He could have vetoed any bill that came across his desk that infringed on american liberties, which would have then required a supermajority to get passed, which for most of the worst things wasn't going to happen.
Examples? Not to mention many bills have multiple purposes. The NDAA, for example, authorises the budget for the military that had a couple of elements discussing detention added. Obama did threaten to veto over some provisions and they were removed, simply because no-one could have afforded the bill not passing.
He could have ordered his Marines to brush up on the laws of war. The Marine corps has a institutionalized worship of the Prez, so that would have resulted in some serious effort.
Why the emphasis on the Marine Corps here? I've only been aware of a few cases where marines were involved in abuse, and fewer still under Obama.
I'm also guessing you haven't seen the army's new manual on avoiding civilian harm which was published last week.
There is a copy here and was some discussion around it last week on national security and law blogs.
On those lines he could have closed guantanimo bay like he promised and moved them to US soil and treated them like prisoners of war instead of whatever legal fiction is currently in use. Trust me, the Marine Corps would have listened.
Actually, no.
For one thing, bringing the prisoners to trial is pretty close to impossible, given the circumstances of their detention. Imagine a man who was caught by police standing over the bodies of five children cackling about how he just killed them. But then the police snatched him, held him for a month without charge, tortured him, etc. A good lawyer might not get him off on the initial charges but could damned well make that case hard for the prosecutor to fight. An open and shut case turns into a long slog, likely one that is destructive to the police force who captured him (deservedly so).
That's a pretty straight analogy for some of the prisoners, like KSM. If you had followed any of the news from his trial you would notice the lawyers are making a huge spectacle of it, emphasising the detention practices and abuses at every turn, even while they are supposed to be entering a plea. Simply moving prisoners into other custody and bringing them to trial is a massive farce that is going to take years.
Then there is the congressional opposition to GTMO closing. Keeping the prison open (although it can never receive any more prisoners) has become an article of faith for the Republican party. They have explicitly banned, several times, the use of government funds to transfer prisoners out of GTMO. Obama has even been ignoring or reinterpreting some of these laws (as excessive restrictions on executive powers) to carry on with prisoner transfers. There have also been attempts to block international prisoner transfers, both from the GOP and from overseas powers who back out of promises to take prisoners back. This has massively slowed the exodus of GTMO prisoners, although it has been carrying on at a reduced speed.
The whole NDAA detention kerfuffle was started when the Republicans wanted to block GTMO transfers and civilian trials or detention for 'terrorists'. That whole debate? All about attempts to keep GTMO open. The issues of civilian detention and the like were only sideshows as far as Congress were concerned, and given the action around the 2013 NDAA (currently passed in the House with massive GOP re-writing after all progressive amendments were defeated, up for debate in the Senate soonish) it seems they were right that no-one would pay much attention into the future.
He could have pardoned bradley manning.
On what grounds?
Frankly, while I have massive sympathy for Manning, he did commit a massive crime. He released a huge amount of classified material on, essentially, a personal whim. Give the volume and nature of the material it's very unlikely that he had determined if any of it was seriously damaging to the USA. It was an irresponsible act, no matter how much some people might like it or take pleasure in it.
I'm all for lenience during his trial, given the mitigating circumstances that actually existed. But not holding him accountable for such a leak is to treat classification of information as optional. In some cases, sure, no harm. In others that's asking to get people killed.
I'm leaving the drone strikes for now because that's a huge topic that I haven't been able to come to firm conclusions over yet. I will say I'm strongly in favour of him being the final authority in making these strikes.
If the US is shedding blood, I want that blood on the hands of someone selected, in no small part, for his moral character and seriousness.
If the US is making these strikes I trust them to be justified more if it's Obama giving the go-ahead than if it's some unknown CIA agent or military general. It's the sort of decision that we elect presidents to make. While most people tend to ignore it, alongside all the policy and political roles the president fills, he also if confronted with an endless series of trolley problems that have real death tolls attached to their decisions.
But overall I think Obama has fucked up in some places and made strides (or at least strong attempts) in others when it comes to national security and civil liberties. It's certainly worth noting his fights against
strong institutional inertia from the CIA and military, defending their past actions and pushing to use their powers. And yeah, he probably deserves some jail time by the end of his term. I'm not sure that a president has existed who hasn't.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 765297 times)