100 Days Of Grace? No Chance!

By Cernig

One of the most frequently voiced arguments from Democratic party loyalists against criticism of President Obama's administration from the left is that progressives should give that administration 100 days to make its case and enact its policies before raising any doubts.

Umm, no. If there's one thing progressives re-learned in the last eight years it is that it is far easier to kill a bad idea before it becomes stated government policy, before a president or his officials have political "face to lose" and before the idea is vested with the bureaucratic inertia of policy and legislation. The perfect case study is opposition to Bush's plans for Social Security reform.

And there's plenty to voice dissent about.

- Apparently Holder promised the GOP that there would be no prosecutions for those carried out torture and perhaps even for those who ordered it. It doesn't matter which part of that Holder meant if he meant any of it - the law is the law and a superior's orders are no excuse. To take that course would be to throw away what is right for what is simply politically expedient, and I will not assent to it by silence or by loyalist parsing.

- Obama and Dems on the Hill seem willing to water down the stimulus package the country needs, again simply for political expediency.

- Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other foreign policy issues Obama has apparently delegated to "realists" and Dem hawks - as he has always promised to do. There are worrying signs on Iran that while Obama will speak the words we and the world want to hear, those words will just be used as PR cover by his administration to disguise and excuse the same old arrogant imperialism we're so used to. In that, he would emulate that other great bi-partisan bridge builder and smooth-talker, Tony Blair, as he led his nation into Iraq with talk of good intentions. Let's also not forget as we look at an escalation in Afghanistan that, as one old counter-insurgency hand put it to me today, "COIN is an imperial view of military operations...you use in an area you are trying to occupy/pacify. That is all it is really for. COIN is more 'imperial' than the building of battleships and tanks, which are absolutely useless in an insurgency."

I've no illusions about the loudness of my own voice in political debate at the highest levels. But when those progressives with louder voices make their case for better policies, I want them to be able to point figuratively behind themselves to a large group of people saying the same thing. I want to be among that vocal support for good, moral, policy decisions.

The other common argument is "well, isn't he better than Bush?" Hell, yeah! But that is a very low bar and makes no argument as to why progressives should cut Obama any slack. Obama is more likely to listen, if a good case can be made and if enough voices make it. In fact, it's an argument for being critics of what we don't like about Obama's policy.

An Update on the Holder promise of immunity on torture. Both Senate Dems and an aide to Holder himself are denying that he privately told Bond there'd definitely be no prosecutions of officials. However, Holder did say, in open session, that:

where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.

Bond is apparently better at interpreting that than Democratic Party hopefuls are. Once you leave a hole that big in the rule of law, then everything that comes after departs from that rule. It would be almost impossible to prosecute those who authorized torture if the administration refuses to prosecuted those who actually DID the torture.

A defense lawyer would have a field day with Holder's apparent plan. "Why is my client in the dock for authorizing to do something the DOJ has said it won't prosecute them for doing? If it won't prosecute the people who actually did these acts, then where's the crime? Surely this is a partisan witchhunt."

There will be no prosecutions. Whether Holder said that out loud or just let others fill in the blanks, it's still the truth.

Comments

[zak822]

I think what Holder said was that there would be no prosecutions of intelligence officers, but left the door open to the prosecution of others.

Sorry, no link available.

I understand your point that the law is the law, but this does leave political room for the prosection of Bush administration officials. And it defuses a prime GOP argument.

I'll take the half a loaf.

[Steve Hynd]

You'll get none, zak. Once you've given up "the law is the law" then the GOP can claim a right to yell "political witchhunt". Worse, you can't prosecute those who authorized torture if you've not prosecuted those who actually DID the torture. A defense lawyer would have a field day with that: "if no crime has been committed which was worth prosecuting, why is my client in the dock?"

[panglossiannotes]

It does look at bit like Obama maybe just Clinton or Blair doesn't it? Amazing that the 2007 NIE seems to have been misplaced, again, re: Iran. It must be all just politics and positioning for the upcoming "negotiations". Torture, accountability we'll see. Some including Scott Horton, the Atlantic Scott, think there will be a process to follow up on the Bush administration open approach to torturing. I think this is mainly based on some of the lawyers Obama has appointed to Office of Legal Counsel for example Marty Lederman who has been pretty active in his views about torture. Me I'm not too hopeful, even though it is only day 8. Also as Allan Nairn points out - http://tinyurl.com/b5odkr - Obama really has only reposition the torture issue back to its "don't ask doubt tell" morally high road days. Naomi Klein, back at the end of 2005, made a similar point to Nairn's in a Nation article - http://tinyurl.com/cnhby4

[Stuck]

Come on Cernig. It came from the Washington Times for Chrissakes.

Aide: Holder Has Made No Decisions On Prosecuting Bush Officials

And besides, prosecuting lower rung people would just cause everyone to clam up. It's standard procedure for US Attorney's to cut deals for lesser actors for their testimony to convict those who made the decisions.

[Steve Hynd]

Stuck, that quote I put up isn't from the WT, it's from Holden's own statement. And what he's saying isn't a deal, just "we won't prosecute those who actually tortured".

[Stuck]

What he is saying is that the people who did the hands on, so to speak, torturing may have a decent defense due to the DOJ providing cover with legal directives. That doesn't preclude the legal directors like Yoo from being prosecuted, or at least investigated. Though I agree prosecutions are unlikely, at least in the US. But that Holder flatly stated that waterboarding IS in fact torture, creates an interesting dynamic for the Obama admin.. It says torture happened and SOMEBODY is guilty. To me, that said the DOJ, or some other entity, will investigate to find out what actually happened and how it played out inside the Bush government. Him saying that is a big softball for legal watchdogs to prod for an investigation, while giving Obama cover for not looking like it's on a witchhunt to get republicans straight out of the gate. We shall see.

[Steve Hynd]

Maybe not being an American gives me a different perspective. I could care less about political advantage. I just think "Nuremberg set the precedent - following orders is not a defense, lawyers who try to justify and authorize war crimes are guilty of war crimes, so are people who follow their criminal orders or allow either set to escape justice- either follow the rule of law or not but I'll call you out if you don't."

[Stuck]

I could care less about political advantage.

Of course, I said nothing about "political advantage", though internal politics is always relevant in- country, though it shouldn't be. I'm just being realistic about how my country operates and not defending it. You would have my full support to rally Europe, or the world, to investigate and file charges at the Haig, or the county court in Scotland, or wherever your from. And I don't blame you for "calling it out".
Some of us have been doing that here in the US, as well.

[Stuck]

I read your stuff on foreign affairs, but railing against our domestic legislation. IE stimulus bill is a bit much. Maybe you should stick to your own country on that front.

[Steve Hynd]

Stuck, I haven't mentioned the stimulus bill - my co-bloggers Fester and Ron, both American, have.

[Stuck]

- Obama and Dems on the Hill seem willing to water down the stimulus package the country needs, again simply for political expediency.

From your above thread post. With a link to "Barrack the Appeaser".

Obama has been president for all of 9 days and as reversed dozens, if not hundreds of Bush executive orders, and proposed a stimulus bill that in fact, though not perfect, is the single largest progressive spending initiative since Johnson's Great Society, and you and other alleged progressives are labeling him an appeaser. Give me a break!! You all sound more like fringe leftists to me.

[Stuck]

"You all sound more like fringe leftists to me."

A little harsh on my part, sorry.

[fester]

Stuck --- it is apparent that you have a decent grasp of this group's written work, and as a writer, I appreciate that.

One of the constants of my political analysis is the need to change the path of least resistance so that the outcomes move closer to my desired outcomes, and a good chunk of that is bitching and moaning and organizing effective applications of political pressure at relevant chokepoints.

I agree with your assertion that the stimulus is probably the most progressive thing that has come out since the mid-60s. HOWEVER, there are a lot of things that were left on the table that could have been included but were not included in the package. Those decisions were made in order to attract Republican support and votes. That decision did not achieve its desired outcome. That decision has significant opportunity cost without any benefits.

I think there is a window of twelve to eighteen months to reshape the American political discourse, ground rules and Overton window. During that time, anything given up from the progressive angle WITHOUT some corresponding benefit has to be severely questioned. If there are trade-offs, let's talk about that, but to give up on contraception and family planning without an increase in votes, that is something to talk about.

[Stuck]

I oppose making perfect the enemy of the good.