Obama and the Past
Published in ABC
(Spain) on 15 July 2009
by (link to original)
The decisions of policy-makers cannot escape the scrutiny of the law in any case. It’s a sacred principle that protects democracies from the possible totalitarian temptations of their leaders, and, therefore, institutions need to rely on their own filters and control mechanisms so that the proper functioning of the mechanisms of power is reestablished as soon as possible. This is what has happened in the United States with the program that then Vice-President Dick Cheney designed, a plan that included, it seems, the possibility that U.S. agents could murder terrorist leaders, a plan that he did not want to inform Congress about. The program in question was never implemented, but its existence once again reminds us that not all that is done in the name of the fight against terrorism is justified in and of itself, and that is why it has been justly criticized.
However, it would be bad if President Barack Obama turned his mandate into a futile exercise in witch-hunting of the previous administration. The United States has a long list of serious problems that requires all the White House’s energy right now, and it does not seem very reasonable to continue rummaging in a convulsed and extraordinary past from a historic point of view. That former Vice-President Cheney could do legally questionable things is not something that the U.S. should be proud of. However, for a president like Obama, who enjoys so much political and institutional support, to give in to the temptation to use that support politically would be just as unjustifiable. On the contrary, the dimensions of the problems that need to be confronted by Obama suggest that he maintain his ability to cooperate with the Republicans.
The worst part of this discussion is that the main beneficiaries are always the terrorists, for whom there is no law other than their own fanaticism, nor any objective other than to cause the greatest harm possible. Our missions as free societies is to defend the rule of law, but, above all, to protect the life and security of our citizens. In order to do this, not all routes are acceptable, but neither is it good to use as a weapon (and, hopefully, Obama will not be involved in the dilemma of having to consider this) because the terrorists are now more cornered than they were in September 2001.
However, it would be bad if President Barack Obama turned his mandate into a futile exercise in witch-hunting of the previous administration. The United States has a long list of serious problems that requires all the White House’s energy right now, and it does not seem very reasonable to continue rummaging in a convulsed and extraordinary past from a historic point of view. That former Vice-President Cheney could do legally questionable things is not something that the U.S. should be proud of. However, for a president like Obama, who enjoys so much political and institutional support, to give in to the temptation to use that support politically would be just as unjustifiable. On the contrary, the dimensions of the problems that need to be confronted by Obama suggest that he maintain his ability to cooperate with the Republicans.
The worst part of this discussion is that the main beneficiaries are always the terrorists, for whom there is no law other than their own fanaticism, nor any objective other than to cause the greatest harm possible. Our missions as free societies is to defend the rule of law, but, above all, to protect the life and security of our citizens. In order to do this, not all routes are acceptable, but neither is it good to use as a weapon (and, hopefully, Obama will not be involved in the dilemma of having to consider this) because the terrorists are now more cornered than they were in September 2001.
Previous article![]( "If U.S. Wanted Change They Are Getting It")
