Power Wars
Barack Obama promised change from George W. Bush's global war on terrorism. But the Obama administration used drones to kill suspected militants and vacuumed data on Americans' phone calls. Obama criticized Bush's unilateralism and secrecy, but launched wars without going to Congress and presided over an unprecedented crackdown on leaks.With extensive reporting, Savage explores how and why Obama and his legal team--an elite, liberal group who vowed to restore the rule of law--end up accused of entrenching the sweeping powers of the post-9/11 security state. If legitimate, the accusation stands to change the legacy of Obama's entire presidency.
Stats for nerds
1recommend
4mentions
3people
2015–2025years
25% recommend75% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Charlie Savage's book "Power Wars" goes into this quite a bit.
The tl;dr is basically this: administrations before Obama definitely wanted to crack down on whistleblowers, but were limited in their ability to do so. The fact that whistleblowing related arrests/convictions have increased under Pres. Obama is largely due to the fact that we can track people and information much more thoroughly than was previously possible. In the past, you may know who had access to any one piece of information (that leaked) but you would be hard pressed to identify communication channels and specific, time-logged access, etc. Investigational tools have improved so more convictions happen.
This doesn't address the civil liberties expectations/promises of Pres. Obama, but it's one factor at play.
- FWIW, people thought that when Obama ran around saying “these extrajudicial drone strikes are illegal” they assumed that he would end them rather than do what he actually did - make them legal.
Power Wars by Charlie Savage covers this rhetorical zig zag.
- I'm far from an expert on these things, but is this a mischaracterization in your opinion?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/24/obama-guanta...
Just one example: "The day before the Archives speech, the Democratic-held Senate dealt Obama’s plans an even harsher blow. By a blowout bipartisan margin of 90-9, the Senate rejected financing the closure. A Senate leadership aide at the time, stunned by what she considered White House lassitude, explained why even people inclined to help Obama would vote against the measure: Obama had decreed Guantánamo be closed without presenting lawmakers with a specific plan they could defend to skeptical constituents."
To be fair though, there's a lot in that article to justify getting angry at both Democrats and Republicans. For example:
"As implied by the term, Graham spent the summer of 2009 looking beyond Guantánamo. His basic proposition to the White House, reported in detail in Charlie Savage’s 2015 book Power Wars, was to deliver the votes in the Senate for shuttering Guantánamo and opening a replacement facility. In exchange, Graham wanted a broader wartime detentions policy than Obama was willing to embrace. It would allow the US military to continue making captures far beyond the declared battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, sending them to the alternative site. When trial was an option, it would occur in the military commissions."
Dirty politics, absolutely unacceptable (to me).
These things are extremely complicated. I really dislike this simplistic recurring narrative (not you specifically, I'm speaking in general) that everything is the Republican's fault. I have no problem believing this is usually true, it is the implicit assertion that it is always true that bothers me.
Although, the Republicans now have a historic opportunity to show their true colors with no excuses....I am ready to be extremely disappointed.
- "Cryptonomicon" - Neal Stephenson
"Expecting Better" - Emily Oster
"The 9/11 Commission Report" - National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
"Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS" - Joby Warrick
"Power Wars: Inside Obama's Post-9/11 Presidency" - Charlie Savage (not finished yet)
