I’m always harsh on Jake Tapper when I think he is chumming the waters with nonsense, so here is a shout-out for two really solid pieces in regards to the duplicity from the Obama administration over State Secrets.
Reader Interactions
39Comments
Comments are closed.
Pixie
I agree, there is absolutely NO excuse for Obama to continue on with Bush’s state secrets policies. This is very distrubing and I am extremely disappointed in his decision to continue this disgusting policy. I kind of saw it coming with his caving on FISA though, it kind of gave me an inkling that Obama, more than anything, is an establishment man, bent on protecting the establishment. This is a problem for me =/
Shawn in Showme
Expect to see more "solid pieces" from Tapper on this issue since it’s the only valid criticism of the administration he has.
Dennis-SGMM
"Sooner or later," we all agreed, "Obama will do something that will piss us off." He did it. I don’t know what the rationale might be for upholding these odious policies, I’m not even sure that I care. This won’t be the last time Obama pisses me off either although he sure picked a doozy for openers.
Ash Can
Now this is a subject on which I agree with Obama’s critics. I’ve seen reasons for the administration’s actions/inactions tossed around, but so far nothing amounts to an acceptable explanation for what’s happening. It bothers me.
woody
I
Sure there is. It’s called preserving the perqs of privilege and power. No president since Washington has ever ceded back to the State/Lege any powers they arrogated to meet present exigencies…
Power is its own reason (see, e.g, Foucault or Nietzsche). Power is not "for." It is "of"…
Zifnab
It would be wonderful if Tapper kept up the heat on Obama for these kinds of offenses. I’d be thrilled to see the GOP pick up the drumbeat and demand a dropping of the state secrets facade. Would be nice if we had an intelligent and serious opposition again.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, I kept asking the wingtards how we were gonna get the genie back in the fucking bottle after Bush and they just stared at me with confused hostility.
Now we know: we ain’t.
sgwhiteinfla
Uhmmm maybe some people haven’t noticed but the critics of President Obama on this issue ARE mostly from the left. The wingnuts applaud his infringing on their right to privacy. Ironic because if anything says "big government" its spying on its people
However this isn’t Tapper being a journalist. Its just him being consistent. Find an issue that people don’t like about Obama and I will guarantee you that Tapper has or will write about it. Good things about him? Not so much. That doesn’t diminish the fact that this is problematic in the least though….
DanSmoot'sGhost
Well this is just a rehash of the topic as covered here last year.
I am going to keep saying this here, because, A, it’s correct, and Two, it is actually changeable and I would just as soon change it …. but that won’t happen until the subject is correctly understood by the teeming masses.
This isn’t about FISA, or any acronym. It isn’t about Bush, or Obama, or any other recent president.
After World War Two, America became a rather bellicose and secretive country, a change that was wrapped in something called the Cold War. Americans began regularly voting for a bellicose government that engaged in all manner of hideous activities behind all manner of curtains and all manner of deceptions, in order to "protect" the country from threats real and imagined, and to a large extent, just imagined.
The cancer of secrecy and subterfuge and lies and manipulations is so deep, so wide, and so pervasive in our government that it cannot be removed by a president, or a congress, any more. It is too embedded in the machinery, too wrapped around the gears and belts.
Obama has joined the list of people who go to Washington thinking that they can "manage" or even "change" this situation only to find out that they can’t. Our friends the Dulles Brothers and their descendants created a Frankenstein.
Congress doesn’t even apply oversight to war powers any more. They do a Kabuki over it, but they don’t actually check the executive. The ship sailed a long time ago.
If Americans want a less bellicose, more transparent defense and foreign policy, they are going to have to gain it through the ballot box, at every level. They are going to have to make it a priority and see the job through, and it is going to take 20 or more years to do it.
Barack Obama is not going to do it. He doesn’t have that kind of magical power, and he is not going to throw himself on that sword.
The people need to start looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility. Like it or not, the people still run this country, more or less, and it’s time for them to take responsibiity for it. Promote, fund, work for and elect people who are committed to taking the war machine apart and creating a new kind of country. Or else quit bitching about it.
Calouste
@Pixie:
There is. The only way to prevent more state secrets abuse in the future is to take it to court and lose.
Stopping using it will just leave it there for Bush III to abuse even further.
I also think that the Obama team is looking to unravel the whole shit in a controlled fashion so that the heirs of Ollie North are actually going to wind up in prison instead of being able to play an american hero on Fox.
sus
I actually get a little scared with Obama’s stance with State’s Secrets. I may just buy me a tinfoil hat. Because, I can’t understand the turnabout? What happened in those National Security Briefing Sessions?
Shawn in Showme
This is really the bottom line and should be pinned to the top of every poutrage outpost in the blogosphere.
dslak
@Calouste: It would of course be nice if he was proceeding with this assumption, but what if the courts then decide in his favor?
srv
@sus:
The same thing that happened at Fed meetings. The status quo is what matters, and has nothing to do with reality.
Bob In Pacifica
There are two choices:
First, Obama is just a liar and is just as bad as Bush. He wants the national security state to rule.
Second, the national security state actually runs things.
You want to know who runs the military, the CIA, etc., go to Bob Gates. Obama is just the President.
Go here.
burnspbesq
At the risk of repeating myself:
There is a need for a state secrets privilege.
It should be administered the same way every other evidentiary privilege is administered: the government should have to assert it document by document, or question by question in a deposition, and should bear the burden of showing that it applies.
Blanket application of the state secrets privilege in motions to dismiss is bullshit.
The Moar You Know
@Zifnab: The GOP will never demand such a thing – it really means nothing less than repudiating the last eight years, admitting the DFHs were right, and they’re not in a place where they can accept doing that. I don’t know if they ever will be. They might just take the whole party down first.
@DanSmoot’sGhost: The best point in a post filled with good points. I think you’ve got a nice summary of the problem and the only solution.
Bill Teefy
One thing is clear about this. Tapper has realized that Glenn Greenwald is a journalist. So ‘yay’ Tapper…two more balls and you might be able to carry his jock.
Greenwald worked to expose this when Bush started ramping this up and he isn’t letting up just because Obama is president. Tapper…um well…I’m sure he has tape of him just about to ask a question of Bush before Gannon cut him off with a real probing gem.
Of course before the election Glenn was shrill.
You have to wonder at the liberal media employing Douthats, Asshats, Doucheboroughs and Broders.
I am looking for any center or right of center journalist who is even close to as consistent on just one of the key issues over the last 20 years. I can remember how it was horrifying and ridiculous that we didn’t have an exit strategy for Bosnia and Nation Building was anti-American. Or constant claims Clinton was abusing his power yadda-yadda. Or how Clinton lied and it didn’t matter, that was the issue…lying was enough… well until Scooter lied. Or how States rights were being trampled…then one day the State of Florida was about to decide the results of ballots cast in Florida and…but… but Bush v. Gore… it changed everything.
I would like one righty to just suck it up and accept that 9/11 happened while Republicans were in power. Freakin’ liberal media.
someguy
Oh bullshit. You’d call ’em a bunch of hypocritical assholes and wish Gaia to smite upon them with great force. So would I and it’d be the right thing to do. They’re a bunch of paranoid-ass black helicopter loser militia-joining freaks.
It doesn’t mean you wouldn’t want to quietly push the Administration to stop asserting the doctrine so much. But you probably don’t want to make howls of outrage the prominent form of protest, since you’re only adding to their gunned-up version of the Hofstadter style of American political paranoia. It only encourages them to blow shit up when they think they have the backing of the crowd. A quiet donation to the ACLU and a request that they have a quiet word with the DOJ is probably a better bet.
Little Dreamer
@DanSmoot’sGhost:
Best post I’ve ever read from you, and that’s saying something.
Although I already knew this (and if you’d asked, I could have explained this to you already) but, I’m glad to see you echoing my sentiments. ;)
Nice work.
Magic Love Hose
You know, I’d like to think so too, but what John Cole mentioned a couple of weeks back probably applies here: we need to stop projecting ourselves on Obama. He is ill-suited as a movie screen.
The simplest yet still optimistic explanation, to me, is that they’ve decided that when it comes to the prior administration they’d rather just shove it all under a rug and move on. It’s not a viewpoint I agree with – I want to see motherfuckers in handcuffs, and Glennzilla is accurate when he says that covering up a crime is itself a crime. But I could see someone making the case that this choice, while not good, is the least bad. The Scott Horton story about Republicans threatening to torpedo Dawn Johnson lends a little weight here.
The simplest yet pessimistic explanation is that he lied. I ping-pong between these two because I’m sure I have selection bias with Obama and sometimes I think I overcompensate. I am glad he won and that I’ll only be pissed at the U.S. President some of the time, but this is one of the some-of-the-times no matter why it’s playing out this way.
Bill Teefy
@Little Dreamer
@DanSmoot’sGhost:
I can’t speak to the "ever" but a damn good observation.
asiangrrlMN
@DanSmoot’sGhost: Yes. The problem is that I don’t think most Americans do want a less bellicose nation. Even though a majority of Americans (I presume) don’t believe in torture, I do not see many of them going the next step and saying, "We need to stand down a bit because we have contributed to this atmosphere."
Look at all the faux noise going on about how Obama is going to get us killed because he is cutting the defense budget (which he isn’t, not technically).
I agree that Obama is not a magician or The One. I have known from day one that I am more progressive than is he. Despite all that, I voted for him because I thought he was the best person for the job (out of the candidates). I still do.
I would gladly support a candidate who was a peace activist and/or one who is agnostic or an atheist. However, I don’t see that happening any time soon, so I have to pick the best of what is currently available. Which means I will bitch when that person does something which I find egregious (as I do this move). I can simultaneously be grateful that Obama is shutting down the Gitmo jails and for all the other good things he’s done AND still be bitterly disappointed when he does something like this (and his insistence on continuing giving money to faith-based programs).
jarhed
Ha ha hahahahaha! The Twilight Zone crashes head first into reality! I am delighted to see that BaraKKK is not a traitor like I thought he would be. Praise be to Allah!
Ruemara
@DanSmoot’sGhost: Amen bruddha. Between this and the bank bailouts, I can safely say I’ve never been happy with Obama’s plans. However, how can he dismantle this himself? Why do critics act like he just sprinkles some magic pixie dust over stuff and ‘change’ will happen? Wouldn’t he need some…i dunno…help, in that regard? Wouldn’t it require progressive, anti-war, anti-secrecy legislators? Wouldn’t it also require an opposition party that wasn’t acting like a nutcase with pressure sensitive grenade in it’s hand? For me, it’s a sign to get on the horn and bitch to my legislators to change it, not get pissed at a pragmatist. Pete’s sake, I’m a pragmatist and I’d shoot you if you were running faster than me and a monster was chasing us. Nothing personal, just pragmatic. We need to be kept in check.
Leelee for Obama
@Calouste: I thought the same thing, and in answer to a poster after this one, I think they’re banking on the Roberts court to do no such thing. I think they are banking on the SCOTUS to scream bloody murder over this, as they should. This was the argument I used most often when they were giving Bush all this power….what if it was Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. They really thought they’d never lose the WH again, didn’t they?
I also agree with the Ghost, that this country is far too war-minded, and if we are watching the Indian Ocean farce as we should be, the question arises, what the hell is all this fire-power if a bunch of half-naked, half-starved pirates can keep the US Navy at bay?
someguy
Because they should be captured and tried in a court of law with due process, not summarily executed by U.S. troops using massively superior firepower.
douglasfactors
@Calouste:
ftw
Leelee for Obama
@someguy: Not talking about blowing them out of the water. I’m talking about the lack of respect shown by these pirates to obviously superior force. What exactly does that fire power buy us? Not too much. Perhaps if we had invested some time, money and prestige in making the UN an actual force in the world, these pirates would not threaten the commerce of the world. Maybe they wouldn’t be hungry, or living in chaos, or having othe nations crap dropped off their coasts. Maybe we could have been a force for justice in the world, and not just bigger and stronger and better armed.
Pixie
I understand with the people who say that Obama never promised he would be a die hard liberal and that he’s bound to disappoint in SOME issues. This is a core issue though, and is totally unacceptable. We need to get back to the rule of law and let go of the crazy executive power grab. I found it odious under republicans and I find it equally so under a democrat. I’m not going to cheer this on just cuz Bush started it.
Little Dreamer
Bush didn’t start it, this shit’s been going on for years.
Note to Dan Smoot’s Ghost: this would be a good time for you to chime in with the subject of that conversation we had on the telephone about two hours ago.
Brachiator
@Leelee for Obama:
The pirates have hostages. Why do you think that they should bow down to an "obviously superior" force? This is not a tea party with polite rules of decorum.
Most recently, the pirates have been trying to get the hostage to shore or to the mother ship. Absent this, they will try to use other hostages that they have taken to use as bargaining chips.
There has been piracy as long as men and women have gone to sea. Neither the UN nor even the Federation and Star Fleet can much change this.
And not even warm rehash. Before Obama became the nominee, the Democratic Congressional leadership capitulated to Bush and announced that they were happy to do so. Everyone who voted for Obama and the Dems knew that this were the case.
As others have noted, Obama is neither going to fall on his own sword or radically change a policy that both the Democrats and the Republicans are stupidly determined to maintain, not unless there is a strong pushback by citizens.
Jrod
Wait a damn second. A week ago Krugman and anyone foolish enough to think that he might have a point got both barrels from John and the commenters. Back then criticizing Obama from the left meant that you were either a secret wingnut and or stupid enough to fall for their tricks.
But now? Now criticizing Obama is cool. Why? If anything, Tapper is far more self-serving and likely to play games than Krugman.
Why is criticism from Krugman the ultimate evil, while criticism from Tapper is hunky-dory?
(No, I don’t disagree with this post. I didn’t disagree with Krugman either.)
timb
Jrod, keep your eye on the ball. Tapper may be a prick, but this isn’t about the messenger, it’s about Obama being dead wrong. And, it pisses me off. I want my money back.
Elie
Dan SmootsGhost"
You wrote"
"Barack Obama is not going to do it. He doesn’t have that kind of magical power, and he is not going to throw himself on that sword.
The people need to start looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility. Like it or not, the people still run this country, more or less, and it’s time for them to take responsibiity for it. Promote, fund, work for and elect people who are committed to taking the war machine apart and creating a new kind of country. Or else quit bitching about it.
"
Your whole second paragraph is absolutely right on… Its going to take a while for many to understand what that means but bully for you saying it.
Elie
JRod # 33 — You missed the point… it wasnt criticising Obama (per Krugman) — it was what Obama was being criticized ABOUT. For me it was the content and attitude of Krugman’s arguments and his smug certainty… not that he critisized. At least not for me…
Jrod
I don’t think I missed the point. Wasn’t the point that Krugman’s criticisms would end up being used the the right to legitimize their own arguments?
Well, today Krugman is forgotten by anyone who didn’t already know who he was, and the right-wing is in teabag mode, the financial battles forgotten as well. The grand effect of Krugman’s arguments has been to move the left more toward wanting nationalization, which is, IMO, a very good thing.
I guess you could say I agree with the content of Krugman’s arguments, so maybe we differ there. As for his smug certainty, well, it’s somewhat tolerable coming from someone who’s been vastly more right than wrong over the past 10 years, when most media personalities have been the exact opposite.
Anyway, just poking the regulars. Trolling, I guess. I agree with John’s post.
omen
from john dickerson on obama:
omen
@Jrod:
how many banks are we going to nationalize? how many people will it take to do the takeover? are there enough qualified personnel to accomplish the task? how long will the process take?