The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Tag: Bush

Is Comparing America to Germany Absurd?

Since I made the comparison between America and Germany today, I have been told that my argument is absurd. Here is my response.

Nuremburg chief prosecutor Ferencz said pre-emptive war against Iraq was a war crime, the same as that committed by the Germans in WWII.

If someone wants to make the case that America is better in kind, not just scale, make it.  (I guess one can say “we still haven’t tried to kill an entire racial group even if we did engage in pre-emptive war.”  Feel free to do so.)

  • Pre-emptive war: Check
  • Systematic Torture: Check
  • Genocide: Nope
  • Number of dead: Much less but still plenty, especially if you’re an Iraqi

But just trying to dismiss the comparison out of hand only tells me that some people aren’t looking hard enough in the mirror.  It is understandable, of course.  No one likes having the standards they apply to others applied to them.

However, I would find it intellectually honest if Americans were to apologize to those Germans they hung for pre-emptive war and other non-Holocaust crimes and say that those crimes, in retrospect, aren’t that big a deal, and that in any case, America after WWII should have been looking ahead, and not behind.  You can also apologize to the Japanese who were tried for waterboarding.

Go ahead and be the first.

What Obama’s Refusal to Investigate Torture Reveals About America

torture-abuObama refuses to even investigate torture, let alone charge anyone.

Lucas O’Connor cuts to the core problem with Obama ignoring torture:

In the coverage of last week’s tea parties and in attending briefly my local event, I was struck especially by one intellectual inconsistency. The apparently happy coexistence of “Give me liberty or give me death” and “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” You can get into a strained semantic debate to justify those two notions living side by side, but at a core level their sentiments are opposed. Either there are things that this country fundamentally and necessarily stands for or there aren’t.

I don’t think America stands for anything particularly noble at this point.  I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise, so if commenters have ideas, I’d like to hear them.

I should add that on the original question I’m willing to bet that within a couple years we’ll find out that whatever Obama may have said about stopping torture, torture has continued and will continue under the Obama administration.  Less of it, doubtless, but still torture.

The other point that needs to be made is that a lot of Americans really don’t see anything wrong with torture, as Ta-Nehisi Coates points out:

All of that said, what really disturbs me about all of this, is that most Americans still don’t think torture is a big deal. I think in the case of Bush, particularly after 2004, we–the American people–got the government we deserved. I think Bush said a lot about who we were post-9/11. I’d like to see some exploration into how to make this torture argument directly to the people. Maybe we can’t. Maybe people really don’t care that much. But if we’re wondering why Obama isn’t willing to press forward, I think it’s fair to also wonder why the people aren’t pressing him to press forward.

Enough Americans voted for Bush, twice, for him to get into office.  In 2004 they voted for him knowing that widespread torture was occurring.  It wasn’t a problem for them.

America, fundamentally, is not a nation of laws.  It is a nation of men.  If you’re important enough, you will not be held responsible for whatever you do—whether that’s lose trillions and destroy the economy, start an illegal war based on lies, or torture.  That’s just the way it is.  Obama and Bush, between them, have made this point crystal clear.

I’m Sure There’s a Difference Between the Bush/Paulson, Obama/Geithner Approaches to Bailouts

I’m just not sure what:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

At this point in time, there seems to be no significant functional difference between Paulson/Bush and Geithner/Obama.  Both intended to give a ton of money to financial firms, either directly or by buying up crap at prices higher than justified.  Both opposed any meaningful restrictions on how they spent the money or who they gave it to.

Actually, I take it back, one difference is that when Paulson wanted 700 billion, he went to Congress.  When Geithner made up his plan he just had the FDIC and the FED pony up most of the money, because he knew Congress wouldn’t give him the money.

Some wonder if this is legal:

Although some experts are questioning the legality of this strategy, the officials said it gives them latitude to determine whether firms should be subject to the congressional restrictions, which would require recipients to turn over ownership stakes to the government, as well as curb executive pay.

Me, I don’t know if it’s legal.  What I do know is that they plan on giving money away in a manner which clearly intends to end-run Congress’s clearly legislated mandate for how it be given away.  What I know is that they are bypassing Congress when they can, because they know that the elected body which is the only one supposed to be able to pass spending bills wouldn’t give them all the money they want to spend and won’t let them spend what money it does give as freely as they want to.

Of course, that money will still have to be paid back by taxpayers, even if Congress never approved the spending.

But back to the TARP restrictions:

Congress drafted the restrictions amid its highly contentious consideration of the $700 billion rescue legislation last fall. At the time, lawmakers were aiming to reform the lavish pay practices on Wall Street. Congress also wanted the government to gain the right to buy stock in companies so that taxpayers would benefit if the firms recovered.

The requirements were honored in an initial program injecting public money directly into banks. That effort was developed by the Bush administration and continued by Obama’s team. The initiative is on track to account for the bulk of the money spent from the rescue package. All the major banks already submit to executive-compensation provisions and have surrendered ownership stakes as part of this program.

Yet as the Treasury has readied other programs, it has increasingly turned to creating the special entities. Legal experts said the Treasury’s plan to bypass the restrictions may be unlawful.

The problem is that while Geithner’s plan takes money from the FDIC and the Fed, it still uses some TARP money as seed money, and that money carries the restrictions.

I thought it wasn’t the executive’s job to decide that Congress is wrong and then deliberately end-run it.  I thought we had an election to stop this sort of thing.

This is one of the things we spent the last 8 years blasting Bush for doing. But in this particular case, the new administration is being less compliant with Congress’s will than the Bush administration was!

Less!

I don’t know whether to spit or cry.  I’ve always had my doubts about Obama, but in my worst dreams I didn’t think he’d try and end run Congress even more blatantly than Bush, in order to give even more money away to the richest Americans with even fewer restrictions and less protection from the taxpayer in terms of ownership stakes.

It’s going to be a long 4 years.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén