What the mosquito said
There was an interesting moment in the 60 Minutes interview with Obama on Sunday – Steve Kroft said (approximately, from memory), “There were members of the group who disagreed with you about the plan?” It sounded like a set-up for “oh dear, dissension in the administration, chaos, management problems, oh noes,” but Obama answered very calmly and with some emphasis that he wants it that way. He wants people with different views, and he wants them to feel completely free to disagree with him and argue their case. While he was saying it a little voice was shouting “So unlike Bush! So unlike Bush!”
He went on to the effect that that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. That’s how you get the best ideas: via open discussion and disagreement.
That’s how he ran the Harvard Law Review, too, to the irritation of some of his friends.
Except that the actual policies that have resulted have been, in a number of ways, even worse. Such as the assassination of US citizens.
A little perspective on that: The policy was put in place by the Bush administration. It is being continued by the Obama administration. The policy does not apply within the United States. Reports indicate there are, currently, three names on the hitlist; one of them is the well-known pacifist and holy man Al Awlaki.
Just saying!
I’m sorry, I must have missed something. Which of Obama’s policies have resulted in the assassination of US citizens?
With respect to Barack Obama, I’m inclined to agree with Leon Wieseltier. The man demands too much interpretation. We’re used to being able to place the president in a particular location along the political spectrum, and if Obama intends to provide a clue as to where he will stand on future issues, he’s done a very poor job of it.
Unlike Wieseltier, though, I find this refreshing. Obama seems to take the perspective that he was elected, not as the representative of a particular American political faction, but as President of the United States, with the authority to decide as he, personally, sees fit. I think that’s what the Constitution intended. We will have the opportunity to judge his decisions in November of 2012.
Anwar al-Awlaki? The one whose wikipedia page says he wrote “44 ways to support Jihad”?
Yes Moewicus – that Al Awlaki.
@Chris Lawson: the policy is being carried on from the good old bush days (when the deficit was only nine trillion and therefore not a problem). I don’t believe anyone has actually been assassinated yet on Obama’s watch but I think there was a missile shot on Awlaki’s hideout but he wasn’t there.
@Ken Pidcock; but isn’t it great to have a president who requires the people to make a little mental effort to figure out very complex issues. Democracy is not supposed to be a spectator sport. And I don’t these days have to shut off the radio or TV whenever the POTUS speaks.
And I don’t these days have to shut off the radio or TV whenever the POTUS speaks.
Potus is such an intriguing acronym. (God I hope it’s an acronym). For pot in latin suggests ability, c.f. potential, possibility. Yet pot in English suggest the mundane utensil or stupifiaction (cannabis). Given that Potus seems almost like a noun derived from a verb. I take it thus as a potential for you to mundanly utilize stupefaction. I salute such an idea. Long live such a verb!
The mind boggles. I guess we foreigners shoul be grateful that the US is taking a collegial approach to throwing its weight around in the rest of the world. That’s soooooooooooooo much better than Bush.
@7
POTUS: President Of The United States.
Because we couldn’t just call him the President. One too many syllables for our current level of intellectual vigor.
Plus, it tweets better.
Exactly, Kevin. You can’t just say President Obama. Too ambiguous. President of what? President of the local Chamber of Commerce? President of the Justin Bieber fan club? President of Citizens United for Tin Foil Hats?
Anyone says “POTUS” to me, and I tell them to lay off the Tom Clancy novels.
Back on subject. I respect that Obama actually listens to opinions that are different than his. Period.
Back on subject. I respect that Obama actually listens to opinions that are different than his. Period.
Which unfortunately includes all of the liberals like me who voted for him. I’d appreciate more finding that his opinion is the SAME as mine. For once.
Obama talks a better game.
Many of the court cases that the ACLU was fighting against the Bush admin have continued on with no change under Obama: warrantless searches, warrantless wiretaps, gitmo, using ‘national security’ to obscure government bad or illegal behavior, denial of habeas corpus, government protections of corporations who violated citizens rights in deference to ‘national security’, TSA groping was instituted under Obama, and he endorsed and signed the PATRIOT ‘enhancements’.
I never understood how Bush was supposed to be the kind of guy you’d “like to have a beer with.” I don’t know about other people, but I like a bit of conversation when I’m at the pub, and good conversation isn’t facilitated by enforced, unthinking agreement.
Some soldiers fighting for enemies might be American citizens. All of the soldiers in the Confederacy were citizens in rebellion against the Union during the Civil War. Not only were they killed, it was done on American soil. Awlaki is technically an enemy combatant, so he too can be killed. At least that’s the argument. The court dismissed the suit on technical grounds, but left open the possibility that Awlaki could sue in his own behalf. IMO if he doesn’t he forfeits any right he might still posses not to be targeted. In effect he has done that by his words and actions.
I don’t expect any President to side with the ACLU. It’s the ACLUs job to take positions that represent the far reaches of civil liberties, not the default position that seems reasonable to everyone. They are not “balancers” like a government official must be. Occasionally I root for them when they oppose bad policy, but opposing bad policy is a small part of what they do. It would be very strange if they won most of their cases. We need an ACLU and if they are fulfilling their function they should lose most of the time.
The “open disagreement” meme would be great if true, but Obama’s considered solutions still seem to cover a rather narrow range of possibilities (in the health care and tax debates, for example). If the group has been stocked with people with similar views to begin with, open argument is unlikely to change the end result much.
You may as well be a Bush guy then. That the Constitution doesn’t mean a thing if the government decides otherwise (traditional position of all tyrannical governments). You cannot maintain a free society when the government can break its own laws for expediency.
That’s Bush thinking but there is no legal basis for that, in fact there is no legal definition for Bush’s concept of ‘enemy combatant’.
The ACLU is not fringe. Their positions, for the most part are dead solid correct and legally justified.