President Obama Is Not a Draconian Monster
President Obama is not the draconian monster some make him out to be.
Since his first term in 2008, U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to end the war on terror started by his predecessor George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Since then, many have complained of Obama's unfulfilled promises, such as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, his administration’s use of deadly drones and the numerous cases involving violations of civilians’ freedoms in the name of national security. The latest problems with the Obama administration center around unlawful surveillance of citizens’ accounts with U.S. phone operator Verizon and nine other internet giants.
Vincent Michelot, a professor specializing in United States history at Sciences Po Lyon, draws lessons from cases of the Obama administration's management policy of national security and counter-terrorism. According to Michelot, this scandal is not new in the United States. During the first term of the Bush presidency, the New York Times revealed that Bush’s administration manipulated the federal court system to conduct foreign intelligence. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an organization created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, judges have the sole function of authorizing wiretaps. President Bush believed that, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he did not have to ask the opinion or permission of any party, such as the Courts, in order to eavesdrop.
The difference between the Bush and Obama scandals reflects the distinctions between the Bush and Obama administrations. President Obama, when requesting wiretaps and collection of phone records, followed the law – that is, the 1978 law. One may wonder how a law allowing such a pervasive violation of civil liberties is legitimate, but it actually is and so President Obama used it.
How, then, can the Obama administration justify its use of this invasive law that compromises civil liberties?
Obama's position is extremely delicate. Since the beginning of his term, the conservative opposition has attacked him, accusing him of not being tough enough in the fight against terrorism. There were also attacks on his administration's leaks on sensitive issues, such as the killing of bin Laden by U.S. commandos. Elected Republicans, such as New York Republican Representative Peter King, criticized the Obama administration for not knowing how to explain itself. The president must respond to these very negative accusations that affect his image, while at the same time staying in control of his communications. As a result, it is not hard to see why Obama’s administration is trying to keep certain details top secret, such as covert operations in third world countries.
With the proliferation of scandals involving wiretapping, the use of drones and maintaining Guantanamo, many claim that President Obama is continuing where Bush left off in the war on terror. What do you think?
There is a great difference between them. With two wars under his belt and thousands of U.S. troops on the ground, President Bush followed the doctrine of "heavy footprints" with regard to the use of the armed forces. Obama has adopted a doctrine of "light footprints" in three areas: the use of much more systematic targeted commando operations, the massive use of drones and cyberwarfare. In this regard, it is absolutely necessary to maintain secrecy. Many newspapers accuse Obama of a cover up
and compare him to Nixon, who found himself caught up in the Watergate scandal. But the Nixon administration used secrecy in different ways.
There is a partisan dimension to this debate; large exaggerations are used to de-legitimatize the Obama administration. The Obama administration is not without reproach in these situations, but Obama is not the draconian monster some would portray him to be. He is fully committed to his mandates, and his administration is not a total failure.
Obama promptly kept his promises by withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. Bush opened Guantanamo and the prisoners there were systematically and constantly deprived of their human and civil rights. Barack Obama has pledged to close the prison, but it is impossible from a practical and legal standpoint. However, he requested an individual solution for each of the 160 remaining prisoners.
He was criticized, rightly so, on the use of drones, because there have been excesses in this regard and drones give absolute power to the United States. But in his last speech, he made a radical change in doctrine on the use of drones. This reflects his awareness that he cannot wage an indefinite war on terrorism using the current techniques because it will do irreversible harm to civil liberties.
Shouldn’t Obama Have Repealed the Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act in 2013 is not the same as it was in 2001. Many of the provisions, particularly those draconian parts, were repealed in previous revisions and other, temporary parts of the Act were not renewed. The president of the United States alone does not have the power to repeal the laws, just as he does not have the power to decide to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo without consulting Congress.
An American president takes office with some political capital to defend his office and he will invest this capital for his actions. Spending this political capital to repeal the Patriot Act would be commendable, but during his first term, Obama had much more important issues to spend this capital on, such as Obamacare.
We must not forget that the U.S. is in a legislative hollow, with a Congress not in session. The fundamental issues of Obama's second term boil down to immigration reform, control of arms and balancing the budget. Other areas simply make for good media coverage.
If Obama succeeds at the end of his second term to achieve reforms on two of the three areas mentioned previously, and if the health insurance reform proves successful, then the current debate on the wiretapping scandal will eventually seem marginal in the eyes of the American public.
In the constant search for a balance between national security, which has been extremely explosive since 2001, and civil liberties, the president is better off focusing on national security, which is something he has already done.
Since his first term in 2008, U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to end the war on terror started by his predecessor George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Since then, many have complained of Obama's unfulfilled promises, such as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, his administration’s use of deadly drones and the numerous cases involving violations of civilians’ freedoms in the name of national security. The latest problems with the Obama administration center around unlawful surveillance of citizens’ accounts with U.S. phone operator Verizon and nine other internet giants.
Vincent Michelot, a professor specializing in United States history at Sciences Po Lyon, draws lessons from cases of the Obama administration's management policy of national security and counter-terrorism. According to Michelot, this scandal is not new in the United States. During the first term of the Bush presidency, the New York Times revealed that Bush’s administration manipulated the federal court system to conduct foreign intelligence. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an organization created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, judges have the sole function of authorizing wiretaps. President Bush believed that, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he did not have to ask the opinion or permission of any party, such as the Courts, in order to eavesdrop.
The difference between the Bush and Obama scandals reflects the distinctions between the Bush and Obama administrations. President Obama, when requesting wiretaps and collection of phone records, followed the law – that is, the 1978 law. One may wonder how a law allowing such a pervasive violation of civil liberties is legitimate, but it actually is and so President Obama used it.
How, then, can the Obama administration justify its use of this invasive law that compromises civil liberties?
Obama's position is extremely delicate. Since the beginning of his term, the conservative opposition has attacked him, accusing him of not being tough enough in the fight against terrorism. There were also attacks on his administration's leaks on sensitive issues, such as the killing of bin Laden by U.S. commandos. Elected Republicans, such as New York Republican Representative Peter King, criticized the Obama administration for not knowing how to explain itself. The president must respond to these very negative accusations that affect his image, while at the same time staying in control of his communications. As a result, it is not hard to see why Obama’s administration is trying to keep certain details top secret, such as covert operations in third world countries.
With the proliferation of scandals involving wiretapping, the use of drones and maintaining Guantanamo, many claim that President Obama is continuing where Bush left off in the war on terror. What do you think?
There is a great difference between them. With two wars under his belt and thousands of U.S. troops on the ground, President Bush followed the doctrine of "heavy footprints" with regard to the use of the armed forces. Obama has adopted a doctrine of "light footprints" in three areas: the use of much more systematic targeted commando operations, the massive use of drones and cyberwarfare. In this regard, it is absolutely necessary to maintain secrecy. Many newspapers accuse Obama of a cover up
and compare him to Nixon, who found himself caught up in the Watergate scandal. But the Nixon administration used secrecy in different ways.
There is a partisan dimension to this debate; large exaggerations are used to de-legitimatize the Obama administration. The Obama administration is not without reproach in these situations, but Obama is not the draconian monster some would portray him to be. He is fully committed to his mandates, and his administration is not a total failure.
Obama promptly kept his promises by withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. Bush opened Guantanamo and the prisoners there were systematically and constantly deprived of their human and civil rights. Barack Obama has pledged to close the prison, but it is impossible from a practical and legal standpoint. However, he requested an individual solution for each of the 160 remaining prisoners.
He was criticized, rightly so, on the use of drones, because there have been excesses in this regard and drones give absolute power to the United States. But in his last speech, he made a radical change in doctrine on the use of drones. This reflects his awareness that he cannot wage an indefinite war on terrorism using the current techniques because it will do irreversible harm to civil liberties.
Shouldn’t Obama Have Repealed the Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act in 2013 is not the same as it was in 2001. Many of the provisions, particularly those draconian parts, were repealed in previous revisions and other, temporary parts of the Act were not renewed. The president of the United States alone does not have the power to repeal the laws, just as he does not have the power to decide to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo without consulting Congress.
An American president takes office with some political capital to defend his office and he will invest this capital for his actions. Spending this political capital to repeal the Patriot Act would be commendable, but during his first term, Obama had much more important issues to spend this capital on, such as Obamacare.
We must not forget that the U.S. is in a legislative hollow, with a Congress not in session. The fundamental issues of Obama's second term boil down to immigration reform, control of arms and balancing the budget. Other areas simply make for good media coverage.
If Obama succeeds at the end of his second term to achieve reforms on two of the three areas mentioned previously, and if the health insurance reform proves successful, then the current debate on the wiretapping scandal will eventually seem marginal in the eyes of the American public.
In the constant search for a balance between national security, which has been extremely explosive since 2001, and civil liberties, the president is better off focusing on national security, which is something he has already done.