Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully

Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully by Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com

I always liked the music of the Talking Heads. Right now, I've got that voice going in my head saying

"Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was ..."

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

Same as it ever was. Did you think you voted for Change?

If the Obama administration refuses to prosecute criminal acts that occurred in the previous administration, and if they assertively act in the courts to try to protect and shield those who committed crimes in the previous administration, then that makes the Obama administration an accomplice to those crimes.

No grey area here. You either prosecute torturers, or you protect and shield them. The Obama administration has come down quite clearly on the side of the torturers and is acting to protect and shield them.

Not only is this highly immoral, but its also doing terrible things to the nation. First, it means that any slow down (not a halt, just backing off a bit) of the Obama administration with regard to torture is temporary at best. That's because the Obama administration is sending a clear message to people who serve under future administrations. That is that the law will not be enforced in this area. If a future President feels that torturing other human beings (such as the recent revelations that people's genitals were being sliced), then they can look back on the Obama Administration and feel safe in ignoring the real laws of the land and the world that forbid such torture.

And secondly, the Obama administration is sending a general message to everyone on all fronts, whether it be theft or fraud or kidnapping or murder or torture, that crimes will not be prosecuted. The message is clear that there is no opposition party in this country, and no dedication to a rule of law, therefore, anything goes. If you are a criminal in the guise of a public servant or defender, then you don't need to worry that a change of the party in power might expose you to prosecution. Such criminals are obviously considered to be part of the team, and the protection of such criminals ranks as more important than protecting the nation, the Constitution, or the impartial rule of law in America.

From Glenn Greenwald ...

That's what Barack Obama is now shielding from judicial scrutiny. Those are the torture victims he is preventing from obtaining judicial relief in our courts. And he's using one of the most radical and destructive tools in the Bush arsenal -- its wildly expanded version of the "state secrets" privilege -- to accomplish all of that dirty work. I've been as vigorous a proponent as anyone for waiting to see what Obama does before reaching conclusions about his presidency, but this is a very real and substantial act

and ...

At the end of 2006, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick listed the Bush administration's "10 most outrageous civil liberties violations" and it included this:

6. The State-Secrets Doctrine

George Washington's warnings and U.S. policy towards Israel

George Washington's warnings and U.S. policy towards Israel by Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com

This article touches on some extremely important points.

But it becomes even more striking in light of the bizarre fact that the consensus view -- that America must unquestioningly stand on Israel's side and support it, not just in this conflict but in all of Israel's various wars -- is a view which 7 out of 10 Americans reject. Conversely, the view which 70% of Americans embrace -- that the U.S. should be neutral and even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally -- is one that no mainstream politician would dare express.

In a democracy, one could expect that politicians would be afraid to express a view that 70% of the citizens oppose. Yet here we have the exact opposite situation: no mainstream politician would dare express the view that 70% of Americans support; instead, the universal piety is the one that only a small minority accept. Isn't that fairly compelling evidence of the complete disconnect between our political elites and the people they purportedly represent?

And, we've seen this in other areas of US government policy. Mr. Greenwald goes on to mention the Iraq war, but you could also talk about single-payer healthcare, US foriegn policy in general, an economic policy that bails out only the rich, the impeachment and arrest of government officials who break the law and other topics as well.

Why is this the case? I could talk a lot about money and politics. Or the corporate owned media that pretends not to present a view tilted towards corporate power. But the real key seems to be this. The United States is the most powerful country on earth. Control of the government of the United States leads to the control of a great deal of power and the ability to create, or steal, more wealth and more power. Is it any wonder that the people of the United States have lost control of their government?

With the value of hind-sight, one can see that it would have been a great struggle anyways for the people of the United States to have kept their control of such a powerful instrument. It seems obvious that the powerful and the greedy would attempt to seize such power. Only a vigilent and strong effort of the people could have kept this from occuring.

Instead we see people gladly divide into two camps to support and put into power corrupt politicians from two parties who's only real goal is to seize that power for themselves. We see people who gladly believe anything that is said by anyone from the party they support. We see people gladly believe any party slogan, whether its 'Change' from Obama or that the Republicans support 'Freedom'. We see politicians gladly lie during the campaigns, as Obama so freely admits he did (he calls it 'heated rhetoric during the campaign'), and we see legions of party supporters cheer him on while he does it and later applaud him for admiting he lied to seize power.

Few seem to realize that all of this behavior is destroying America. All of this is putting into powerful positions corrupt politicians who will gladly steal the wealth of the nation and put its people at risk. And, of course along the way, they'll ignore the wishes and opinions of the vast majority of Americans who really do love their country and care about their country. They'll send these loyal Americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they won't listen to their opinions. They'll send the jobs of loyal Americans overseas to raise the profits of their corporate sponsers, but they won't listen to their opinions (do you still remember Obama, talking to a bunch of rich contributors in CA, mocking the unemployed of PA?).

In this particular case, two things are happening. One is that five to ten billion dollars is being given to Israel every year. We are paying for this. And ask yourself this question, could we use that money at home this year? Could five to ten billion help stop some foreclosures and stabilize real estate markets? Could five to ten billion help keep some manufacturing jobs afloat in this country?

And ask yourself this as well. Its a pretty fair bet that the people of Gaza and the rest of the Arab world know who is paying for this and who is supplying the bombs. We've all seen the horrific scenes where people frantical try to dig through rubble to rescue survivors. We know it here in America from Oklahoma City and 9-11. In Gaza this week, as they dig through the rubble, they'll find bomb fragments with English writing on the side. Do you think they'll have any doubts about where these bombs came from?

So, the other question to ask is this, do you think the odds of a suicide bomb attack on random Americans just went up or down? Do you think anyone might strike out at the death of a family by attacking the people who made the bombs and sent them to the people who used them to kill that family? By some percentage, all Americans are a little less safe today.

America has had a hand in committing a vast outrage that has killed hundreds of people, wounded and maimed over a thousand, and a sickingly large percentage of those people were just innocents subject to a deliberate act of violence to try to change political policy. We built the bombs and we supplied them. We paid huge sums to create the military and the state that dropped the bombs. And we've issued many statements of support to those that dropped the bombs and killed the people.

Our government doesn't seem to listen to us when we say this shouldn't be occuring. But there is also no doubt that the vast majority of Americans just voted for the two political parties that are both nearly unanimous in their support of these acts.

And, even for myself, who didn't cast a single vote for either of these parties this time, I still have to ask if I'm doing enough to stop this. If I'm not, then how much of this blood is on my hands as well?

The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash

The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash by Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com

Important because in this one case it exposes news outlets you can't trust not to print propaganda, reporters you can't trust not to print propaganda, and specific items about these stories that point to them being propaganda.

The backlash from the "intelligence community" over John Brennan's withdrawal -- which pro-Brennan sources are now claiming was actually forced on Brennan by the Obama team -- continues to intensify. Just marvel at how coordinated (and patently inaccurate) their messaging is, and -- more significantly -- how easily they can implant their message into establishment media outlets far and wide, which uncritically publish what they're told from their cherished "intelligence sources" and without even the pretense of verifying whether any of it is true and/or hearing any divergent views:

Gen. Hayden and the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments

Gen. Hayden and the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments by Glenn Greenwald on salon.com

Until five weeks ago, I literally never heard anyone claim -- in either party -- that it was irrelevant who the President appointed to his Cabinet and other high-level positions. I never heard anyone depict people like the Defense Secretary and CIA Director as nothing more than impotent little functionaries -- the equivalent of entry-level clerical workers -- who exert no power and do nothing other than obediently carry out the President's orders.

In fact, I seem to recall pretty vividly all sorts of confirmation fights led by Democrats over the last eight years (John Aschroft, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Hayden, Steven Bradbury) -- to say nothing of the efforts to force the resignation or dismissal of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Gonzales -- that was based on exactly the opposite premise: namely, that it does matter who is empowered to lead these agencies and departments, and specifically, that their ideology not only matters, but can, by itself, warrant rejection. Nobody ever claimed that Ashcroft, Bolton or Hayden were "unqualified." It was their beliefs and ideology that rendered them unfit for those positions, argued Democrats.