During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama vowed to roll back Bush-era abuses and restore the proper balance between security and freedom. A few days after being sworn in, he elated progressives by banning torture, beginning the process of closing Guantánamo, and putting military commissions on ice. But a year on, a majority of Bush's counterterror policies remain largely, if not entirely, intact. Critics on the left call Obama "Bush lite"; meanwhile, Dick Cheney hammers him for aiding and comforting the enemy. So who's right? And what philosophy is the administration adopting as a guide in the war on terror?
Neither criticism hits the mark. Dismantling the CIA's enhanced-interrogation program and shuttering Gitmo are substantive reforms that improve our global image. The counterterror policies that remain—including indefinite military detention and warrantless wiretapping—are now on firmer legal footing. Obama's lawyers have sought the input of Congress and the blessing of the courts.
These changes aren't just window dressing; they represent a critical conceptual shift. Under Bush, policy sometimes seemed to be driven as much by a desire to vindicate ideology as a need to protect the American people. (The overreaching probably did more to set back the cause of executive power than advance it.) Obama starts from a different premise: that the tools we rely on to combat terrorism should be grounded in the rule of law and subject to congressional and judicial review.
Pres.Bush did not have the luxury of time on his side. I believe Pres.Bush acted in good faith and in the best interest of the nation. What Pres.Obama has done is get the blessings of the institutions for the steps that Pres.Bush took to safeguard the country in a hurry.
But with all the luxury of time, we have not done better.. We have now had Ft.Hood and the latest in-flight fire event.
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
I agree Sanders. The horror of 9/11 was enough to make every American stand up and allow every measure to be taken to secure our country. Bush had no time to waste, just secure what was considered important at the time.
Many see it as a crime on privacy, but it has been proven the intentions were worth the criticisim.
I agree Sanders. The horror of 9/11 was enough to make every American stand up and allow every measure to be taken to secure our country. Bush had no time to waste, just secure what was considered important at the time.
Many see it as a crime on privacy, but it has been proven the intentions were worth the criticisim.
Kbentleyis,
Yes, there is a balance to play between national interest and citizens' need for privacy. Where the WH erred is in criticizing specifically his prior administration when there was really no need to do so; what he did simply polarized parties to positions of no real win-win potential. It is what happens when inexperience is combined with ego; his lack of empathy for the position that Pres.Bush found himself has come back to teach him a real lesson.
The President has finally called upon Homeland Security to take another look at traffic security. I hope their trigger mechanisms for more detailed checking passengers improves. I hope they make certain seats not available for open reservation!!!
-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 28th of December 2009 03:42:15 PM
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010