Greg Craig And Obama's Worsening Civil Liberties Record

[spiritual_gunfighter]

by Glenn Greenwald

Over at Daily Kos, Barbara Morrill complains that The Washington Post's Richard Cohen "is Karl Rove dressed up in pseudo-sadness" because -- according to her -- Cohen today "whines that the Attorney General announced that the United States follows the rule of law" by giving trials to 5 Guantanamo detainees. I don't disagree with Morrill's general assessment of Cohen, but his point today is actually the exact opposite of what she describes. Cohen wasn't accusing Obama of lacking moral clarity because he's giving trials to a few of the 9/11 defendants; rather, Cohen argues that the lack of moral clarity comes from denying trials to many, perhaps most, of the detainees, who will receive only military commissions or be subjected to indefinite detention with no trials:

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court, as if this were a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. What is the principle in that: What works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.

I point to this because it highlights an extreme logical fallacy coming from some Obama supporters ever since Holder announced the Guantanamo policy -- a fallacy that is the inevitable by-product of the administration's incoherent positions. In order to defend Obama, it's necessary simultaneously to embrace these self-negating premises:

(1) The Rule of Law and our core political values require that terrorist suspects like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed be given trials (as Morrill put it: "the Attorney General announced that the United States follows the rule of law");

(2) Obama is explicitly denying trials to many -- probably most -- of the Guantanamo detainees (as well as the "rendered" ones at Bagram), instead putting them before military commissions or, worse, indefinite detention with no charges;

(3) Obama should be praised as a courageous and principled leader because he's following the Rule of Law, which -- see #1 -- requires trials for terrorism suspects.

Isn't the core inconsistency of these premises obvious? Even Richard Cohen can see it. The administration's actual position -- we'll give trials to a handful of people we know we can convict and will continue to imprison them even if they're acquitted, while affirmatively denying trials to the rest -- is about as far from a principled or even cogent position as it gets. Worse, it's impossible to defend Holder's decision to give a trial to Mohammed by appealing to "the rule of law" given that many of the detainees are being denied trials. If (as Obama defenders insist) the "rule of law" requires trials, doesn't that mean, by definition, that Obama and Holder -- by using military commissions and indefinite detention -- are trampling on "the rule of law," not upholding it?

*snip*

Wow: that must have been quite an education. Don't he and his supporters owe George Bush and Dick Cheney a sincere apology for criticizing them all those years for these policies when, as it turns out, they were necessary and just all along?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/24/civil_liberties/index.html

[Techn0Girl]

1. Darn good article from Glen ...

Thank you for pointing me towards it!

[Moochy]

2. Perfect summary of the ludicrous position of the white house

"we'll give trials to a handful of people we know we can convict and will continue to imprison them even if they're acquitted, while affirmatively denying trials to the rest"

[spiritual_gunfighter]

4. Yeah that is basically it

it isn't too far removed from the Bush administrations tactic of throwing them down a black hole, even if they are found not guilty these guys aren't going anywhere.

[vaberella]

9. How are we imprisoning them if they're acquitted?

Obama did mention in his speech that there are prisoners who do pose a threat, a substantial threat based on the information they are given. However, due to the sloppy, inefficient, and ineffective way the Bush adminstration ran this entire situation some of the evidence will be inadmissable or in some cases just not around any more. Yet, the connection is there...in which case the problem lies into what we do about the prisoner. I mean I'm at a loss as to what we do with people who fall into this category. What would you want, just let them go? If we do there are several problems---which country will take them. We had to pay a nation to take people who were completely innocent because no other nation would nad their own nation would kill/torture them. We coud send them back to their nation which coud result in two things killing/torture by their government (which is just fuckin' inhumane---but as long as it doesn't deal with us anymore it seems the left might be okay with that) or they manage to enter the system they were already part of before.

Do you a see a win here or a logical move? What would you do?

[HamdenRice]

3. So: The announce they are following the rule of law, giving trials, which means they aren't?

These people have lost their minds. Greenwald's argument boils down to this: The Obama administration and Holder announce they are restoring the rule of law by subjecting the detainees to trials, but because they didn't announce the trial dates of all detainees immediately and or guarantee that some would be treated as prisoners of war rather than as criminal defendants, and suggest that there is going to be a process to try as many as possible that will take time, they are not upholding the rule of law.

This is not a rational argument. This is whining.

[Cha]

5. glen greenwald always has

to find some way to whine.

Throw some red meat to his followers.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

15. I made sure to put this quote in the front of the article

because Greenwald sums it up nicely here

Wow: that must have been quite an education. Don't he and his supporters owe George Bush and Dick Cheney a sincere apology for criticizing them all those years for these policies when, as it turns out, they were necessary and just all along?

Are you ready to apologize to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Cha?

[3waygeek]

6. Not quite...

he's mostly decrying the double standard. Some detainees will get civil trials, some get military tribunals, and others get nothing at all, with no consistent, clear standards as to how a specific detainee's fate will be decided.

Also, the restoration of the rule of law is only apparent -- if a detainee is acquitted in a civil trial, he won't be released. To the detainee, the outcome of whatever proceeding he undergoes will make little difference; either way, he's in US custody and kept away from his home & family.

[vaberella]

7. You do realize it's because this is due to the status of the prisoners right.

If my understanding is clear---these prisoner's were taken under different conditions and pertaining to different circumstances during the Bush admin. Taking that into consideration wouldn't they have to approach each prisoner respectively? Due to how they were captured, for what reason, and the information against them? So this is not so cut and dry as Greenwald is portraying it and I think this is one of the things that people seem to ignore or forget.

We are not knowledgeable on each prisoner and their circumstances----I get the feeling that AG Holder is following the law as he sees fit. However I get the distinct impression from the left is that they want Obama to release all the prisoners and just close Guantanomo. Secondly, if there is the issues Obama faces by those in Congress---he may be the final decision but there is a system each ruling must follow before it gets to him. We see this with the stall to close Guantanomo.

[Cha]

10. greenwald sees only

what he wants to see and passes on the talking points to the perpetually disgruntled.

Some saying Obama is just like bush bc he hasn't close Gitmo yet..yeah, it's that stupid.

[vaberella]

13. Exactly.

People are really pushing a black/white meme and there is a lot of information being passed around that we have no clue about---and then the debate is what about just demandig all classified information released---then maybe some here would shut up. Because I think there's a lot of nuance when it comes to this. Just by the information we get---I'm at a loss as to what to do.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Greenwald has become a master of the "exception proves the rule" logical fallacy.

n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Why would there be such a fallacy?

The exception does prove the rule.

Prove... like proving grounds. Like measuring the depth of water in a harbor, aka proving. Testing. Measuring.

The boundaries of a rule are the exceptions to the rule.

I thought that's what the phrase means, not proving like a mathematical proof.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Greenwald is saying that recent moves in the JD show Obama is weak on Civil Liberties.

His argument: civil liberties are suffering under Obama because KSM is getting a trial while trials have not been extended to other "enemy combatants".

This claim is akin to Rummy asserting that the increase in roadside bombs and US troop casualties in Iraq was evidence that the insurgency was desperate, in its last throes.

Of course, Greenwald may argue that Obama is not pure on civil liberties. But the fact that Holder is presenting KSM in a US court and applying "due process" is NOT evidence to that effect. In fact, it suggests the opposite.

Greenwald's case would be more sound if he had celebrated Holder's move with a huge caveat that "this should only be a start..." But that approach would run counter the whole "bash Obama first" modus operandi he's worked hard to cultivate.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Obama is pure on civil liberties! Just look at his strong defence of DOMA in the courts!

If that isn't pure bullshit on civil liberties, I don't know what is.

[vaberella]

12. Thank you, but many here seem to live by him.

This is one of the most challenging topics and I can tell you this is the one issue that really makes me not want to be Obama. Why? Because ths is where Bush put us in a shit position. There are prisoners who are just on the fence and I don't even know what the best move is. The left (Greenwald too) inadvertently push this Pontius Pilate move---as long as we do the right thing by us it doesn't matter what happens to the prisoner after what we do. See post #9 to see what I mean.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

16. On Thanksgiving

I am thankful for people like Glenn Greenwald.