Chris Floyd: "Shock Absorbers: Progressives Stunned by Obama Non-Surprises"

[scarletwoman]

Shock Absorbers: Progressives Stunned by Obama Non-Surprises

There is certainly a great deal of slack-jawed shock going around these days, especially in progressive circles, where pundits, commentators, analysts and kibitzers continually find themselves reeling from yet another "inexplicable" move by the Obama Administration to uphold the core principles of their predecessors: enriching the rich, extending the empire, and enhancing the authoritarian power of a thoroughly militarized state.

For example, Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton at Harper's (among many others) are deeply shocked by Team Obama's draconian maneuvers to quash a court case based on clear, abundant and credible evidence that American security forces -- and their corporate accomplices -- colluded to inflict horrendous tortures on a gulag captive (whose only "crime," it turns out, was reading a satirical magazine article). While Horton struggles to find some small justification for what he sees as an unwise decision, Greenwald is scathing and detailed in denouncing Obama's action, in which the new president seeks to uphold -- and to seize for himself -- some of the most egregious claims of arbitrary, tyrannical power once advanced by George "Unitary Executive" Bush.

It is good to see these worthy gentlemen -- lawyers both -- give us chapter and verse on this act of evil, yet one still must ask: why all the surprise? From the beginning of his presidential campaign to this very day, Obama has always made it perfectly clear -- as another great unitary executive used to say -- that he has no intention whatsoever of dismantling the unbridled powers of the "imperial presidency." He has also made it clear that he would not prosecute Bush and other top government officials who created and supervised blatantly illegal systems of torture, warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention of kidnapped captives, including U.S. citizens, arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants" by -- who else? -- the unitary executive.

<snip>

Since taking office, the torture question has been raised, meekly, with the new president now and again -- but curiously enough, only in the context of possible prosecutions of lower-ranking interrogators, those on the front line of the Bush-Cheney torture regimen. On this issue, Obama and his mouthpieces have made it clear that they don't believe government operatives should have to "look over their shoulders" while carrying out noble national security work ordered by their superiors. The president doesn't think it would be fruitful to pursue such cases -- even though his own attorney general has declared some of the practices used by Bush-Cheney operatives to be torture under U.S. law. Instead, Obama has adopted the "Nuremberg defense" for the Bush-Cheney torturers (who are, of course, Obama's torturers now): they were only "following orders," and so should not be punished. Strangely enough, this logic has never applied to, say, Nazi concentration camp guards -- even if they are as gorgeous as Kate Winslet. But for America's torturers, Hitlerite excuses are good enough.

(Go read the whole thing -- and keep reading Chris Floyd, and stop falling for nonsense and bullshit.)

sw

[MADem]

1. Gee, I've been saying this all along, as well:

...yet one still must ask: why all the surprise?

[ClassWarrior]

2. Really? How do you wade through all the hyperbole?

And anyone who is "stunned" by Obama's starting positions is either stupid or not paying attention -- which describes none of the Progressives I know.

NGU.

[scarletwoman]

3. Hey, I just loves me some Chris Floyd, figured I'd bring a little of him over here.

Yay for progressives who aren't surprised.

sw

[stillcool]

4. "Stop falling for nonsense..

and bullshit"..you mean like thinking that one person can stop the empire in its tracks? Or like exposing the crimes of the last 50 years will ever happen? Or like if there is some commission or trial, something will actually be revealed that we don't already know? I don't know who's falling for nonsense and bullshit. You'd think before George Bush we didn't have military bases all over the world. You'd think that that Middle-eastern oil wasn't a National Security Issue since Jimmy Carter made it so, and was the first President to make it U.S. Policy that our interests were to be protected by military force if necessary. You'd think that the School of the America's didn't exist, and the ABC's of the Intelligence Agencies never practiced torture until George Bush came along. All these years of building up an empire, and someone is going to come along and make it all go away. Too funny. We need to get rid of those other branches of government, shut down the Pentagon and tell them to take their weapons to Dubai, and find a King that will do everything we want tomorrow!!!

[scarletwoman]

5. Well, obviously it wasn't referring to you. (nt)

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Another hit piece. I'm shocked.....

:eyes:

[anaxarchos]

7. What difference does it make...

...if anyone is "surprised" or not? What difference does it make if Obama lied about his real positions during the presidential campaign or whether he had those same positions tattooed on his chest and displayed them to anyone who was interested? The questions are essentially the same, either way:

Will the Obama administration actually outlaw torture, rendition, and the rest of the Bush practices (what he "says" on the subject is trivial compared to what the administration actually does)?

Will the Obama administration support the "Rule of Law" and the prosecution of War Criminals and other criminals who were not prosecuted by the Bush Administration?

Will the Obama administration reverse or continue the dismantling of the separation of powers and power of the legislative branch - i.e. "Democracy" - which may have begun a long time ago but was accelerated by the Bush administration.

In the end, who said what, when, and to whom, is completely immaterial... These are issues on which a "middle" position is impossible: "some torture" is torture, some Rule of Law is not the Rule of Law, and some erosion of Democracy is not Democracy.

What will the new administration actually do?

[Duncan]

9. well put.

[leftstreet]

8. Ugh. And a reminder in the article about Panetta

"And his designated CIA chief, Leon Panetta, has testified, under oath, that he will "not hesitate" to urge Obama to go beyond the Pentagon tortures if necessary, while also retaining the practice of kidnapping people and depositing them in the torture chambers of foreign countries without any charges or legal processes whatsoever."

:mad:

[glitch]

10. I like Chris Floyd a lot, he's smart and he writes beautifully, he doesn't care about popularity

His opinion is always interesting. Thanks for posting scartletwoman, K & R

[DCKit]

11. There is no law, Constitutioal or otherwise, enabling the Unitary Executive.

It's up to Congress to stop it - and to set an example by going after the BFEE and their minions.