Obama's New-Old Police State

Candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform that railed against the unitary executive--especially the Bush administration's attack on civil liberties in the form of such acts as warrantless wiretaps. Now however, it seems President Barack Obama's Department of Justice is not only continuing the Bush adminstration's alarming tactics, but has plans on expanding it even further. Welcome to Barack Obama's new-old police state. When we've collectively finished up the koo-laid and "ooohing" and "awwwing" over Michelle's wardrobe, we might stop to ask ourselves if this is the change for which we campaigned, donated and voted.

More after the fold...


It's been building now for a while. Lost in the mainstream news behind mega-billion dollar bank bailout outrage and significant victories like the closing of Guantanamo, the Obama administration's justice department under Attorney General Eric Holder has been engaging in some questionable legal tactics.

As mcjoan notes over at dailykos:

In the past three months, in three separate cases, the Obama DOJ has used the same arguments that the Bush administration Justice Department used to attempt to stop judicial review of extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping.

Mcjoan points out that in the Mohamed v. Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case, the Obama administration used the Bush administration argument of "state secrets" to have the case dismissed. In the Al-Haramain v. Bush, a wiretapping case , Obama's DOJ invoked the Bush administration defense of "state secrets" again, to actually block access to information that could expose warrantless wiretapping. And now, mcjoan points out, the entire legal defense for illegal wireptapping is expanding.

Late Friday, the Obama DOJ actually went the Bush administration one argument further, in a third case. In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is "suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The Obama administration filed its first response to the suit Friday, demanding dismissal of the entire suit.

It seems to many that the Obama DOJ, in its arguments, is going out of its way to protect the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which has been accused of sweeping up masses of American citizens in a wiretapping dragnet. Further, the Obama DOJ argues that only "willful violation" by a government agent on any warrantless wiretapping would create a liability to the US. This effectively means that unless the government voluntarily provides information that it has been spying on you, it is immune from any legal action. The Electronic Frontier Foundation goes as far as to call Obama's illegal spying program "worse than Bush."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com examining the Obama DOJ brief concludes something similar:

Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

So the presidential candidate who campaigned on protecting civil liberties, is not only refusing to go after the Bush administration's illegal activities but attempting to push the invasion of privacy upon American citizens to new heights? What in the name of COINTELPRO is going on?

For some like Newsweek's Howard Fineman, it is an Obama administration attempting to placate a fickle intelligence community:

Obama and his people in the White House do not want to antagonize the intelligence community because they need them to support them in the War on Terror and to get the President's job done in the world right now.

As Fineman puts it, the Obama administration is making this Faustian pact for larger motives--throwin civil liberties under the bus rather than reining in his intelligence community. But that doesn't seem to explain everything, something Fineman himself readily admits, as he points out a more troubling motive, one that many warned cheerleading Republicans during the Bush administration's power grab: no president is going to want to give up or return privileges granted, or seized by, a former president.

Glenn Greenwald warns that these are all basic elements of the unitary executive theory espoused by Bush and Cheney, refashioned for a new administration:

What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior.

Mcjoan echoes much the same summary and warning:

It's difficult to read the administration's brief in any other way than a reinforcement--even an inflation of--the unitary executive, or to attribute it to Bush holdovers. This is first of the cases in which the DOJ attorneys aren't carrying over arguments from the previous administration--they are initiating this case. And it appears that the promises of last summer and fall when FISAAA was being argued were pretty damned empty.

Of course, for the Obama DOJ, this may be perfect timing. Just as the American populace was reeling from the attacks of September 11th and easily pliable to accept or simply turn a blind eye to an assault on its civil liberties, so might an American citizenry beaten down by a spiraling economy, two wars and (for some) still drunk in euphoria over the Nov 4th victory, lull itself into a type of complacency as its government shifts and changes the Constitution to its liking. This must be what Naomi Klein meant by "shock" and those who would take advantage of it.

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

--Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)


Some useful links:

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
http://www.eff.org/

Electronic Privacy Information Center- Wiretapping
http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/

Obama, the ICRC Report and ongoing suppression
It is impossible for Obama to end the dark Bush/Cheney era if he is the prime agent preventing disclosure and accountability.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Media News Roundup- Sunday May 13th to Sat May 19th

Media News Roundup- Sunday May 13th to Sat May 19th





Keeping an eye on the failing Fourth Estate and looking for some TRUTH in journalism.

FOX’s Brit Hume uses debunked pro-torture “ticking time-bomb” scenario in second GOP debate—and instantly “doubles Guantanomo.” Large media outlets underreport the Bush administration’s bizarre strong-arm tactics against a bed-ridden former Attorney General John Ashcroft—all in the name of domestic spying. Glen Beck claims racist and sexist shock jocks under attack by “leftist witch hunt.” Bright spots of the week: Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! interviews historian and journalist John Ghazvinian, author of Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil. Media Matters releases report on how the overwhelmingly “white” and “male” Sunday Morning Talk shows shut out everyone else from discussions of politics.


Brit Hume’s Pro-Torture “Ticking Time Bomb” Scenario “Doubles Guantanamo.”

During the second May 15th GOP presidential debate, Fox News' Brit Hume uncritically used the long debunked “ticking time-bomb” scenario, a hit on shows like 24 often used to justify torture, or what was euphemistically deemed at the debate—“Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.” Hume posed a hypothetical situation where an impending terrorist attack is thought to be known by a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. Pretending this “ticking time-bomb” scenario is a legitimate one, Hume then asked the candidates if such acts as “waterboarding” should be used to extract information from the detainee. In the most colorful answer of the night, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stated:

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists—and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States—not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

His words were met with thunderous applause from the largely Republican crowd. Neither Brit Hume, Mitt Romney or any other GOP presidential hopefuls present, explained exactly the difference between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation technique.” Waterboarding, incidentally, has long been defined as a form of torture.

ABC/CBS Ignore Drama-Filled Wiretapping Hearing and Testimony.

Like something out of an Oliver Stone film, former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's May 15 congressional testimony told a bizarre tale in which the Bush administration sought to strong-arm a gravely ill former attorney general John Ashcroft to sign off on domestic spying wiretaps. As reported by Media Matters, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that current embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel, and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card, attempted to pressure the bed ridden Attorney General John Ashcroft, "at his [hospital] bedside ... to approve an extension of the secret NSA warrantless eavesdropping program over strong Justice Department objections even though Ashcroft was seriously ill," and did not have power as the attorney general during his recovery from surgery. Comey describes a scene of power struggles at the highest forms of government, in which was forced to hide behind FBI Director Robert S. Mueller from the men (Gonzales and Card) dispatched from the White House. Ashcroft however would have the final say on the matter. With his wife holding his hand, Comey said “Attorney General Ashcroft then… lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter,” refusing to endorse the administrations attempt to legitimize illegal wiretaps placed on American citizens.

Such high stakes drama within the halls of government would be expected to fill the news media headlines for days. But on the day the story broke, Tuesday May 15, only NBC’s Brian Williams donated a segment to it on the Nightly News. Neither ABC or CBS covered the event, although it was generating discussion all across the blogosphere. As late as Thursday May 17, neither major news outlet had picked up the story on either their evening or morning news broadcasts. It would be left to NBC, on both the Today Show and the Nightly News, to continue the coverage.

CNN’s Glenn Beck Claims He and Other Shock Jocks Under Attack from “Leftist Witch Hunt.”

CNN’s right wing commentator Glen Beck, known for a series of inflammatory and insensitive comments, lamented that he and other shock jocks—under fire for racism and sexism—were the victims of a “leftist witch hunt.” During his interview by host Kiran Chetry, Beck’s own sordid history of racist and sexist comments, were never addressed. Neither for that matter, were the actual inflammatory words of shock jocks like Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh presented as actual examples of what critics oppose. In the recent past Beck has referred to Hillary Clinton as a “stereotypical bitch;” asked African-American Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to “prove… that you are not working with our enemies;” and called anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute."

Bright Spots

From the Thursday, May 17th, 2007 broadcast of Democracy Now!

"Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil"

A little known fact: the United States today imports more oil from Africa than from Saudi Arabia. More than $50 billion in foreign investment in African oil is expected over the next three years. What has this oil boom meant for Africa's ordinary citizens? Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales on Democracy Now! interviewed John Ghazvinian, a journalist who has written for publications including Newsweek, The Nation and Time Out New York, who has authored the book Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil, which compares the global competition for the continent's oil resources to the nineteenth century scramble by Europeans for colonization.

Transcript/Audio:

Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil


From a report by Media Matters for America

Sunday Shutout: The Lack of Gender & Ethnic Diversity on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows

Not only are the Sunday morning talk shows on the broadcast networks dominated by conservative opinion and commentary, the four programs—NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday—feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

For full article/study:

Sunday Shutout: Sunday Morning Talk Shows Lack of Diversity

Read More...

Summary only...