Civil Liberties and President Barack W. Bush?

This is an enlightening report by Cato@Liberty. The report is both enlightening and sickening. Read on.

Posted by Doug Bandow

It’s fair to say that civil liberties and limited government were not high on President George W. Bush‘s priorities list.  Indeed, they probably weren’t even on the list.  Candidate Barack Obama promised “change” when he took office, and change we have gotten.  The name of the president is different.

Alas, the policies are much the same.  While it is true that President Obama has not made the same claims of unreviewable monarchical power for the chief executive-an important distinction-he has continued to sacrifice civil liberties for dubious security gains.

Reports the New York Times:

Civil libertarians recently accused President Obama of acting like former President George W. Bush, citing reports about Mr. Obama’s plans to detain terrorism suspects without trials on domestic soil after he closes the Guantánamo prison.

It was only the latest instance in which critics have argued that Mr. Obama has failed to live up to his campaign pledge “to restore our Constitution and the rule of law” and raised a pointed question: Has he, on issues related to fighting terrorism, turned out to be little different from his predecessor?

The answer depends on what it means to act like Mr. Bush.

As they move toward completing a review of their options for dealing with the detainees, Obama administration officials insist that there is a fundamental difference between Mr. Bush’s approach and theirs. While Mr. Bush claimed to wield sweeping powers as commander in chief that allowed him to bypass legal constraints when fighting terrorism, they say, Mr. Obama respects checks and balances by relying on—and obeying—Congressional statutes.

“While the administration is considering a series of options, a range of options, none relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said this week in response to questions about the preventive detention report. “And this will not be pursued in that manner.”

But Mr. Obama’s critics say that whether statutory authorization exists for his counterterrorism policies is just a legalistic point. The core problem with Mr. Bush’s approach, they argue, was that it trammeled individual rights. And they say Mr. Obama’s policies have not changed that.

“President Obama may mouth very different rhetoric,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “He may have a more complicated process with members of Congress. But in the end, there is no substantive break from the policies of the Bush administration.”

The primary beneficiaries of constitutional liberties are not terrorist suspects, but the rest of us.  The necessary trade-offs are not always easy, but the president and legislators must never forget that it is a free society they are supposed to be defending.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Considering Indefinite Detention Executive Order (dailykos.com)
• Bush Appointees Bucking Obama On Terror Policies (huffingtonpost.com)
• Uh, Which Civil Liberties Groups Pushed For A ‘Prolonged Detention’ Executive Order? (attackerman.firedoglake.com)
• Civil Liberties Advocates Dismayed at Obama’s Recent Moves (time.com)
• Obama Wants Review Of Signing Statements (cbsnews.com)
• Grand Jury Hears From Top C.I.A. Officers on Destruction of Tapes (nytimes.com)
• NSA to help watch feds’ civilian networks (msnbc.msn.com)
• Another pack member heard from (languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu)

Tagged as: Bush administration, checks and balances, civil liberties, George W. Bush, limited government, Obama administration, Presidency of George W. Bush, restoration, Robert Gibbs, rule of law, the constitution and the rule of law, The New York Times Company, White House