Niggles About Obama: Canuckistan Responds

Canuckistan responds to my earlier post on Senator Patrick Leahy's speech:

Aren't you being a little tough on Patrick Leahy? Is it surprising that he would be reluctant to speak for the Obama Administration before it has constituted itself and taken office, especially since he is not part of that administration and the last thing he would want to be is the cause of newspaper headlines back in the US?

The Guantanamo comment does seem surprising given the constant stream of news stories about plans underway to shut it down, a position that John McCain also advocated. That may be caution on the part of Leahy, but it may also reflect the realization that it will not be such an easy matter to shut down the camp because of what to do with the inmates. What happens to Khaled Sheikh Mohammad? Does he go on trial in a regular court and, if so, what do you do with the evidence obtained through waterboarding and the long time he spent in custody without charge? And what do you do with those are innocent but whose countries won't take them back (or the countries that will take them back but will torture them on return)?

The Bush Administration has left a counter-terrorist toxic waste dump for its successors to clean up.

An Obama Presidency: The Niggles Begin

As I was on the move, I wrote this before reading today's papers. The Times of London is claiming, based on information from "aides", that "Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office."

With a couple of colleagues from Clinton Institute, listened to a speech by Senator Patrick Leahy at University College Dublin.

Leahy, a skillful speaker, gave a short set-piece presentation about the excitement and hope of the Obama victory, includoing the possibility of rebuilding US image abroad.

Not much detail, however, so I thought I would press in question-and-answer. "Given the Bush Administration's vast expansion of executive power, for example, on torture, detention, surveillance, and the use of signing statements, how soon could we expect Obama and the Democratic-led Congress to roll back those powers?"

That's when the warning flags came out. Leahy was forceful enough in saying that the US Government had forgotten the basic maxim, "Follow the laws", so American image as promoter of freedom had been tarnished. And it should be noted that Leahy, as chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, has given Bush Administration a rough ride over its re-interpretation of laws and power, especially in the case of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But he wouldn't grasp the nettle on the question. He merely said, "I hope some of these executive powers will be rolled back; if not, there will be pressure." That pressure was undefined, and the rest of the answer was a stall on whether Obama and Congress revoke powers on torture, detention, surveillance, and military operations.

And there were more disturbing omissions and deflections. In response to another question, Leahy said, "We're going to need a bipartisan coalition to close [the US detention facility] at Guantanamo".

Ummm, no, you don't. Just as President Bush could open authorise detention with an executive order, so President Obama could stop revoke it with a signature. The issue has nothing to do with Congressional authority.

Translation? I think Leahy is still worried that the Democrats will look "soft" on national security if they challenge --- at least without assured support from some Republicans --- the Bush Administration's grab of executive power.

That impression is reinforced by Leahy's (non)-answer to another excellent question: "Given the Bush Administration's effective institutionalisation of power and Government infra-structure, for example, through the extension of military authority, bases, and planning, could the Obama Presidency do much to push this back?" Leahy spoke for several minutes in reply, but I could not find a single word of substance to jot down.