Greenwald - Civilian trials and the so-called "rule of law"

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/05/rule_of_law/index.html

"I was wondering if someone could reconcile these three things:

....

...The reality is that the Bush administration used a discretionary multi-tiered justice system for terrorism suspects: they gave civilian trials to some, put others before military commissions, and held the rest indefinitely without charges. That's exactly what the Obama administration's policy is. Back then, virtually no progressives claimed that the Bush administration was "upholding the rule of law" by granting civilian trials to some terrorism suspects and denying them to the rest. How can it possibly be the case that the Obama administration is upholding "the rule of law" when, to use Benen's words, it is according rights to terrorism suspects "the same exact way the Bush administration did" (albeit with some improvements to the military commissions and some new discretionary guidelines to use for who gets a civilian trial and who does not)?

....As Baker notes, the "tone" Obama uses to talk about these things is different (and that, in my view, matters). Moreover, Obama explicitly banned several Bush policies that were already discontinued by the time he was inaugurated ("enhanced interrogation techniques," CIA black sites, circumvention of Congressional statutes on detention and surveillance). And, though Baker does not note this, Obama has also recently taken some potentially meaningful steps to increase government transparency. But as Adam Serwer has explained, the most important point of Baker's discussion is that there are very few real policy differences between the two administrations in these areas, and Dick Cheney's embittered attacks on Obama (and the media's obsession with them) have done a favor for the administration by casting the false appearance that there are...

Indeed, as demonstrated by the progressive praise of Obama for "upholding the rule of law," the most significant consequence of his first year in office, in the area of civil liberties, is that -- with a few exceptions (most notably torture) -- he has transformed what were once highly controversial Republican "assaults on the Constitution" into bipartisan consensus which both parties now embrace, thus ensuring -- as Baker put it -- "that much of the Bush security architecture is almost certain to remain part of the national fabric for some time to come, thanks to Obama." Thus, a President who imprisons people with military commissions or even no charges at all -- and constantly invokes secrecy claims to shield the Executive Branch from judicial review over allegations of lawbreaking -- is now hailed -- by progressives -- as a stalwart defender of "the rule of law."

[Don Caballero]

1. Greenwald is a member of the Blame Obama for Everything crowd

He sprinkles a tiny bit of truth into his vitriolic attacks on the President.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Please explain...

It seems to me that Greenwald's assessment is pretty solid. In fact, he blames the Bush Admin for the policies still in effect that severely erode our freedoms and Obama/Dem leadership for not challenging or eliminating them.

Also, I did not find "vitriol" in Greenwald's piece. It seemed rational, sober and easily referenced.

[Don Caballero]

5. Ever since President Obama came into office

All of Greenwald's pieces and TV appearances are attacks on the President. He really comes off as a Right leaning Libertarian type.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Greenwald's advocacy for civil rights have not changed

from the Bush admin to the Obama admin. You confuse attacking a president with attacking policy.

[Don Caballero]

7. In order for President Obama to change the policies of

his predecessor, he must have support from this base. When people like Greenwald and Hamsher attack him, they derail the progress made on reversing the Bush policies. Support for our President should be our number one priority. Not sniveling critiques of his so called "failures".

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Support for our President should be our number one priority.

Is that really your position?

What if Obama's policy was to lock up and torture your dear old mother or precious child or beloved aunt etc.?

How about if Obama gets a wild hair and launches a surprise attack on Canada (They'll never see it coming!)?

As Dean Wormer said lo' those many years ago, "fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son!"

[slipslidingaway]

12. Oh my! ...

"...Support for our President should be our number one priority..."

:think:

[Luminous Animal]

13. Support for the Constitution and the rule of law should be...

our number one priority. President's come and go. And I believe the word you meant to use was "shrill".

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I agree that you are confusing attacking policy with attacking Obama

It would be helpful if you could explain your statement about Greenwald sprinkling half-truths in this piece. If I am missing something that supports your assertion, please point it out! Cheers!

on edit: It is true that Greenwald is attacking Obama in the sense that Obama now has some ownership of these horrendous assaults on our freedoms and the rule of law.

[malaise]

14. No he is not

On the other hand there are people who show not one iota of objectivity.
If you think Obama will get away with the crimes that Bush and Cheney perpetuated think again. I hope he knows that puss and dog don't have the same luck.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. It is an American tragedy!

Greenwald is right when he offers that these horrendous policies will not go away for a long time BECAUSE Obama did not address them.

It is looking more and more like the election of Obama was merely a national tranquilizer for Americans while the same people call the shots. BushCo seems to have achieved their goals of planting the seeds of true authoritarian government in America. Obama is merely the temporary gardener making sure the seeds don't die until BushCo decides it is time for taking the reigns of power back. Make no mistake, electing Obama did nothing to lessen their grip on the levers of power in certain areas.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Completely agree with your assessment ... thanks. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

17. I agree completely.

Whether Obama was in on it or not -- I could go either way.

[shadesofgray]

18. +!

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

11. Thanks :) n/t

[clear eye]

15. Progressives aren't the ones hailing those positions as "the rule of law"

though many centrist Dems do. Glenn needs to read more of his email, if he really believes that. Otherwise I agree w/ his analysis.

[slipslidingaway]

16. He cites examples in his article, what label people attribute to them...

is open to interpretation.

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

19. evening kick n/t