Where Are You Going Obama Administration?

Regarding "enhanced interrogation" methods and their effectiveness, I mentioned a few weeks ago that

Cheney himself called for the CIA declassification of documents that would supposedly prove The Dark Lord's methods worked and yielded valuable intelligence. Of course, Cheney said this because he is certain they will never be made public, and he thinks the Democrats have the balls of a 3rd grader (hard to disagree on this second point) and won't disprove him.

Well, sadly that appears to be the case. The CIA has announced they'll release the "Holy Grail" 2004 report that supposedly holds the key to the actual dearth of accuracy in claiming these "enhanced" methods worked---except, most likely with all the important parts redacted, thus shielding Cheney.

The Post says the CIA is resisting the declassification of parts “describing in graphic detail how the agency handled its detainees,” which may or may not include the “effectiveness” chapter.

The Department of Justice is on a roll in our "new era of transparency." Even though there have been new revelations that the Bush NSA spying program was wider than originally proclaimed (to include spying on American citizens, and possibly journalists like James Rosen), here's Eric Holder changing his tune and refusing to admit that Bush's NSA spying program was illegal, continuing the Bush-Era sophistry "that -- though the spying program was "in contravention" of FISA -- it was not "illegal." (To be fair, during his confirmation hearing, Holder also said he believed waterboarding to be torture, but has since Cheney's public admission that he called for and executed such a program, become much more cavalier about the medieval tactic. Consistency is important, don't you think?).

Holder not admitting the illegality of the NSA program makes sense because, as Glenn Greenwald points out: "his DOJ is telling courts that this very program is a "state secret" and courts are therefore barred from ruling on its legality. You should see Greenwald's cycle of protocol following such common revelations.* Priceless. Good thing the Executive branch has assumed the role of the Judicial with cases relating to itself, otherwise there could be a Madisonian check or separation of powers. Such a quaint idea in the "Era of the War on Terror."

So here's a joke for those worried about the state of our republic: What do government accountability and a "new era of transparency," especially regarding torture and domestic spying, have to with a functioning democracy? The Obama administration---like its predecessor----answers, "Nothing!"

Also, what do Obama and fringe right-wing arguments about homosexuality have in common? The answer: The language and types of arguments that can be found in the Obama-supported Defense of Marriage Amendment. Andrew Sullivan, gay-conservative supporter of Obama put it this way:

to file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre...Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea?

Good thing Obama doesn't want to piss off rabid "conservatives" these days, considering all the love they've been giving him in return. Obama's presumption about his liberal constituency is telling though: Basically, that we're ineffectual, hero worshippers, manipulable enough to put up with such cynical attacks on the votes we cast in November.

Oh yeah, let's also forget about a public option to healthcare! There's no mention of it in the New Health Reform Outline despite a recent poll that 76% of Americans prefer the choice of a public plan. Obama better not fudge this too by carrying out the will of the conflict-of-interest laden Tom Daschle/Max Baucus side of the party instead of what the people want: choice and real competition in the health "industry." There's a reason why the party is called the Democratic Party, isn't there?


Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).