Thursday, February 19, 2009

Obama on Civil Liberties

Obama on Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman

In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?

As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.

I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.

A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.

Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?

Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?

The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.


It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.

1 comment:

an average patriot said...

Hi Jerome
I was disappointing by Panetta's backpedaling but no more than I am of President Obama's!

Gitmo will be tied up legally for years so That will be open regardless of what President Obama's stance really is.

I was suspect about the official stance on rendition from the start because as much as Obama campaigned on change and that is what got him elected as most people wrongly believe.

He only was allowed to get where he is because he was not going to be significantly be changing Bush's stance.

The big change will be stateside where Obama will do the right thing for average Americans.

Overseas policy will not change he will attempt to get with kind words what Bush was attempting with threats of violence and arm twisting!

I have come to the conclusion after watching that farce of concerned debates over President Obama Stimulus plan that the biggest danger to our country is not the Bush financial disaster as our spy agencies think but rather our own Government, the two party system. They showed that not even President Obama matters only each others party!

Odiogo




Odiogo allows end-users to listen to content either on their PCs or on portable devices such as iPods, MP3 players or cellular phones.