SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon. Others at SN have also voiced similar opinions so I thought this might be an interesting read for our members.
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
[Related]: ‘National Security and Double Government’
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:19PM
He has the authority to fire people. Keep firing people all the way down until it changes. Yes, the article says that there are only about 250 political appointees, but that's still a LOT when you consider the number of their direct reports.
What happened was that he either intentionally misled people to get elected or unintentionally miscalculated the political price of fixing the problem. Which, if I understand the article, was the well-intentioned design of the post-war system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:40PM
People mislead themselves and ignored the parts that didn't fit their romanticized view.
Obama just didn't bother to correct them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:56PM
Quoting the TFS:
Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line.
Quoting Leebert:
unintentionally miscalculated the political price of fixing the problem
I suggest something far simpler: He was, like his gullible believers, just Hopelessly Naive. He got into office, and He GREW UP.
When he got into office and found out the scope of the problems that would his starry eyed idealism would cause, he came to the realization that doing anything approaching his promises would have devastating real world consequences. The idealism got a dose of real-world information that knocked him on his heels.
Regarding Gitmo: Every single one of those released have rejoined the battle, are leading ISIS, even while the worst of the worst are still sitting there.
As for nuclear weapons, its a safety issue. If these things aren't rebuilt they will become dangerous. So the choice is disarm completely or scrap the old and rebuild newer safer weapons in smaller quantities. (Yes, there is a reduction, and no, 1 Trillion is not big money.)
The Marines couldn't capture Osama even when they had him cornered, but some twerp sitting on the end of a huge monitoring network found him. That ONE incident convinced Obama that what he had been force-fed since election was true. Knowledge was power.
I don't discount there is strong inertia in government, and strong tendencies to protect bureaucratic fiefdoms. Change takes too long, progress seems slow. Clue: Its that way in every successful country.
However, there isn't even a widespread agreement of what constituted progress. The country is split almost down the middle on many issues. In such an environment, invoking wholesale change would end up alienating half the country no matter WHAT you do. And in the end, any attempt to impose drastic change would probably not be successful, because those same voters that put him in office also elect people who rein him in.
There is a reason we don't have a King in this country, and that government isn't at the whim of one man. There's also a reason 16-25 year olds don't run ANY country.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:30PM
Well that is bullshit and means I will now doubt everything else you say.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:00PM
Thank you! Also quite relevant is that the majority of those who are currently sitting in Gitmo are Yemenis who have been cleared of any kind of wrongdoing or terrorist associations, but the Yemeni government (a US ally) doesn't want them to come back. In other words, our tax dollars are allowing another country to outsource its political prisoners to us.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:17PM
That's a comment worthy of Cold Fjord. The fact is, a huge percentage of Gitmo detainees were the victims of retaliation / massive bonuses. The US was offering rewards about 10x yearly income for information on people to sweep off to Gitmo. Imagine an asshole who has an annoying neighbor and the usual human avarice -- you can imagine what happened.
See page 15, text of US Gov't Flyer:
Or consider this:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-31-bounties_x.htm [usatoday.com]
I can say this -- if some random government came in and despite my actual innocence, imprisoned and tortured me for years, if I ever got out, I would do everything in my power to get revenge. I think most people would. The only thing that would stay my fury, would be an express apology, a lot of money, and promises of reform.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:19PM
Two things, my response is to the GP (Frojack) quoted.
Secondly, here is the citation for the report I mentioned in my first blockquote: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf [shu.edu]
(Score: 1) by forkazoo on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:37PM
Even if it is true, I'm not sure it should drive policy. If you were illegally imprisoned by a foreign imperial power for years without trial, why wouldn't you want to fight them? "People get angry at us when we do this, therefore we should do it forever," isn't necessarily the only possible line of logic that extends from post Guantanamo combatants.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:54AM
Many have already come to this conclusion long ago. If only our fellow Soylentil was either not so afraid, or not so full of it.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:35PM
No doubt there's some of that there. But we have a rule of law, and I'm FAR more afraid of an out-of-control government than I am a bunch of terrorists. And I say that as a guy who works about 4 blocks from the US Capitol building, and thus has a bigger chance than most of not coming away from whatever happens at that particular ground zero.
I've been the guy who has, many times, pointed out that IMO this is ALL being done by well-intentioned people. I know quite a few of them. But the fact is that our form of government is a delicately balanced risk management equation. If that equation must change due to reality, well... let's have that conversation. It's not either-or. Do we need a "Bureau of Domestic Intelligence Data Collection"? Maybe. But it should be created in plain sight, with clear checks and balances in place. Sure, We the People don't need to know every little detail, that's why we hire 435 people to handle that for us. But when we've gotten to the point that the national security apparatus has been found straight-faced lying to our representatives that we employ to handle this for us, something is very, very wrong, and the risk scale has tipped WAY far in the other direction.
Yes, pragmatically, in practice, we've all known that the likes of the CIA have been doing these things for a very long time, and we've taken something of a "sometimes you just have to..." mindset. But this is different. It's at an unprecedented (and still unwarranted) scale, less and less in the very, very few "look the other way" parts of the government and more and more in plain view (e.g., Guantanamo). I won't get into the "why do you THINK these guys joined an anti-US organization when released from Gitmo?" question; I'll just leave it to say that a lot of the problems are quite self-inflicted and are dangerous feedback loops.
Anyway, you may well be right that the third unmentioned option of "he changed his mind" should have been included. But it still isn't excusable.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:02PM
Or, as was the case of the NSA, breaking into computers controlled by a US Senator to delete incriminating information.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:09PM
But we have a rule of law, and I'm FAR more afraid of an out-of-control government than I am a bunch of terrorists.
We HAD a rule of law. Obama refuses to enforce them [wsj.com]
Not just the little laws, that everyone might agree need to be ignored occasionally, but the huge ones.
There was a time when the CIA and the NSA did not operate in this country. When people, here legally, flew airplanes into buildings all of that changed. They have gone for a technological solution instead of feet on the ground in a hundred little places talking to local police. Just easier to listen in on phone calls. They've gotten lazy, and let the computers round up everything.
I agree it is unprecedented, but only in this country. Others have operated this way for decades.
What I worry about is the day when these government snoops feel their livelyhood is threatened, and instead of a bunch of sting operations with inert fake bombs run against ignorant islamic militant wanna-be's they actually fund, or turn a blind eye to a shopping center attack [wikipedia.org] like Westgate. Every time the heat is turned up on them they run another silly security theater sting. I wouldn't be surprised if they have convinced/threatened Obama that any move against them would result in such an attack.
Its clear Obama has totally lost interest in the Job. Maybe its just because he has nothing more to gain, term-limited out. I suppose its also possible he's been totally cowed by the security apparatus.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:23PM
I've had similar thoughts, but I still don't see that as a problem for the President. That is the point at which he should use his greatest weapon, the press and the bully pulpit, stand up in front of the American people and tell them that he and the American public have been threatened, and that he has directed whatever law enforcement is still legitimate to immediately arrest the offender(s), or, failing in that, mobilizing the National Guard to remove the offenders as domestic enemies, or, failing in that, at least telling the American people that their government is no longer legitimate and allowing them to take whatever steps (if any) they see fit to remove the illegitimate government.
Again, unless he's concerned about his own well-being (political or otherwise), the president is pretty much never backed into a corner that doesn't let him do SOMETHING to uphold his oath. And if he's worried about his popularity, life and limb enough to not uphold his oath, than he is unworthy of the office.
Maybe I'm hopelessly idealistic, but I've seen people at the returns counter at Wal-Mart fighting a losing battle in a bigger outrage than I've seen any politician fighting against the out-of-control security apparatus. Except maybe Ron Paul.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:33PM
well, yes, but in this country we have a constitution - a document that grants the country sovereignty and grants our representatives the authority to govern - that explicitly limits the powers of government. a government which goes outside of the rules that it must follow to receive its authority and sovereignty is a rogue government. the US is officially a rogue nation. unlike those other countries which have been rogue (or under despots or dictators) for a long time, we're living through the time in which our government has gone rogue; its far too late in those other states to stop it, but we may still have a chance. the fate of our nation literally hangs in the balance. if the article is correct that its been too late for a long time, then we need to abandon ship or begin the Second American Revolution.
(Score: 3) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:42PM
Sorry to say it, but appeals to the constitution are laughed at in every courthouse in the nation.
Every lawyer and judge snickers up their sleeve when anybody raises a constitutional issue.
The constitution has no teeth. There is no punishment for violating it once you are in government.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:26PM
there is, its just nobody is enforcing it.
5 U.S. Code § 7311 - Loyalty and striking [cornell.edu]
ignoring/undermining the constitution = overthrowing or advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. if our representatives aren't respecting the constitution, we no longer have a constitutional form of government.
18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government [cornell.edu]
every federal employee who ignores, undermines, suggests to ignore or undermine the constitution, or knows their coworkers or superiors do is to be locked up for a year, fined, or both.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:40PM
Washington DC and those who control it consider the American people to be the greatest threat to them. They have demonstrated that with their failure to punish the NSA for massively violating our Constitution, and not charging investment bankers for laundering money for drug cartels or defrauding the American people, and militarizing local police departments, and a whole host of other crimes and usurpations. They have already declared war on us. It is important to understand that.
Our system of checks and balances was well-designed, but over the last 200 years it has been subverted to the point of collapse. There remains no branch of government or traditional avenue for peaceful change that can or will do anything about it, because they are all in on it. It is up to the American citizens to stand up and enforce the law.
Soylentils can do their part by developing software and hardware that undermines their central control and makes it impossible for them to conduct business as usual. Let's crowd-source intelligence gathering on them and make it public for all to see, so they can be hoisted on their own petard. Let's send clouds of drones to swarm over their homes. Let's stop working to help them, and apply our considerable skills to resist and stop them. There are millions more of us than there are of them. Snowden has shown us all how powerful information can be, so let's follow that example and do likewise.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:36PM
The country is split almost down the middle on many issues. In such an environment, invoking wholesale change would end up alienating half the country no matter WHAT you do.
Perhaps the government should be organized more in line with the subsidiarity principle?
That way the cities can progress without upsetting people that have a hard time to rethink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:07PM
He GREW UP
Well, Obama got the part of his education that he had skipped over by being inside government such a short time.
JFK was another 40something whose personality (plus his "youth and inexperience", to quote a great line) damn near got us WWIII.
If the older, wiser Nikita Khrushchev (then 68) hadn't seen the consequences of continued saber rattling in October 1962, those of us who survived would be living the A Boy and His Dog|Threads scenario.
...then there's Dubya.
I think everyone's memories of that fiasco are fresh enough that I don't need to go into detail.
Oh, wait. He only -acted- like a 40something.
.
...and, as gawdonblue noted "rejoined" is bullshit.
If those people were an actual threat, they would have been tried and convicted (in the easy-to-get-a-conviction kangaroo courts of the post-9/11 USA).
The fact is, they we were released because they weren't ever militants.
All you had to do to get swept up in the insanity that is The War On Terror was have a neighbor who would drop a dime on you and make up some bullshit story.
(With you gone, the rat could then grab up that shiny new whatever you just acquired that he so covets.)
...though I would say those folks NOW have every reason to take up arms against the USA.
Blowback is a bitch.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:16AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/world/la-fg-yemen-wikileaks-20110426 [latimes.com]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/after-guantanamo-freed-detainees-return-to-violence-in-syria-battlefields-1401839291 [wsj.com]
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/6401 [militantislammonitor.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/exgitmo-detainee-alshihri_n_160330.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html [washingtonpost.com]
I have no illusions about changing your mind on anything, but when even the huf and puf post is publishing it you have to wonder.....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by thelexx on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:15AM
"Regarding Gitmo: Every single one of those released have rejoined the battle, are leading ISIS, even while the worst of the worst are still sitting there."
I would like to see evidence of that assertion. It doesn't surprise me but I've never heard that.
"1 Trillion is not big money"
Now I'm wondering what your agenda is.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:22AM
funny you should ask, since the citations appeared directly below your post.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:27AM
There is a reason we don't have a King in this country, and that government isn't at the whim of one man.
Please. A king is simply the Head of State. Quite literally - the crown on his head is more important than the king himself. Even King George III hardly represented the kind of fairytale monarch you are thinking of - he had to petition the British Parliament to to war against American revolutionaries because he didn't have the power.
The US has a Head of State too, only you've actually gone and given your guy extraordinary broad powers. He's quite whimsical about exercising them too... "Turns out I'm really good at killing people".
There is a reason you don't have kings in your country, but it's only semantic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:35AM
The country is split almost down the middle on many issues.
And why is that? Is that because every issue has precisely two mutually exclusive sides?
Or is that because it gets you more votes to phrase everything in terms of "us vs. them"?
--FakeBeldin.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:01PM
Didn't he fire some folks? All that did was put in place new folks that are _still_ in the pocket of those behind the scenes. I believe the point of this article here is that those behind the scenes are not the ones in office so you can't "fire" them.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:57PM
There is a management structure. Assuming the President issues legal orders, then somewhere down that management chain, political appointee or not, someone is either not following orders from above, in which case they can be fired for insubordination, or they are not subject to the organizational structure of the Executive branch due to some exception in legislation that was passed by the Congress.
Let's say it's the latter. Once again, our President has not used his office to its full ability to fix the problem. The Constitution specifically give the President one of these responsibilities in Article II, Section 3:
Has the President used the State of the Union for something other than a prime-time fashion gala (or, heck, at any point he so chooses to address the Congress, since "from time to time" isn't exactly schedule prescriptive); specifically, insisted that Congress fix such a hypothetical problem? If not, then it either doesn't exist, or again, the President has failed to take the action that he could have taken.
Can you help me understand how else such nefarious actors in government could be shielded from Presidential action?
(Score: 1) by octalrage on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:43AM
I think the idea here is there are hidden people who can "fire" him if he doesn't do what they want.