No accountability required

Barack Obama and his administration have disappointed us progressives on many counts. I have been one who has defended him in spite of disappointment on specific issues, because I realize that there are limits to what can be accomplished in the current political and congressional environment; and Obama has to consider the total picture of multiple problems, not just individual issues.

I know that in 90% of my disappointments, Obama would like to accomplish what I had hoped he could and that, if he had the votes in Congress to get it all done, he would.

But I am increasingly coming to admit that a pattern has emerged of his failing to exert bold leadership when it might have changed what is politically possible. In a few instances (much having to do with reversing Bush positions on executive power, surveillance of citizens, and support for torture), his administration has defended positions in court, which had nothing to do with forging political alliances and making trade-offs to get a bill passed.

His avoidance of holding the previous administration accountable is a historic mistake, I believe. Perhaps he is convinced that investigating the Bush administration's multiple outrages and illegal actions would result in such backlash from Republicans in Congress that nothing could be accomplished. I still think it's a historic mistake. We have almost total obstructionism from Republicans, anyway.

The latest example involves the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was arrested in a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was held for nearly a year and repeatedly tortured. Ultimately it was determined that his arrest as a terrorism suspect was based on incorrect information from the Canadian Mounted Police; he was completely innocent. Long ago, they admitted the mistake. The Canadian government cleared him, formally apologized, and paid him over $9 million as compensation.

The U. S. government has refused to do any of that. The best the Bush team could muster was a bland statement by Condi Rice in a hearing that it was not handled "as it should have been." Think about it: Canada apologized and gave him $9M for having been mistaken about his identity. We arrested him and sent him to Syria, knowing he would be tortured, in fact BECAUSE he would be tortured, hoping to get information -- and kept him there for nearly a year. We not only have done nothing to make it up to him, we have fought his lawsuit in the courts -- and won.

His case has finally made it to the Supreme Court on appeal, and they have refused to hear it, leaving the lower court decision intact. Worse, the Obama Department of Justice urged the Court not to take the case because investigation might damage diplomatic relations and affect national security. Further, the assistant Solicitor General wrote the Court that it might raise questions about "the motives and sincerity of the United States officials" who sent him to Syria for interrogation.

Well, at least that is candid. But who gives a rip-roaring f--k about protecting the "motives and sincerity" of Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Gonzales/Rove & Co? Covering up such moral perfidy in public office leaves our country with a deep stain that needs to be expunged. Decisions such as this only allow it to go deeper. White wash, even by a black president in the White House, just won't do it.

I do not understand Obama's obsession with protecting the Bush/Cheney thugs.

Ralph