Free Markets, Free People

Obama Administration – Forget That Habeas Thing, It Only Applies To Gitmo

Earlier in the week I pointed out that the Obama administration was defending their assumed right to continue the wiretaps they so roundly condemned when the Bush administration did them.

And, of course, we all remember the consistent condemnation by candidate Obama of Guantanamo Bay and the denial of habeas to prisoners there as a horrible denial of rights.

Of course that was then and this is now, and it appears what was considered a principled stand now appears nothing more than election year rhetoric.

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

But that was a mortal sin when BushHitler was in charge, wasn’t it?

Michael W explains the case here. Even Glenn Greenwald realizes there is no difference between the administrations on this question.

As Insty reminds us:

Yeah, it’s as if all that talk about the evil power-grabs of the Bush Administration was just insincere electioneering. What made those power-grabs evil, in Obama’s eyes, wasn’t that they were power-grabs. It was that they were by the Bush Administration.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

54 Responses to Obama Administration – Forget That Habeas Thing, It Only Applies To Gitmo

  • I don’t expect to hear much from the left about this. Oh, we’ll see some pro forma objections, but no real vitriol.

    My reasoning is that they got the main thing they wanted from Obama’s election: power. They see Obama working to put through their wet dream socialist programs, and they’ll forgive him a lot in other areas to get those.

  • Yeah, well, as regards all this,  I predicted this happening, back on January 21.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-obamas-anti-terror-policies-vindicate-bush/

  • Even Glenn Greenwald realizes there is no difference between the administrations on this question.

    Allow me to fix that for you McQ:

    Even Especially Glenn Greenwald realizes there is no difference between the administrations on this question.

    Glenn is not a partisan hack; he is first and foremost a civil libertarian. He will attack anyone in any political  party who violates the Constitution and civil liberties.  Some of the diehard Obamabots are turning on him, but this was not unexpected. They will no doubt have more reason to do so if President Obama continues to deviate from all the pretty civil libertarian language Candidate Obama spouted.

    • 1.  So who’d you vote for, Mona?
      2.  And when are you going to start criticizing him?

  • Mona’s back, what happened Glenn dump you or did his cheque’s bounce for a while?

  • I voted for Obama, but was never an ardent supporter, nor did I claim he was anything but another politician.   I excoriate Obama for all the same reasons Glenn, the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have been doing. On impt  civil liberties issues, Obama is Bush 44. (Tho I am still convinced that on these and foreign policy issues McCain would have been worse.)

    Some  people are consistent in their principles. Greenwald and I are both imperfect human beings like anyone else, but when it comes to calling out Obama on his violation of previously stated views and continuation of policies that Greenwald and I both abhor, we are making no exceptions for “the messiah.”

    • I voted for Obama … on impt civil liberties issues, Obama is Bush 44. (Tho I am still convinced that on these and foreign policy issues McCain would have been worse.)

      Imagine that – perhaps that problem is why many of us didn’t vote for either of them. For someone who abhors the actions of one she voted for I can only say, he doesn’t get the chance without you. How does it feel to be the enabler of what you abhor?

    • “I excoriate Obama for all the same reasons blah blah blah”
      Really? Where? Over at Jim Henley’s place, you’ve made a couple posts about the drug war and a tech bleg. Unless some other jackass has allowed you to suck up his bandwidth, you haven’t said a goddam word. You’re full of donkey fritters.

      • I’be been doing almost no posting in the last several months for health reasons. But I have endorsed Glenn’s dissing of Obama in his comments section, and have been ranting to my family about it. And, of course, I said so right here.

      • P.S. But my co-blogger, Thoreau, has been all over this — including linking to Greenwald and agreeing with him. To understate, T ain’t pleased with Obama.

  • Ever notice we never see Mona and Erbie in the same place?

    And Mona? Bull$#!+.

  • So many here never “got” Glenn Greenwald, and still do not. He is not left or right, and he does not care whom he offends in pressing a constitutional agenda. And now, because he is true to himself, he is losing some on the left who were delighted when his acerbic prose was directed at Bush/the GOP. Take, for instance, <a href =”http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/11/719016/-The-Fundamental-Dishonesty-of-Glenn-Greenwald#c193″>this Kos diary</a>:

    Here’s my bottom line:  Greenwald and several other lefty civil libertarians are absolutely unwilling to give the Obama administration the slightest benefit of the doubt and desperately want to hold the administration’s feet to the fire.  That is all well and good.  But it has become clear that Greenwald and his ilk are not honest critics of the administration but rather fierce, partisan advocates against the administration who will draw every possible negative inference against the administration and elide any exculpatory evidence.

    Glenn won’t and does not give a rat’s patooty about this (so far) substantial minority view of Obamabots. Whether Bush or Obama, he’s all about civil liberties and the Constitution. (Many liberals actually are furious with Obama on this issue.)

    Me too. And Bruce: I voted for him hoping he meant what he said. It is now clear that on at least some issues he did not. What are ya gonna do? Ron Paul was not electable.

    • Elections aren’t everything, Mona – sometimes integrity takes precedence.

      There was nothing in Obama’s rather thin resume that even hinted he’d be different.

      Just is his words. Words with nothing to back them. And millions, you included, put him in office on nothing more than vague promises.

      • No Bruce, on civil liberties Obama was not vague.  As a candidate he made strong statements about the civil libertarian issues I and others care so much about. He is not holding to those promises.

        I’m outraged,  Greenwald (who never came close to endorsing Obama is), and so are many liberals.  But what was the choice? I  gambled on believing Obama.  Anything else was a throw-away 3rd party vote or staying home.

        If there is no solution, then we are all fvcked.

        • All he’s ever been is a candidate. He’s done nothing of note in his life. And candidates will say anything to get elected. Politics 101.

          I know you understand that. I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you fell for this particular guy’s line.

          As I stated, he had nothing on his resume to back up his words. You can be as outraged as you wish, but it is you who chose to overlook the fact that Obama had never, ever done anything to indicate that his words were anything but mere words. Perhaps next time you’ll insist on some proof that your candidate has done something – anything – which indicates he has walked the walk and doesn’t just talk the talk as this one has done.

          You bought the pig in a poke, Mona, not me. Take comfort in the fact that you were among millions gulled by his smooth words which were meant only to allay your fears and court your vote long enough to secure office. Mission accomplished.

          As for “throw away” votes – look what you got for yours and tell me your vote didn’t end up being a “throw away” vote. You voted for a candidate who is diametrically opposed to almost every thing in which you believe, and in the one area you thought he was “the one”, the apparent point that made the difference, you allowed words, not deeds to sway you. It appears you’ll end up getting nothing you wanted and everything you didn’t.

          What was the alternate choice? Someone who might not win but for whom you could vote and after doing so actually sleep at night. Neither McCain or Obama were that candidate in this election (just as neither Bush nor Kerry were in the last, etc. etc.).

          Call me old fashioned, but I don’t vote for people who aren’t proven (Obama) and have no track record to judge. Words are just that – words. It is deeds by which candidates should be judged. And I certainly don’t vote for those who’ve trashed the Constitution (McCain). If that means I have to stay home, or instead vote for a third party which reflects my principles and ideals even if they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning – so be it. Integrity means more to me than casting my vote for someone with whom I disagree on 95% of the issues on the hope that he’ll be a little better than his opponent on the 5% in which I can find some minimal common ground.

          • McQ

            <blockkquote>You bought the pig in a poke, Mona, not me. Take comfort in the fact that you were among millions gulled by his smooth words which were meant only to allay your fears and court your vote long enough to secure office.</blockquote>

            I’m only 80% convinced  of that, and you may end up right. But he said he would reverse the policies of a lawless Executive.   So I voted for him.  McQ, have you never voted for a politician that failed to deliver? If so, god, you are in a small, select group.

          • Of course I’ve voted for a politician who failed to deliver. And I learned from that. As I said, it’s about deeds now, not words.

            Have you not yet learned to judge politicians by what they’ve done and essentially ignore what they say?

          • <i>Integrity means more to me than casting my vote for someone with whom I disagree on 95% of the issues on the hope that he’ll be a little better than his opponent on the 5% in which I can find some minimal common ground.</i>

            And if that remaining 5%  means retaining he core values of the Republic?

          • If it was that important too you Mona, you would think you’d have done the research necessary to determine whether or not he was actually committed to such values. Why is it some realized he was all words and no deeds and others, like yourself, seem to have been completely blindsided by such a revelation.

            What caused you to believe he meant what he said?

          • What caused you to believe he meant what he said?

            Who, prior to the November election, wrote that  Obama did not believe his vehement statements on civil liberties and made a case supporting that claim? Were you including a lot of that rather narrow area of critique in your pre-election criticisms of Obama?

            I know some on the right believed him — and were horrified at the prospect of his election in part because of that belief.

          • We pretty much did – we had looked into his background and found nothing to support his statements but plenty to cast doubt on them. Everyone else pretty much waved it all off.

          • We pretty much did – we had looked into his background and found nothing to support his statements but plenty to cast doubt on them. Everyone else pretty much waved it all off.

            Ok, but where did QandO write that there was good reason to believe that Obama was insincere when he claimed to thoroughly oppose the Bush 43 view on excessive Executive powers that attack crucial civil liberties? I know I read Obama’s U of Chicago colleegue, Cass Sunstein –  one of the few liberals who defended Bush’s extreme claims for Exective power — as saying that Obama called him and that he (Sunstein) could not convince Obama that Bush’s theories held merit.

            So where is all that data and writing I’m supposed to have known of that would have warned me Obama would not deliver on what I consider the crucial issues of the day?

            Obama is very smart– morons do not become editor  of the Harvard Law Review or get a teaching commission at U of C.  I don’t see his as a super-thin resume. Lincoln had less legislative experience or prestigious credentials.

          • Well Mona, you had to be a habitual reader of the blog, but we looked at every aspect of his previous associations as well as the fact he and “run nothing and done nothing” and concluded that his words were mostly soothing pap designed to make him appear to be the “anti-Bush” but with absolutely nothing to back them up.

            And no, morons don’t become Harvard Law Review editors, but if you had looked into that aspect of his life, he was mostly an absentee editor. In fact the euphemism was he was “working at home”. He’d stop by, glad hand a bit, but it was the managing editor who did most of the work.

            It honestly didn’t take that much digging to figure out the man was a fraud — there was plenty of evidence but you had to want to look for it.

          • And no, morons don’t become Harvard Law Review editors, but if you had looked into that aspect of his life, he was mostly an absentee editor. In fact the euphemism was he was “working at home”. He’d stop by, glad hand a bit, but it was the managing editor who did most of the work.

            Whether the “absenteeism” allegations re: his time as editor of HLV are true, I do not know — but I do know that one must be extraordinarily gifted intellectually to merit that position, and have worked hard to get it.

            In my strong opinion, the worst constitutional crisis of the last decade — and it did not begin w/ W, so I should say it had been a creeping crisis of decades that Bush/Cheney merely put on steroids — was the Executive arrogating the powers of monarch.  Obama was unequivocal in opposing and denouncing that, and so I voted for him.

            He lied. His statements were, to me, as pretty as Lincoln’s in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But he has abandoned them.

            And whatever else is true, many of us who voted for him based on those pledges — including myself, Greenwald, Digby and many other liberals and libertarians — are shrieking mad about it. Not treating Obama as this god who gets excuses for what he does because he’s the Second Coming. (Do compare and contrast with the years of right-wing pundits and bloggers who defended Bush to the bitter end, some of whom still do.)

            And no, Bruce, Obama is no Goldwaterite — but neither are the neoconservatives who now dominate conservatism, nor was W. I do hold some hope that Obama will not escalate the war in the ME to Iran, and that he will deal with health care in a more Cato-like fashion than Hillary would have.  Also, that he won’t appoint to SCOTUS  judges like Alito who never met an Executive power grab they did not like. But I remain disgusted with him.

          • “Lincoln had less legislative experience or prestigi0us credentials.”

            Both statements at first glance are true but what of Obama’s accomplishments?  The fact that he was a community organizer, state legislator, a harvard law review editor, constitutional law professor, or a US Senator are all very impressive but what did he accomplish in all of these oh so important and impressive positions?

            Lincoln’s experience was meager when comparing his to Obama when you only considered positions held.  But his accomplishments as a lawyer are the stuff of legend even today.  And his debates with Douglas can be held up as shining examples of the democratic process of debate.  His time in the legislature was meager but not without merit or accomplishment.

            Build me an Obama resume.  Can you provide a single opinion he authored as a law review editor?  Can you provide me with a single accomplishment as a community organizer – not just on which boards he served on but what was accomplished while he served.  Can you provide a single opinion he authored as a constitutional law professor?  Can you provide evidence that he was an accomplished state legislator – author of successful bills benefitting the people of Illinois?  (To counter 130+ incidents of voting “Present”)  Can you provide any legislation of note authored by Obama as a US Senator?

            I have been in many postions where I was a responsible hiring official for the company I was currently a part of and have read literally hundreds of resumes.  The positions a person has held carried no weight at all unless it could be backed up with accomplishements worthy of the name.  And that was what McQ meant that was waved off by the rest of the country.

          • Build me an Obama resume.  Can you provide a single opinion he authored as a law review editor?  Can you provide me with a single accomplishment as a community organizer – not just on which boards he served on but what was accomplished while he served.  Can you provide a single opinion he authored as a constitutional law professor?  Can you provide evidence that he was an accomplished state legislator – author of successful bills benefitting the people of Illinois?  (To counter 130+ incidents of voting “Present”)  Can you provide any legislation of note authored by Obama as a US Senator?

            What did impress me is that as a Harvard law grad and editor of  LR,  as well as being back, the biggest firms in the nation would have hired him and put him on fast-track to partner making millions. He didn’t choose that route — he went back home to work for his community. To me, that spelled integrity and passionate dedication to principle.

            Even now, he could have a much nicer portfolio had he  sold himself to the highest firm bidder.

          • “His statements were, to me, as pretty as Lincoln’s in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.”

            How could they be?  Lincoln backed his statements up by action and deed.  He let his vote and his party leadership speak as loud as his voice.  These are definable actions.  Can you point to Obama’s past and show him doing the same?

            “. . the biggest firms in the nation would have hired him and put him on fast-track to partner making millions.”

            Even the biggest lawfirms in the nation require results.  And results come from hard work – not posturing and speechifying.  Can you show me Obama’s resume where hard work was in evidence?  (Note: You can’t even show me his grades because they have been cloistered.)

            “To me, that spelled integrity and passionate dedication to principle.”

            It is all well and good but integrity and passionate dedication to principle does not equate to accomplishment and that is the point we are and have been trying to make.

          • Even the biggest lawfirms in the nation require results.  And results come from hard work – not posturing and speechifying.  Can you show me Obama’s resume where hard work was in evidence?  (Note: You can’t even show me his grades because they have been cloistered.)

            Are you effing serious? One does not land as editor of law review at Harvard without every big firm wanting you — you CANNOT have the grades (meaning hard, hard work) to get to that point unless you are both very brilliant, and willing to put  in the time. Not as a 1L almost anywhere, and certainly not at Harvard. pffft

          • Logic you can show me – but evidence?  Sorry counselor - what you have given me won’t stand up in court.

          • One does not land as editor of law review at Harvard without every big firm wanting you — you CANNOT have the grades (meaning hard, hard work) to get to that point unless you are both very brilliant, and willing to put in the time. Not as a 1L almost anywhere, and certainly not at Harvard.

            Really? So how is it then that he ended up as a copy-editor at a NY firm that put out financial newsletters? That is if “every big firm” wanted him?

          • I recall plenty of bloggers and commenters who predicted that Obama would change his tune just as soon as he was presented with actual responsibility for his words and actions.  As far as “making a case” is concerned, not so much, as his (lack of a) resume precluded that.

          • If it was that important too you Mona, you would think you’d have done the research necessary to determine whether or not he was actually committed to such values. Why is it some realized he was all words and no deeds and others, like yourself, seem to have been completely blindsided by such a revelation.
            What caused you to believe he meant what he said?
            Cass Susntein. As well as the fact that most of the legal writers here, like MichaelW, don’t even accept the legitimacy of Boumediene. Where was the trove of research supposedly available to me to determine Obama’s insincerity, Bruce?

            Did QandO explicitly state that Obama would abandon habeas corpus (as long as it was done at Bagram rather than Gitmo) and  go along with Bush 43 on warrantless wiretapping & etc.?
            I saw no reason to disbelieve him, and given some of the hysteria in wingnuttia accepting what Obama pledged, every reason TO believe him.

          • Specifically – no. We said he was all talk with nothing to back up his talk and that past associations didn’t lend themselves to believing his words were at all credible.

            Seems pretty spot on right now, doesn’t it?

          • Specifically – no. We said he was all talk with nothing to back up his talk and that past associations didn’t lend themselves to believing his words were at all credible.
            Seems pretty spot on right now, doesn’t it?
             
            No. Not unless you BOTH disagreed with his unequivoval civil libertarian stmts and argued  with suupport why they were not credible.

          • Mona – you can argue this all day long, but it appears our skepticism (based on his past associations and his dearth of accomplishments in the areas that so concerned you) about the man was correct and your embracing of him based only on his words wasn’t.

            Kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

        • As a candidate he made strong statements about the civil libertarian issues I and others care so much about. He is not holding to those promises

          Amazingly, few here even thought they were promises.  We looked at his record – such as it was – and knew his words for what they were.

          Lies.

          Were you not quite so dense, you might have seen the same.

    • “He’s country, and he’s rock and roll…  He’s Donny, and he’s Marie…”

    • Whether Bush or Obama, he’s all about civil liberties and the Constitution.

      In fact, Glenn’s such a fan of free speech, he invents people to agree with him in comment threads…

  • BTW, I HATE the lack of preview feature here. I have tag issues, as must be obvious  in my comments. Previews is my friend!

    • And if that remaining 5%  means retaining he core values of the Republic?

      If “core values of the republic” are a mere 5% of your views, I don’t think you understand the whole concept of civil liberties.

    • Mona, use the HTML button if the WYSIWYG features aren’t working for you.

  • So many here never “got” Glenn Greenwald, and still do not.

    Well, let’s see. He’s the most intellectually dishonest blogger on the web. Yep, I’d say that about covers him.

  • He is not left or right, and he does not care whom he offends in pressing a constitutional agenda.

    Well, I’ll give you this; You’re correct in so far as Greenwald not caring who he offends. As for the remainder… aha.. So THAT’S why he went so far out of his way to label Bush an “extremely conservative” pol. Right? Yeah, sure. The fact of the matter is that he is/was anything but conservative, both in terms of international policy and the war and domestic policy with regards to government largess. No more was his father, for that matter. I had W tagged as a centrist at best in a column I wroteon my site in 1998, when it looked like he was ramping up… and his father as such in ’79, in a column I wrote for the old GT net. Alas, those are both lost to time, now. But if I could see such, why can’t Greenwald? Mostly because of his ideological myopia. Ya see, that’s another piece of reality Obama and his supporters (And that, until a month after the election included Greenwald) dare not address, and why the policies of Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama are so similar. Mr. Bush was far more liberal in most things than Obama and his supporters will ever dare admit. As I said in the column I link above, Obama was just hoping nobody would notice.

    • You clearly have not read much Greenwald; having edited two of this three books, I am very familiar with his position on whether Bush is a conservative. It is basically this:

      Bush is not remotely conservative as that term used to mean, in the Goldwater sense. He is not about small or limited government. BUT, in the sense that self-identified contemporary conservatives (see most of the  Fox News personalities, The Corner, or the Weekly Standard,) and neo-conservatism was embodied in Bush, conservatives embraced him as their own until his popularity sank so low, conservatism was imperiled by being seen as coterminous with Bushism.  That is, the major movers and shakers in the contemporary conservative movement lauded him. Some, like Fred Barnes, wrote books that are positively worshipful. Until Bush became reagarded as a failure by the public.

      So, Greenwald’s position is that Bush is conservative as that movement has come to be predominatly understood and self-promoted. But not in the Goldwater sense.

  • My God…hypocrisy AND thievery from The Clown™ and the Clownettes™. Shocking, shocking, shocking.

    Next you’ll tell me that The Clown™ doesn’t know what to do when it comes to North Korea, Iran, or the Somali pirates, or that he might bow before the man who controls Mecca and Medina.

  • Mona, did the release of the sealed court records of Obama’s rivals, Jack Ryan and Blair Hull, cement your faith in Obama’s fidelity to civil libertarianism?

  • Personally, I think Glenn Greenwald is neither left nor right. No, he is a totally objective, hard-nosed writer who has a New York Times bestseller and whose work was read on the floor of the Congress. And everyone except Mona is very jealous of his stunning work and notoriety.

    Good day, sir!

  • Rick Ellensberg? Heh. Even notice we never see him and Mona in the same place?

  • Can you show me Obama’s resume where hard work was in evidence?  (Note: You can’t even show me his grades because they have been cloistered.)

    That grading is blind, as it was at my law school.  There is zero reason to distrust it.  You can’t obtain my grades from Notre Dame, either. My first semester I was in competition for law review. But w/3 kids, I had to let that goal go. ND won’t tell you anything  about my grades, either.

  • You know, this is the second President in row who tricked Mona.  May you should just stop voting, Mona.

  • Shorter Mona: “I was gullible enough to be taken in by Obama’s paper credentials. Why weren’t you guys that gullible, too?”