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: 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.