Phil Carter Leaves the Pentagon
| Wed Nov. 25, 2009 10:40 AM PST
Earlier this morning I said that whenever I settle down and take a serious look at the policies Barack Obama has pursued so far, "nine times out of ten" it's pretty much what I expected. Among big-ticket items, the biggest one-time-out-of-ten where he's not doing what I expected is in the area of detainee and civil liberties issues. Glenn Greenwald wonders if this is what led to the abrupt resignation of Phil Carter the other day:
I have no idea what actually motivated Carter's abrupt resignation, but here's what I do know: so many of the detention and other "War on Terror" policies Obama has explicitly adopted were the very same ones which Carter (as well as Obama) repeatedly railed against during the Bush years, in Carter's case primarily in blogs he maintained both at The Washington Post and at Slate. Whatever else is true, the policies Obama has adopted in the last six months in the very areas of Carter's responsibilities were ones Carter vehemently condemned when implemented by Bush.
Last week, the Obama DOJ announced that it would deny trials to several Guantanamo detainees and instead send them to military commissions....announced two weeks ago that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whose case originated as a criminal investigation with the FBI, would now be turned over to a military commission for prosecution....use of the "state secrets" privilege as a means of evading vital constitutional and other legal questions.
....Following Greg Craig, this is now the second high-profile resignation of a relatively devoted civil libertarian in a short period of time. Combine that with the still-missing-and-unconfirmed Dawn Johnsen, and all of this leaves those who are indifferent or hostile to civil liberties values — people like John Brennan and Rahm Emanuel — with even fewer counter-weights than before.
I don't have any special insights here either. Maybe Phil was disappointed in Obama, or maybe he really did resign for personal reasons. There's no telling. But it's a disappointment either way, as is Obama's unwillingness to fight harder for civil liberties. The shoals of reality have just proven a little too rocky.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Shoals of reality?
Submitted by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 12:52 PM PST.
Obama's actions on this appear to be wholly determined by the shoals of politics, if Time's recent rather shocking piece on Greg Craig's fall and departure is to be believed.
I don't know why he left either, but this post supports a face-value reading of his statement:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/why-phil-carter-left-the-pentagon/
Whatever Carter's reasons for resigning, Greenwald's point remains -- nobody's in place to stand up to the bedwetters. Almost makes you wish for a President with a background in constitutional scholarship & some kind of personal stake in civil rights.
Landmines
Submitted by BobB (not verified) on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 2:15 PM PST.
Add to this the disappointing news that the State Department announced yesterday that they will not change their policy of refusing to support the treaty banning the use of landmines. This leaves the U.S. in the company of Russia, China and India as the few remaining holdouts.
this president becoming that president
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 5:53 PM PST.
I hope Rahm and the rest of the, especially Mr. O, have read and remember Animal Farm.
i hope the rest of us remember it, too.
What will it take to reverse this position?
Submitted by DevilDog on Thu Nov. 26, 2009 12:08 AM PST.
Since the election, Kevin, you've often said that no one should be surprised by what Obama is doing, because it was all right there in the stump speeches, ads and press releases attendant to his campaign. Now you say, ". . . whenever I settle down and take a serious look at the policies Barack Obama has pursued so far, "nine times out of ten" it's pretty much what I expected."
Really?
It's not at all what I expected. I don't recall him saying he was going to whimp out on the public option, or that he was going to cave in to Wall Street and the financial and insurance industries (and appoint their minions--Summers and Geithner), or that he would cut deals with Pharma. He did say that he was against mandates requiring everyone to purchase insurance. I guess that campaign attack on Hillary looks a bit hollow now.
It's very hard to find many occasions when Obama has stood up for the middle class and taken a stand against the corporatocracy in all its manifestations that exploit the average American. He certainly didn't position himself as the champion of agribusiness and other big campaign contributors, but that's where he's come down on a regular basis.
With a few exceptions, like Henry Waxman, Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur, our Democratic majority in Congress has been even more disappointing.
devil dog, lacking the gift
Submitted by howard (not verified) on Thu Nov. 26, 2009 8:23 AM PST.
devil dog, lacking the gift of foresight, obama didn't say that he was going to wimp out on the public option (not that it would matter if he didn't: he can't create 60 votes in the senate for the public option no matter what he says), but he did say that he would support FISA immunity. that was the day that it became clear that he was a centrist first and foremost, and if you didn't grasp it then, it's not obama's fault.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
