the critical point that is otherwise difficult to convey: when you
endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target
happens to be someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily
institutionalizing that power in general. That's why political leaders, when
they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always choose in
the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know
many people will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but
because they hate the person targeted. But if you cheer when that power is
first invoked based on that mentality - I'm glad Obama assassinated Awlaki
without charges because he was a Bad Man! - then you lose the ability to
object when the power is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders
you distrust), because you've let it become institutionalized.
This DOJ document underscored that
Obama's claimed due-process-free and secretly exercised assassinations powers
aren't confined to cartoon super-villain Anwar Awlaki but are now an embedded,
institutionalized part of the American political system going forward. That's
why it provided such a wake-up call for many even though these dangers have
long been obvious.
What also made this last week unique
was the reaction of the American Right. Progressives love to recite the conceit
that Republicans will never praise Obama no matter what he does. This is a
complete sham: conservatives, including even
Cheney himself, have repeatedly
lavished praise on Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney
policies in these areas. But this past week, they did so with such effusive
enthusiasm that the cognitive dissonance could not be ignored.
Supreme GOP warmonger Lindsey Graham
announced
his intention to introduce a Senate resolution praising Obama
for his assassination program. RedState's Erick Erickson wrote a
Fox News column denouncing civil libertarians and defending
Obama: "we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a
gathering of al-Qaida from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the
right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us
safe." Michelle Malkin criticized her own staff for attacking Obama and
wrote: "On this, I will come to Obama's defense."
Others vocally defending Obama included John
Bolton, Peter
King, Newt
Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.
These are not just Republicans. They
are the most extreme, far-right, warmongering conservatives in the country. And
they are all offering unqualified and enthusiastic praise for Obama and his
assassination program. In our political culture, where everything is viewed
through the lens of partisan conflict and left-right dichotomies, this lineup
of right-wing supporters is powerful evidence of how far Obama has gone in
pursuit of this worldview. That, too, made the significance of last week's
events impossible to ignore.
But the most significant factor was
the behavior of many Democratic pundits and self-proclaimed progressives. Given
how glaring all the assembled evidence was of Obama's dangerous radicalism,
they faced a serious dilemma: how to fulfill their core purpose - defending
Obama no matter what he does - while maintaining a modicum of dignity and
intellectual coherence?
Some of them, like MSNBC host Touré
Neblett,
invoked the language of John Yoo to outright defend Obama's
assassination powers on the ground of presidential omnipotence: "he's the
Commander in Chief", he intoned. But the explicit submission to
presidential authority necessary to justify this was so uncomfortably similar
to Bush-era theories, and the very suggestion that MSNBC commentators would be
saying any of that if it had been Bush's program rather than Obama's was so
laughable, that this approach provoked little beyond widespread ridicule.
A slightly different approach was
chosen by the Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, a supremely loyal Obama acolyte.
He wrote a whole
column devoted to pronouncing himself "suspicious of
high-horse denunciations" because the question here is such "a
complicated one". It's so "complicated", he says, because he's
"always written about politics with part of [his] brain focused on the
question of what [he] would do if [he] were in Politician X's position".
As Reason
quickly documented, Tomasky's tone on such matters was
radically different during the Bush years. But the most important point is that
the excuse Tomasky offers for his leader - it must be very difficult to be in
the Oval Office and get these reports about Terror threats and not take action
- is exactly what Bush followers said for years would happen once Obama or any
other Democratic president got into power. Indeed, every debate in which I ever
participated on Bush/Cheney terrorism policies involved their supporters making
exactly the same argument Tomasky makes in defense of Obama: if you knew what
Bush knew, and faced the hard choices he faced, you would do the same thing to protect
the country: it's easy to condemn these things when you're not in power.
That is why, as I have written
many times
before, Democratic partisans owe a public, sincere, and
abject apology to George Bush and Dick Cheney. It's certainly true that Obama
has not continued many of the policies progressives found so heinous: he hasn't
invaded Iraq or legally authorized waterboarding. But Obama has completely
reversed himself on so many of the core criticisms he and other Democrats made
about Bush and Cheney regarding the need for due process for accused
Terrorists, the dangers of radical secrecy, the treatment of Terrorism as a war
on a global battlefield rather than a crime to be prosecuted. And if Tomasky's
excuse is correct - empathy with the leader's need to Keep Us Safe shows that
these are much more complicated issues than civil libertarians claim - then he
and his fellow partisan soldiers should apologize, since that's exactly what
Bush/Cheney defenders said for years would happen once a Democratic president was
empowered.
The most honest approach to this
quandary has come from those, like Granholm, who simply admit that they would
vehemently object to all of this if it were done by Bush (or some other GOP
President), but don't do so because it's Barack Obama doing it. This same
astonishing confession was heard from MSNBC host Krystal Ball: "So yeah, I
feel a whole lot better about the program when the decider, so to speak, is
President Obama"; as Digby wrote
about Ball's confession:
"Glenn
Greenwald's been calling this out for years, but I defy him to find a better
example of the hypocrisy that drives him so crazy. Obviously, this is a fairly
common belief among those who believe the President they voted for is 'good'
and the one they don't like is 'bad' but it's rare that you see anyone boldly say
that they think the standard should be different for their own because well . .
. he's a better person. It takes a certain courage (or blindness) to come right
out and admit it."
Indeed. MSNBC's Chris Matthews decided
the program was justifiable because Leon Panetta goes to
church often and thus can be trusted.
On Sunday morning, MSNBC host Chris
Hayes devoted a full hour to Obama's assassination program, and before doing
so, he delivered an
excellent monologue addressing the many progressives who
complain any time he critically covers Obama's actions in this area. He cited an amazing
post by an Obama supporter who wrote: "I support
President Obama's drone attacks. And I admit
that I'm a hypocrite. If a republican administration were executing these
practices, I'd probably join the chorus to condemn them as unconstitutional,
authoritarian or worse".
About that, Hayes said:
"I
think this is probably the most honest defense of the program you'll hear from
liberals. They trust President Obama to wield broad, lethal executive authority
with care and prudence. And besides: it's war; would you rather, I am often
asked by supporters of the kill list, that we have boots on the ground, big
expensive, destructive deadly disastrous land invasions of countries like the
Iraq war? . . . .
"This
narrow choice between big violence and smaller violence shows, I think, just
how fully we have all implicitly adopted the conceptual framework of the War on
Terror, how much George W. Bush's advisers continue to set the terms of our
thinking years after they'd been dispatched from office. Because that argument
presupposes that we are at war and must continue to be at war until an
ill-defined enemy is vanquished. . . .
"The
Obama administration quite ostentatiously jettisoned the phrase war on terror from
its rhetoric, but it's preserved and further expanded its fundamental logic and
legal architecture."
In other words, Obama has embraced
and expanded the core premises of the Bush/Cheney global war on terror that
Democrats so vehemently claimed to find offensive, radical, a "shredding
of the Constitution". And they are now supportive for one reason and one
reason only: it's a Democratic president whom they trust - Barack Obama
specifically doing it - rather than a Republican president they distrust. That
is the very definition of vapid, unprincipled partisan hackdom, and it matters
for several reasons.
Why Progressive
Partisan Hackdom Matters So Much
The behavior and mindset of
Democrats (and self-identified
"progressives") is significant in its own right
because they are now the most powerful political faction in the US. By the time
Obama leaves office, they will have controlled the White House for 16 out of 24
years. When the current term of Congress ends, they will have controlled the
Senate for the last eight years and the House for the last four out of eight.
They exercise far more power and influence than the GOP and conservatives, and
their attributes are therefore worthy of discussion in their own right.
During the right-wing dominance of
the Bush era, progressives had little trouble understanding why right-wing
hypocrisy and leader worship were so dangerous. In early 2006, just a few
months after I began writing about politics, I wrote
about pervasive blind trust and leader-worship among Bush followers and
it was widely cited and cheered by progressives. Just marvel at how perfectly
applicable it is to many Obama-era progressives:
"'Conservatism'
is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as
'liberal' is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers
to a set of beliefs about government. . . .
"Indeed,
as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush
follower's 'conservatism' is no longer one that [subscribes] to a limited
federal government - but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the
powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him
absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our
protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or
his motives because he is Good.
"We
need no oversight of the Federal Government's eavesdropping powers because we
trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of
Bush's decrees regarding who is an 'enemy combatant' and who can be detained
indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and
who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush's ability to
exercise war powers, even against American citizens on US soil, because we trust
Bush to exercise these powers for our own good . . . .
"And
in that regard, [Bush followers] are not conservatives. They are authoritarian
cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong
authority through a single leader."
To many conservatives, Bush could
and should be trusted to exercise extreme powers in the dark because he was a
Good evangelical Christian family man with heartland cowboy values. To many
progressives, Obama can and should be trusted because he's a Good sophisticated
East Coast progressive and family man with urbane constitutional scholar
values. It's lowly reality TV viewing and rank cultural tribalism masquerading
as political ideology.
Beyond the inherent dangers of
fealty to political leaders for partisan gain, this behavior has a substantial
effect on the ability to fight radical government policies. Progressives often
excuse Obama's embrace of these extremist Bush/Cheney terror policies on the
ground that Americans support these policies and therefore he's constrained.
But that claim reverses causation: it is true that politicians sometimes follow
public opinion, but it's also true that public opinion often follows
politicians.
In particular, whenever the two
political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion
will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls
showed pluralities
or even majorities in support of investigations into Bush-era
criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping.That was because
many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led
them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those
investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and
joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them.
Obama didn't refrain from
investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse
was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against
them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when
Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism
policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated
that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities
switched and began
supporting them.
Progressive willingness to acquiesce
to or even outright support Obama's radical policies - in the name of partisan
loyalty - is precisely what ensures the continuation of those policies. Obama
gets away with all of this because so many progressives venerate leader loyalty
and partisan gain above all else.
What's most remarkable about this
willingness to endorse extremist policies because you "trust" the
current leader exercising them is how painfully illogical it is, and how
violently contrary it is to everything Americans are taught from childhood
about their country. It should not be difficult to comprehend that there is no
such thing as vesting a Democratic President with Power X but not vesting a GOP
President with the same power. To endorse a power in the hands of a leader you
like is, necessarily, to endorse the power in the hands of a leader you
dislike.
Like Bob Herbert's statement -
"policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because
Barack Obama is in the White House" - this is so obvious it should not need
to be argued. As former Bush and Obama aide Douglas Ollivant told the NYT
yesterday about the "trust" argument coming from some progressives:
"That's not how we make policy. We make policy assuming that people in
power might abuse it. To do otherwise is foolish."
It is not hyperbole to say that the
overarching principle of the American founding was that no
political leaders - no matter how kind and magnanimous they seem - could or
should be trusted to exercise power in the dark, without checks. Thomas
Jefferson wrote in 1798: "In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind
him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Six years earlier, John Adams
warned: "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government
ought to be to trust no
man living with power to endanger the public liberty." James
Madison, in Federalist 51, explained:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
This is not just basic American
political history. It's basic human nature. And the greater the power is - and
there is no greater power than targeting citizens for execution - the more
urgent those principles are. Watching progressive media figures outright admit
that trust in Barack Obama as Leader guides their unprincipled political
arguments is only slightly more jarring than watching them embrace that
mentality while pretending they're not. Whatever else is true, watching the
political movement that spent years marching behind the banner of "due
process" and "restraints on presidential power" and "our
Constitutional values" now explicitly defend the most radical policy yet
justified by the "war on terror" - all because it's their leader
doing it - is as nauseating as it is dangerous.
[My Guardian colleague, Gary Younge,
has a
provocative column from Sunday headlined: "Barack Obama
is pushing gun control at home, but he's a killer abroad"]
No comments:
Post a Comment