You have to wonder, don't you? Before we dive into this - it is hardly revelatory that President Obama represents a significant upgrade over George Bush Junior, and certainly John McCain. This is not argued. He also is just a man with a Congress - he can't get us all a pony inside of a year. This also is not argued. In terms of environment, economy, health care reform, there is a lot on his plate, and he has done some things with merit in all of these areas - and while one can argue how MUCH he has done, at least there is a sense of a grownup running the country.
But let's go back, way back ... and it was the law that brought the President into the public sphere. After all, it was his accomplishments at Harvard Law that gave him the opportunity to write Dreams of My Father. He of course famously talked about he was an instructor in Constitutional Law at a 2007 fundraiser. The Constitution, the field of jurisprudence - was an essential ingredient in the identity of Barack Obama - right up to the day he ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be shut down.
Thus when he took over for George W Bush, and started to get his feet wet with the War on Terrorism, it sure seemed like there was a lot to clean up - that Bush overstepped the bounds of a president over and over again in the name of being Commander in Chief. Indeed I remember the furor over Bush's demand for warrantless wiretapping. Obama might have provided a bit of ominious foreshadowing when he joined the gutless Democratic Senatorial caucus in voting FOR the extension, but his explanation seemed fair. Really, then it seemed like a canny political move, and not a specific endorsement of Bush's policies and beliefs in this arena. But when you take that event and the ensuing actions in the arena of civil liberties and the War on Terror - perhaps he thinks that Bush had it right all along:
Torture: Well much was made of Obama's order to end it. However, torture has ended theoretically, but his protests of revelation of torture are remarkably strident - like there is something to hide on this. Does he really agree with Bush on this?
Detainees: we know he signed the order to close Gitmo. But in the speech where he discussed Guantanamo Bay, he specifically did not indict the entire system of terrorism justice. He still advocated a due process pu pu platter - including the most troubling power to hold anyone without charges. Aside from changing location, it is hard to distinguish this from Bush's policies. Does Obama really agree with Bush on this?
Really, this stuff has rushed back into the front of my mind after this week's events. With the real possibility that Obama might overrule the DoJ on the venue for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial - and the stunningly stupid and morally bankrupt Al Qaeda Seven nonsense, our justice system is under attack in the most insidious way.
How does this happen? How does this country suddenly believe that offering fair trials is not a way to do business? How do we not think our prosecutors are good enough? How are American values - good enough to shepherd this country through 234 years - suddenly no longer helpful? Is the President a dictator? Was Yoo right about what unitary executive business?
What Bush did with the War on Terror - all of it - might be bad. But what is worse, doing something sneakily - or endorsing the sneaky behavior as legitimate?