No We Can't: How Obama Turned into Bush

In one of the most read articles on the Internet this week, the philosopher Noam Chomsky strongly criticized the operation that brought about Osama bin Laden’s demise. Titled “My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death,” the North American intellectual condemned what he called a planned assassination, carried out without any attempt having been made to capture alive an apparently unprotected target.

Although Chomsky, who remains uncompromising in his evaluation, may come to be criticized in his own country because of his undeniable position on the left, his interpretation joins those of others around the world who question President Barack Obama’s administration for, among other things, admitting that unorthodox interrogation practices were used to establish bin Laden’s whereabouts.

For anyone who does not remember, the rhetoric used by candidate Obama, who sought to differentiate himself from George W. Bush, was nothing like this. One very clear difference was the promise to close Guantanamo, one of the hallmarks of the previous administration and a prison that most represented for militant civil rights groups a blemish on the democratic history of the U.S.

Some basic rules of international law, however, were forgotten by the U.S. when it decided to send armed commandos into another country with the aim of eliminating the most wanted terrorist in history. Even before the operation, as the current head of the FBI admitted, the interrogation techniques of simulated drowning, sleep deprivation and other barbarities, which cannot be reconciled with the rhetoric that sought to be different from what the Republicans, headed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, believed and practiced, were used with the goal of extracting the whereabouts of bin Laden. If domestically bin Laden’s death served to revive Obama’s popularity, in international eyes the U.S. continues to be the same country as before, notwithstanding Obama’s charisma to distinguish him from the surly Bush.

In his piece, Chomsky raises the point that until now there has not been a judgment to make bin Laden answer for the events of Sept. 11. On American soil, however, the due process of law and a fair trial are two pillars of U.S. rights, emblematic in the construction of its democracy, that seem completely alien when dealing with foreigners in situations the U.S. finds suspicious.

In this Chomsky is justifiably provocative when he points out that the treatment of those pursued in the so-called “War on Terror,” initiated by Bush, does not conform to those standards. This is not even to mention the secret prisons, the treatment meted out to prisoners of war and the recent revelations by WikiLeaks that many of the prisoners detained at Guantanamo were later released as innocent for lack of evidence.

The argument has only just begun in social media and on the Internet. What is different in this new century is an equally new journalism, bolstered by readers who use the collaborative, participatory character of the Internet for the sake of the debate. It was not by chance that bin Laden became one of the most discussed people in online history. It is to be expected that this ease of debate also makes the debate deeper, something which for years had been the privilege only of academics, through seminars and presidential debates. In this respect, new social media are contributing hugely when one sees the speed with which current subjects are dealt and shared across the whole planet.

In the case of the death of bin Laden, and others to come, clearly many are going to say that the ends justify the means. But in that must reside our major fear, whether for the North Americans themselves or for the rest of the world. When I was in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and was subjected to the terror that petrified Manhattan that Tuesday morning, (which I will never forget, though the story will wait for another column), felt in my skin what terrorism tore out of our liberty and injected with fear. Even so, I continue to defend basic human rights because if we forget international norms, the best we are going to achieve is to approximate barbarism.

The return to practices that clearly undermine rules of international law and invoke medieval torture tactics damage not only the image of the U.S. but also of all humanity. It is worth remembering that when Obama was elected brandishing a change to the style of Republican government as interpreted by Bush, the whole world saw laid bare an indelible division in the country.

Civil rights on one side and imperialist desires on the other marked the political battle that was seen in the last presidential election. The word “change” was used contentiously and reiterated by Barack Obama’s campaign, making clear that yes, it was possible to change.

In seeking to distance himself from Bush, Obama ensured his election for the first term. To guarantee a second term, however, Obama is trying to seem ever more like Bush. And change, so publicized when he was elected, seems to have been just a hackneyed campaign slogan. In this, Obama differs completely from Noam Chomsky, who remains faithful to his words.