Recently in Obama Diplomacy Category

"I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground."

They do? I thought they expected change we can believe in. But worn-out nods to an elusive, ephemeral, and, given the current GOP, often undesirable bipartisanship does not constitute such. In any event, so concluded the President's State of the Union address last Thursday. This is old news at this point, so I'll keep it brief. Suffice to say, while it got better as it went along, I thought the speech was merely ok, and often troubling. Throughout the evening, the president's remarks had that excessively-poll-tested, small-bore feel that conjured up grim odors of 1995 and 1996. Throw on a flannel and fire up the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, y'all: One year into the Obama era, are we already back to V-chips and school uniforms?

Part of the president's problem is that the Senate is looking like the elephant's graveyard of progressive-minded legislation right now. The president called for an energy reform bill. The House went out on a limb to pass one last June. The president called for a financial reform bill. The House passed one in December. The president called for a new jobs bill. The House also passed one in December. All of these bills, and many, many others, are languishing in the Senate right now, as Sen. Reid and others try to figure out how to somehow get something -- anything! -- passed with a larger majority than Dubya ever enjoyed.

The Senate issue aside, there were other problems in the President's speech, including far too many nods and feints in the direction of ridiculous deficit peacocks like Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh. First off, at the risk of sounding like Dick Cheney, I tend to think that deficits are troubling, but, even in the best of times, they shouldn't really be the foremost driving concern of our government policy. If we run a deficit to invest in education now, we'll save money down the road and improve Americans' quality-of-life to boot. (Put in somewhat ugly fashion, it's invest in schools now or prisons later.)

And that being said, right now is emphatically not the best of times. We know exactly what happens when you cut spending too quickly after a virulent recession -- It was called the 1937 Roosevelt recession, and it would be flagrantly idiotic to repeat it. Just because the GOP doesn't seem to understand basic Keynesian economics doesn't mean we should follow them down the rabbit hole of flat-earth thinking, just so we can look bipartisan.

No, the problem with deficits isn't necessarily the running of a deficit. It's the running-up of massive deficits for patently stupid reasons -- like, say, prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or doling out excessive tax breaks to multi-millionaires. And that's why some of the President's nods in that direction were so irritating last Thursday. Calling for a spending freeze on discretionary spending, without touching the exorbitant "security-related" budget (cute euphemism, that), is kabuki theater at best. And at worst, you're balancing the books at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. (I tend to agree with Candidate Obama on this issue anyway.)

Similarly, this deficit commission which the president plans to foist on Congress by executive order after the Senate killed it, is, again, at best kabuki theater and at worst trouble. It's clear to everyone involved that the entire point of this commission is CYA: i.e, to create political cover for raids on entitlement spending, while once again ignoring the grotesquely swollen defense budget. (Altho', to be fair, Secretary Gates has at least tried to rein in growth in this sector.) In other words, this commission will basically just be a chance for deficit peacocks to pretend they're Serious People and "make tough decisions," while in fact the one really tough idea that actually needs to be tackled -- reining in defense spending -- will be completely avoided.

In any event, all this discussion of the deficit ignores the larger problem. Obviously, one of the president's biggest charges coming into office was to restore economic sanity after eight years of Dubyaite excess. That being said, people were not looking to President Obama for this sort of deficit tsk-tsking and small-bore, fiddling around the margins. You'd think we Dems would have learned this by now. But curling up into a fetal position and mouthing moderate GOP-lite bromides will not stop the Republicans from kicking us, ever.

We have a Democratic president, an 18-seat majority in the Senate, and a 79-seat majority in the House. In short, we Dems need to keep thinking big or we will pay dearly at the polls this November. Perhaps the dysfunction of the Senate is the central problem Obama faces right now, but his speech nonetheless suggests that we're getting dangerously close to Eisenhower Republican territory now, and not even in the good "the military-industrial complex is completely frakked" kinda way. Without vision, the people perish. So too will our party, if we keep up with this thin gruel, triangulation schtick. At the advice of the careerist DLC-types over the years, we have tried this path several times over -- Put simply, it does not work.

"The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over."

My issues with the SotU notwithstanding, the president's sallying back-and-forth with House Republicans on Friday clearly indicate that, whatever our problems are within the party, the GOP are just not ready for prime-time right now. (I also get the sense that this will mark the definitive end of the Republican's goofy "teleprompter" meme.) [Full transcript.]

To his credit, the president made his political opponents seem like the blatantly hypocritical ideologues they in fact are. Which begs the "common ground" question once again: Why should we try to meet the "Party of No" halfway, particularly when we know that they move the goalposts every single time you try to take them seriously?

"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is 'liberalism,' and they don't like what they see. I don't, either. What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."

I already said my piece about this last week, and was going to let it drop for now. But this long essay by Drew Westen on the problems with Obama's leadership so far is right on the nose and well worth-reading. "[W]hat Democrats just can't seem to understand is that the politics of the lowest common denominator is always a losing politics. It sends a meta-message that you're weak -- nothing more, nothing less -- and that's the cross the Democrats have had to bear since they 'lost China' 60 years ago. And in fact, it is weak."

"Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional 'centrists.' Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry."

A day after Senate Democrats kill Byron Dorgan's non-importation amendment in order to preserve the administration's back-door deal with Big Pharma, the indispensable Glenn Greenwald takes the Obama administration to task for the final Senate product on health care, which, suffice to say, is looking pretty far afield from the House bill. (And all the while, the bought and paid for Joe Lieberman grins like the Cheshire Cat.)

I was going to wait until year-in-review post week to put this up, but now's as good a time as any: From civil liberties to this Senate health care fiasco, it's hard to think of any arena where this administration's first year hasn't been a tremendous disappointment. (Regarding the former: I didn't mention this here earlier, but the brazen audacity of this passage from the president's war-is-peace Nobel Prize speech made me blanch: "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard." Uh, your Justice Department is not upholding them, remember? Is the president even aware of his own civil liberties record?)

Anyway, I keep being reminded of this line from my Obama endorsement of January 2008: "There's a possibility -- maybe even a strong possibility -- that he'll end up a Tommy Carcetti-like president: a well-meaning reformer outmatched and buffeted to and fro by the entrenched forces arrayed against him." Well, welcome to the Carcetti presidency, y'all. The only surprise so far for many of us is in how little he's actually even tried to enact meaningful reforms. But I guess once the president surrounded himself with the exact same GOP-lite people we'd spent months trying to defeat in the Democratic primary, the writing should have been on the wall. This will not be change we can believe in. A New Day is not dawning. And the president is not really with us -- We're going to have to do the heavy lifting for reform next year without him.

"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.

And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."

This is a bit late by now, but regardless: As you all know, President Obama made the case last week for sending 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. At this point -- and like Fred Kaplan -- I'm conflicted about our continued involvement there...but I'm leaning toward withdrawal. Everything I've heard about the war lately has had that "Vietnam in '66" sense to it: A corrupt government as our ally; trouble winning "hearts and minds"; The US stepping half-blindly into a conflict that's been simmering for centuries (in Southeast Asia, it was the endless Vietnamese war against interlopers; here it's long-simmering ethnic rivalries between the Pashtuns and everyone else.) And now, our new progressive-minded president tells us: If we just commit X more troops (where, now X=30,000), we can win, close up shop, and go home. Uh, really? I think I've already seen this movie a few times.

Obama's shout-out above to basically token international support doesn't assuage my fears. And, as far as the threat posed by Vietnam: True, Tonkin never happened, but obviously policymakers of that era were less sanguine about a Communist victory in South Vietnam than we are today -- The threat of the Enemy can always gets unduly amplified in the heat of the moment. (Speaking of said Reds, it should sober us to acknowledge that all we've done so far in Afghanistan is basically manage to re-create the Soviet experience in the region. Iirc, that didn't end so well.)

Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, yes, and if we could weed them out and destroy their capacity to attack again, all the better. (And always remember: If Dubya, Rummy et al had just finished the job properly in 2002 rather than salivating over Iraq, we would be in a lot better position right now.) But Al Qaeda is also in Somalia, Tajikstan, Yemen, the Philippines, Kosovo...all over the place. We don't have the resources to play whack-a-mole in all these nations anymore, particularly when every whack usually just works to create new moles. (You'd think we learn that the Hydra sprouts two more heads every time you cut off the wrong one.)

The biggest argument in favor of increasing our military position in Afghanistan would be the continued stability of neighboring Pakistan. (There's Vietnam again -- it's another variation of the Domino Theory.) But, there's a good amount of evidence to suggest that more troop increases by us will only inflame the situation and further destabilize Pakistan. In which case, I'm not sure what we're doing over there, and what we could possibly accomplish in 18 months that we haven't gotten done the last seven years.

In short, it seems to me like we had our shot in Afghanistan, and Dubya blew it. I could be wrong, of course. But, to my mind, now feels like a good time to recognize that fact and stop chasing good money after bad.

"Obama needed to regain control quickly, and he started by jettisoning liberal positions he had been prepared to accept -- and had even okayed -- just weeks earlier." TIME's Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf examine the recent ousting of Greg Craig, a slow death by leaking, as a telling indicator of how the Obama administration has fallen so far astray on civil liberties. "[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by [Rahm] Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right." Uh, what? As Nick Baumann points out in Mother Jones, what business do the politicos have in overseeing legal matters? That's rather Rovian, isn't it?

On target as usual, Salon's Glenn Greenwald puts this Craig story and the KSM trial into broader perspective: "As even Time now recognizes, many of the policies once widely declared by Democrats to be a grave threat to the Constitution are now explicitly adopted by the Obama administration. And it's flatly inconsistent to invoke 'the rule of law' to defend Obama's decision to give trials to a few Guantanamo detainees without pointing out that he's violating that very same precept by denying trials to so many." (Pic via the MJ article linked above.)

"Holder has fallen prey to the sort of magical legal thinking that seeps through the whole CIA report: the presumption that if there's a legal memo, it must be legal...In other words, we are now protecting the good-faith torturers. That isn't just wrong, it's outrageous. It ratifies the most toxic aspect of the whole legal war on terror: that anything becomes permissible if it's served up with a side of memo. Paper your misconduct with footnotes and justifications--even after the fact--and you can do as you please."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains the fundamental problem with the Justice Department's new inquiry into Dubya-era torture: "Pretending we are investigating and curtailing a torture program isn't all that different from pretending we didn't torture in the first place."

Meanwhile -- hold on to your hats, people -- Slate's Tim Noah discovers that Dick Cheney hasn't been entirely truthful about what's in the theoretically exculpatory CIA memos. "Portions have been redacted, so perhaps the evidence Cheney claims that enhanced interrogation saved American lives has been blacked out. But judging from what's visible to the naked eye, the documents do not provide anything like the vindication that Cheney claims." (Of course, even if they did provide said vindication, the question of whether or not torture is effective -- 24 notwithstanding, we're pretty sure it isn't -- is a completely separate question from whether or not torture is legal -- it isn't.)

"Instead, constructivists would posit that the zombie problem is what we make of it. That is to say, there are a number of possible emergent norms in response to zombies. Sure, there's the Hobbesian 'kill or be killed' end game that does seem to be quite popular in the movies. But there could be a Kantian "pluralistic anti-Zombie" community that bands together and breaks down nationalist divides in an effort to establish a world state."

Following up on this recent mathematical modeling study confirming the dire global ramifications of a zombie outbreak (naturally, the talk-radio right remains unconvinced), Daniel Drezner ponders the responses of various IR schools to World War Z. "Now, some would dispute whether neoconservatism is a systemic argument, but let's posit that it's a coherent IR theory...clearly, neoconservatives would argue, zombies hate us for our freedom not to eat other humans' brains."

As many readers here well know, I've spent a good bit of time over the past decade studying US history. (In fact, over the past few years, I've occasionally helped my advisor keep a textbook up to date that recently drew the ire of right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, those damn pesky facts were somehow mitigating O'Reilly's ability to spew forth the usual idiotic blather.)

Anyway, over that period of time, I believe I have in fact learned me a few things. So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)

The Tea Party: As you no doubt know, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was recently appropriated by FOX News and the conservative group Freedomworks to simulate a widespread popular uprising against high taxes. (In other words, it was an "astroturf," rather than a grass-roots, movement.) And, yes, the inconvenient fact that President Obama and the Democratic Congress actually lowered income taxes for 95% of Americans earlier this year didn't seem to dissuade them from trying to jury-rig some rather dubious anti-tax ramparts and gin up enough disgruntled FOX-watchers to man them.

At any rate, as most people remember from high school, the original 1773 Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes or high prices at all. (In fact, legally imported tea -- i.e. that of the East India Company, which was both suffering serious setbacks over in India and losing market share to smuggled Dutch tea at the time -- was actually cheaper in the colonies after the Tea Act, since it was now exempt from the usual obligations.)

In small part a reaction of the East India's commercial rivals to this sweetheart deal, the Boston Tea Party was mainly held to uphold the principle of No taxation without representation. Which I don't think I need to explain. So, with the minor exception of DC-area conservatives who attended the tea gathering in Washington (without crossing over from Virginia or Maryland), the, uh, "teabaggers" don't really have a leg to stand on here. This is particularly true after you consider that both ruthless gerrymandering and the vagaries of the Electoral College (I'm looking at you, Wyoming) actually tend to lead to over-representation of conservative Republicans in our halls of governance, even despite heavy losses for the "Grand Old Party" in 2006 and 2008.

The "Right" of Secession: Apparently, Rick Perry, the right-wing governor of Texas, really wants to keep his job. As such, he's scared stiff of the forthcoming primary challenge by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who happens to be much more popular than he is among Texas Republicans. So, to sow up his "activist" (re: freak show) bona fides, this desperate fellow has been doing anything and everything he possibly can to prostrate himself before the paranoid ultra-right, including appearing before the current poobahs of the GOP's lunatic fringe, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. As you no doubt know, this recently culminated in Gov. Perry's upholding Texas' right to secede before a crowd of rabid teabaggers. Said the Governor: ""We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that..."

Well, in fact, no state in the Union has any legal right to secede. (Not even Texas.) The existence of such a right was posited and debated quite often in the early years of the republic: by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, by the members of the Hartford Convention, by South Carolina's philosopher-politician John C. Calhoun, and countless others.

But the illegality of secession was eventually confirmed -- in blood -- when eleven states attempted to pull out of the Union in 1861, due mainly to differing opinions on the institution of slavery and its expansion into the western territories. As a result of this insurrection by the southern states, a violent conflict broke out, which we call the Civil War. It lasted four years, and it was kind of a big deal.

Prior to the war, the states of the Confederacy believed secession to be their natural right, while those remaining in the Union believed it to be tantamount to an act of treason. With the Union victory in that conflict, and the subsequent readmittance of southern states in such a manner that reaffirmed that no right of secession exists, the question was settled. So it remains to this day.

Waterboarding, Torture, and "Just Following Orders": In the wake of recent revelations, there's been a renewed push among certain conservatives to laugh off waterboarding as not being constitutive of torture. (See also Rush Limbaugh's fratboy defense of Abu Ghraib a few years ago.) But (as even John McCain concedes), in the years after World War II, there was no question among Americans that waterboarding is torture. In fact, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American GIs and Filipino prisoners. When you think about it, it's not really a tough call.

Another argument we've heard lately -- today Sen. McCain made it with his usual comrades-in-arms, Sens. Lieberman and Graham, while trying to protect Dubya's lawyers -- is that the CIA officials who actually conducted these recent acts of torture should be exempt from prosecution, because they were following the legal dictates of those higher-up in the administration. (To follow the reasoning around the circle, the torturers should be exempt because they were listening to the lawyers, and the lawyers should be exempt because they didn't do the actual torturing. Cute.)

Anyway, whatever you think of the merits of this argument, this is usually referred to as the Nuremberg defense, and it is in fact no defense at all. Argues Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, devised by the Allies after WWII to determine what constituted a war crime: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Insert "CIA interrogator" for person in that last sentence and you can pretty much see the problem.

Is America a Christian Nation?: At the end of his recent European tour, President Obama told an audience in Turkey the following: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." This statement -- well the "not a Christian nation" part of it, at least -- prompted no small amount of consternation from the porcine-moralist wing of the GOP -- James Dobson, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and sundry other freaks of the industry -- all of whom fell over themselves to proclaim to the Heavens and preach to the FOX News choir that, yes, Virginia, America is a glorious Christian nation.

America is not a Christian nation. This will be patently obvious to anyone who's ever heard the phrase "separation of church and state." Unlike, say, England, America does not have and has never had an official, established church. This is very much by design. For proof of this not-very-radical claim, see the very first clause of the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If that doesn't do it for you, see George Washington's famous 1790 letter to the Jewish residents of Newport, Rhode Island. "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Or consider that Thomas Jefferson skipped his presidency on his tombstone to make room for his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (We could also make mention of the Jefferson Bible, but let's start slow.)

Is the reasoning here too circuitous for Rove, Gingrich, et al to follow? Ok, then, here's the cheat sheet: the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by a Congress of our Founders without declaim and signed into law by President John Adams. It begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Did y'all catch it this time? Good, let's move on.

A Smile for Chávez: Our new president also attended the Summit of the Americas recently, at which he was photographed smiling and shaking hands with Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez, a particular bête noire of the right who has said all manner of unpleasant things about America over the past few years.

After the picture was taken, conservatives went predictably livid, with Matt Drudge headlining the offending photograph with the usual red text, Dick Cheney deeming Obama "a weak president" on FOX News, and Gingrich arguing that it made Obama look "weak like Carter." "We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators," said Newt, and he wasn't the only potential 2012'er aghast at Obama's behavior. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada called the president "irresponsible" and the consistently shameless Mitt Romney painted Obama a "timid advocate for freedom".

Um, ok. Well, let's see here...

I could go on. With regards to that last one -- Reagan yukking it up with Mikhail Gorbachev, then of "the evil Empire" -- it didn't take long before (surprise) Newt was caught in a contradiction. Apparently, Gingrich had previously argued on his website that Ronald Reagan's good humor with Gorby was a sign of strength, not weakness.

Speaking of which, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC the other day, saintly old Ronald Reagan didn't just smile and shake hands with America's enemies. His administration sold them weapons under the table. So, please, assorted puddin'-heads of the GOP talkocracy, spare me your warmed-over tripe about poor diplomacy and weak leadership. As with everything else above, I've swallowed enough of your swill over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime.

"The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding." Perusing last week's sordid torture memos, eagle-eyed blogger Marcy Wheeler discovered an unsettling statistic: two suspects -- Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- were waterboarded by the CIA 266 times. Zubaydah "revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been 'unnecessary' in his case."

Meanwhile, as right-wing stooges like former CIA director Michael Hayden and Mike Allen's anonymous friend excoriate the president for breaking tradition and revealing the illegalities of the Dubya era, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ventured onto the Sunday shows to tamp down talk of any prosecutions, even for the higher-ups. "[P]eople in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted...those who devised policy, he [Obama] believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter."

Wrong answer, Rahm. And, unless President Obama were to grant full pardons to the architects of Dubya-era torture, it's not even his call whether or not they should be prosecuted. In fact, choosing not to prosecute them would constitute a violation of international law.

Update: The White House doesn't necessarily agree with Rahm. "[A]dministration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale. Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely, to refer cases for criminal prosecution."

Update 2: "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that." President Obama opens the door further for prosecution.

And, sometimes, here in our own Room 101, it's insects. As breaking everywhere this afternoon, the President authorizes the release of four long-awaited CIA memos that detail the rationalizing and application of Bush-era torture policies. [No. 1 | No. 2, No. 3a/3b | 4a/4b.] And, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes, they seem to suggest that even the parties-that-be knew what they were doing constituted torture. ("Each year, in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries. Certain of the techniques the United States has condemned appear to bear resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques...The State Department's inclusion of nudity, water dousing, sleep deprivation, and food deprivation among the conduct it condemns is significant and provides some indication of an executive foreign relations tradition condemning the use of these techniques.") But, they approved these already-condemned practices as legal anyway, with the caveat that they "cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion." Yeah, you think?

Well, let's hope the courts get a chance to decide either way. While releasing these documents today, Pres. Obama and Attorney General Holder also made clear that the CIA interrogators involved will not be prosecuted for these acts. "'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department,' he said in a statement." Um, I'm of the opinion that it would be unfair to get strung up in a, cough, "stress position" by a bunch of Cheney-authorized CIA yahoos and then see no legal recourse for it. (And, hey, "just following orders" -- what a novel legal defense. Who were the ad wizards that came up with that one?)

On the other hand, as the WP points out: "Today's carefully worded statement left open the possibility, however, that agents and higher-level officials who may have ventured beyond the strategies approved by Bush lawyers could face legal jeopardy for their actions." That still closes too many legal doors, imho. The strategies approved by Bush lawyers are horrible -- and illegal -- enough. But, at least we can still hold out the minute possibility that the real, top-level architects of Dubya-era torture policy will face some sort of prosecution for their crimes, above and beyond their inevitable condemnation in the history books. (President Obama may argue that "[t]his is a time for reflection, not retribution," but, the law is the law. And, as he should know, pardoning Nixon didn't do Gerald Ford any favors.)

Either way, let's be clear: These memos prove beyond a shadow of a doubt -- as if there were any doubt left -- that it was the stated and directed policy of the Dubya-era CIA to engage in acts they knew to be torture. That is unacceptable, completely antithetical to our ideals, and exceedingly worthy of a criminal investigation. If, in the name of national unity or CIA morale or whatever, the president wants to give a pass to the flunkies who actually held the victims down as they flailed, choked, or writhed in agony...well, that just means somebody else higher-up has to pay. Fine. But, if the rule of law means anything anymore, and I believe it does, the people responsible must be held to account.

"Even for the hardest-core Obama loyalists, it's rather difficult to attribute these increasingly harsh condemnations of Obama's civil liberties, secrecy and executive power abuses to bad motives or ignorance when they're coming from the likes of Russ Feingold, Talking Points Memo, the Center for American Progress, Nancy Pelosi, EFF, the ACLU, The New York Times Editorial Board, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, The American Prospect, Bruce Fein, Digby, along with some of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters and a bevvy of liberal law professors and international law experts -- those who were most venerated by progressives during the Bush era on questions of the Constitution and executive power."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald surveys the growing progressive consensus that something is rotten at Holder's DOJ with regard to state secrets and the continuation of Bush-era policies antithetical to, if not downright contemptuous of, civil liberties. (In case you missed it here or here, I'm not happy either.) "That the Obama DOJ has repeatedly embraced the very legal theories responsible for much of the intense progressive rage towards the Bush/Cheney regime is now beyond dispute. The question of motive -- of why Obama is doing this -- is far less clear."

Now, obviously, the president has a lot on his plate these days, and a finite amount of political capital with which to achieve an enormous number of objectives. Still, it's well past time that the administration explain what's going on on the civil liberties front from start to finish, akin to Obama's economic overview speech at Georgetown this morning. These are not piddling matters.

We are its leaders. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's give a trillion. "Mr. Brown, who organized the meeting in a hangarlike conference center in London, said: 'This is the day the world came together to fight against the global recession. Our message today is clear and certain: we believe that global problems require global solutions.'"

In the meantime, Slate's Fred Kaplan applauds the return of real, honest-to-goodness American statecraft in London. "Vast multinational conferences, like the G20 summit...are useful mainly for the 'bilaterals' -- the one-on-one side-room conversations -- and, in these forums, President Barack Obama is living up to high expectations. Which is to say, the United States seems to be returning to diplomatic basics -- a development that in the wake of the last eight years is practically revolutionary."

At the very least, the president's diplomatic mojo seemed to work on Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. "'Yesterday I spoke about this with my new comrade President Barack Obama,' Medvedev told reporters travelling with him to the London summit...'I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good,' he said, adding: 'Today it's a totally different situation (compared to Bush).'"

"It's a debate that the Bush administration never seriously had in the seven years following the post-9/11 invasion. Now, by contrast, in the wake of three major strategic reviews, Obama is extending and deepening the discussion of Afghanistan, because the outcome of this debate may set the course of American foreign policy for the remainder of his presidency." Counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN)? In Slate, Fred Kaplan discusses the major decision on Afghanistan before Obama this week.

Update: "'We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,' Obama said. 'That is the goal that must be achieved.'" The president announces our new Af-Pak strategy. Sounds like the COINS won out. Update 2: Or did they? Call it CT-plus.

"'I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility,' Clinton told reporters accompanying her to Mexico City a day after the Obama administration said it would send more money, technology and manpower to secure the Southwestern frontier and help Mexico battle the cartels." During a visit to our ailing neighbor, Secretary of State Clinton admits American culpability in the exacerbating of Mexico's drug war. "'Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,' she said. 'Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians... Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible,' she said.'That's not right.'"

Well, cheers to Sec. Clinton for being honest about some of the causes of Mexico's escalating drug violence. Still, in pledging tighter borders, more troops, yadda yadda yadda, she and the administration are still dancing around one of the more obvious solutions to the problem.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The Obama administration and Holder Justice Dept. uphold Dubya's dubious use of a "state secrets" privilege to put the kibosh on a lawsuit put forward by five men "extraordinarily rendered" by the CIA.

See also a livid Glenn Greenwald for the details: "The entire claim of 'state secrets' in this case is based on two sworn Declarations from CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one public and one filed secretly with the court. In them, Hayden argues that courts cannot adjudicate this case because to do so would be to disclose and thus degrade key CIA programs of rendition and interrogation -- the very policies which Obama, in his first week in office, ordered shall no longer exist. How, then, could continuation of this case possibly jeopardize national security when the rendition and interrogation practices which gave rise to these lawsuits are the very ones that the U.S. Government, under the new administration, claims to have banned?"

Update: Sensing the likely blowback, one presumes, the Justice Dept. announces it'll be reviewing Dubya's "state secrets" claims in due course. "It's vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know." So apparently, the ugly details of our now-defunct(?) extraordinary rendition policy aren't among the actions we should have any clue about. Ugh...this one definitely goes in the Carcetti file.

"It is precisely our ideals which give us the strength and moral high ground to deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorism organizations around the world...We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms." As hinted soon after the election, it's finally on its way out: One day after putting a hold on all Gitmo tribunals, the president orders the closing of the national embarrassment at Guantanamo within the year.

"[T]he orders [also] bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

And there was much rejoicing! We can all breathe a little easier and stand a little taller now that America is actually starting to act like America again. (And, trust me, I won't shed any tears over dropping the gulag and torture news category here at GitM.)

Btw, the "new sheriff in town" pic above is via The Big Picture's very worthwhile inaugural collection, as seen at Webgoddess.