Thoughts on the speech... and the other speech

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, May 22, 2009 - 4:23 AM Share

I've been playing catch-up this evening by reading Obama's speech on homeland security and then Cheney's speech on homeland security in succession. Some quick thoughts:

My hypocrisy detector went off with both speeches. For all of Obama's eloquence, there's simply no way to square his position on releasing torture photos with the other aspects of his speech. Cheney, on the other hand, kept blasting Democratics for using "euphemisms" -- and yet, when describing what happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Cheney fell back on "enhanced interrogations."
I agree with Christian Brose that it's odd to read these two speeches in light of Jack Goldsmith's TNR essay comparing the Obama and Bush approaches. Well, actually, it was mostly odd to read Cheney's speech. The guts of Obama's critique of the prior administration's approach to these issues was nearly identical to Goldsmith's -- a failure to construct a proper legal edifice, a failure to respect checks and balances, etc. Given that Jack is a rock-ribbed conservative, this is a point for Obama. I'm pretty sure, however, that Goldsmith agrees with Cheney on the negative effects of the NYT revealing the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
I also agree with Joshua Keating that Obama's speech by and large anticipated many of Cheney's arguments. Obama's rebuttal on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States was particularly effective.
Politically, Obama has inherited George W. Bush's greatest political gift -- having adversaries more boneheaded than himself. While Will Inboden, Philip Zelikow, and Peter Feaver all had some good responses to my lament last week about the state of the GOP on foreign policy and national security, Dick "18% approval rating" Cheney has now cemented his grip on being the party spokesman on this issue in the eyes of the media and the American public. That's great for Obama and not so good for the GOP. Beyond the 18% who like Cheney, does anyone think that his speech will persuade others to change their minds?

What did you think?

EXPLORE:HOMELAND SECURITY, BUSH ADMINISTRATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW, OBAMA, TORTURE

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SJC

9:32 AM ET

May 22, 2009

Abusing Goldsmith and other rants

Well it certainly made for some interesting television - it's nice (kind of?) to have an open debate about these things. At least it makes it easier to teach.

The one thing I would say though is that Goldsmith DOES overlook certain serious changes in the Military Tribunals that have been proposed - namely not using evidence obtained through - um, "enhanced interrogation". I think this is a big difference - certainly one that helps to bring the tribunals in line with the Geneva Conventions ("regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. yadda yadda")

However, I think Goldsmith's argument is being relatively abused by the right. His larger point is that, yes, sometimes in an emergency it is important for a president to _temporarily_ extend powers or do something that in more normal circumstances would be illegal - however HOW this is done is where it is important. Peter Wehner, for example,(http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/66971) suggests that Bush & Co can be seen in the light of Lincoln. But Goldsmith's whole point is that Lincoln reached across the aisle and FDR was open with what he did. Neither FDR nor Lincoln ever claimed that they had a permanent right to do what they did.

In this sense, yes there may not be shocking differences between Obama and Bush (I actually think there are substantial, if not shocking, ones) but how democracies go about doing these things is important.

Finally, having said all this - if I was a congress person, I might want some details before I signed the $80 million dollar cheque. The Administration should get on this, build on Obama's speech and figure out something more concrete...

FNORD

7:24 PM ET

May 23, 2009

but, but..

Once you have tortured someone into vegetable-stage, they stay broken. So all evidence given afterwards is tainted. Thats the whole point, they are not legaly sentenceable according to US Law. So he has to keep them in "indefinite detention" without trial. Lol, he has caved to Cheney totaly. So much for Obamas honesty.

BLUE13326

1:19 PM ET

May 22, 2009

It was nice to see them both

It was nice to see them both explicit their views--but largely irrelevant.

If we don't have a major terror attack, then Obama will be supported and vindicated. If we do have a terror attack, Cheney will be vindicated and the Democratic party will suffer another generation of being seen as weak on defense. Words won't change this.

GREGRLAWSON

2:24 PM ET

May 22, 2009

Cheney as GOP Spokesman

While Cheney may not be popular himself, his actual arguments dovetail with what most Americans instinctively feel.

Moral and ethical arguments are great in the abstract, but when people fear for their lives, those arguments become something like Ivory Towered academic debates.

The visceral fear of death is far more powerful than "reasoned" debate.

This does not mean we should just embrace raw animalistic responses, but we should also recognize there's a reality underneath our carefully cultivated, civilized exterior that won't be "argued away" no matter the eloquence of those arguing.

Cheney speaks to the dark side of our nature, but that dark side has not (and I do not believe ever will be) permanently conquered. It can, at best, be managed, but it will slip out.

In this, Cheney is probably far more realistic than the President over the long haul.