Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama Leaves a Legacy of War

President Obama will leave office as the first two-term president in American history to have been at war every day of his presidency, having dropped over 25,000 bombs on seven countries in 2016 alone….

image

As a young state senator in 2002, Obama gave an antiwar rally speech railing against the “dumb,” “rash” rush to war in Iraq. As a presidential candidate five years later, he promised to “turn the page on the imperial presidency” and usher in “a new dawn of peace.” In a speech to US troops last month, he denounced the “false promise” that “we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs,” and piously proclaimed that “democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war.”

And yet, 2008’s “peace candidate” has launched two undeclared wars (in Libya and against ISIS), ordered 10 times as many drone strikes as George W. Bush — including the remote-control execution of an American citizen, and, this summer, bombed six different countries just over Labor Day weekend.

By the time Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, he’d already launched more drone strikes than “war president” Bush managed during his two terms. 

It is Obama who is largely responsible for warping the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—passed three days after 9/11 to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban—into an enabling act for endless war, anywhere in the world.

Where Bush secured congressional authorization for the two major wars he fought, Obama made perpetual warfare the new normal, and the president the ultimate “decider” in matters of war and peace.

Alas, political tribalism warps people’s perceptions of basic reality, convincing partisans they’re entitled to their own facts.

Even during the heyday of resistance to the Vietnam War, the criticism became more intense after Republican Richard Nixon took over the White House than it had been under Democrat Lyndon Johnson. There was far more criticism of Republican George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War than there was of Democrat Bill Clinton’s wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (a distressing number of prominent liberals even found reasons to praise Clinton’s military crusades in the Balkans).

Left-wing groups mounted a fairly serious effort to thwart Republican Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But when Democrat Obama escalated U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and led a NATO assault to remove Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi from power, the reaction was very different.  Except for a few hard-left organizations, the sounds coming from the usual supposed anti-war liberal quarters were those of crickets. Likewise, there has been little push-back to Obama’s gradual return of the U.S. military presence in Iraq or the entanglement of the U.S. military in Syria.

With Trump’s inauguration near, Obama has described the transfer of presidential power as ”a relay race” where he’ll pass the baton to his successor. In private, he’s occasionally used a more ominous metaphor: leaving “a loaded weapon” behind for the next president.

And, now, Obama will pass that weapon on to Donald J. Trump, a man he’s flatly declared “unfit” for the office — someone who can’t be trusted with a Twitter account, let alone the nuclear launch codes.

Learn more….

Reagan’s Russia Trip Should Be Obama’s Roadmap in Cuba

image

When staunchly anti-communist Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980—in the 64th year of Communist Party rule in Russia—no one expected that only eight years later he would end his second term by making a friendly visit to Moscow.

But he did, and what he did there should guide President Obama as he prepares to visit to Cuba—the first visit by a sitting president since Fidel Castro’s communist revolution in 1959—on steps the president can take to usher in true freedom for the Cuban people.

A year after Reagan’s Moscow visit and, more importantly, four years after the reformist Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe ended Soviet control. Two years after that, the Soviet Union itself was dissolved.

Cuba’s change will be gradual. But that fact doesn’t change the necessity—it makes it more imperative—for the leader of the free world to offer Cubans a way forward.

We don’t know how long Cuba’s transformation from autocratic state socialism to free-market democracy will take. But the Cuban people would revere Obama if the Castro regime saw a similar dissolution, and if the president’s words helped to inspire that transformation.

Learn more…

The Political Fight to Close Guantanamo Bay

image

The controversy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is one that ebbs and flows throughout our national discourse. 

That conversation is once again at a peak, and President Obama presented a plan yesterday to close Gitmo, arguing that “It’s been clear that the detention center at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security,” and that “It undermines our standing in the world.”

In other words, President Obama says closing Guantanamo Bay would nix a popular talking point for people hostile to America. Of course, not dropping so many bombs in foreign countries might be more effective, but closing Guantanamo Bay is nevertheless a worthwhile goal.  

Unfortunately, the reality is that President Obama’s plan is unlikely to go anywhere fast

The president proposed roughly the same plan in May 2009. That effort was not a total failure—the administration has managed to transfer 147 prisoners abroad (following 500 during the George W. Bush administration), reducing Gitmo’s prisoner population to 91. But even then, with the Democrats running both Houses, the effort to move detainees to U.S. stalled. Today, the political obstacles to closure have only grown.

In some ways, the debate over where to house the remaining prisoners distracts us from the more important issue of indefinite detention. Even under the administration’s plan, several dozen detainees face indefinite detention in the U.S., awaiting an official end to a war that seems endless. 

Internationally, detention practices at Guantanamo remain in violation of several statutes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Moreover, it could also be argued that detention practices at Guantanamo stand in defiance of national law as well, particularly the guarantee of due process secured through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

But, Guantanamo’s questionable legal status alone is not enough to implicate it. Were the actions of abolitionists who sought to free slaves by providing passage to the north in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act morally wrong? Of course not. By the same logic, actions and institutions cannot be morally wrong solely because they are in defiance of the law.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concluded that the institutional infrastructure present within Guantanamo “cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture,” but even that in itself is not the biggest problem with Guantanamo Bay. 

Even if no torture whatsoever took place at Guantanamo Bay, it would still be filled with people who are being denied basic due process of law, and imprisoned for years upon years with no chance of defending their innocence in front of a legitimate, unbiased court. 

The idea of habeas corpus—which suggests that, when you have an executive detention, there ought to be an opportunity for the individual detained to get an independent judicial assessment about whether the detention is legal—is at the core of American values.

Yet, the United States has suspended habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 

What is the great fear of permitting someone at Guantanamo Bay to file a writ of habeas corpus with a judge and say, “Your Honor, I think I am being held here illegally. I am not an enemy combatant. I have not had involvement in active hostilities against the United States. All I want is a fair hearing.”?

You have to have a serious process for distinguishing the people who are truly enemy combatants from those who are not. 

We have the judicial process to ensure that we make a proper cut. After all, the difference between civilization and barbarism is that civilization cares about punishing only those who are guilty.

Yes, it is possible to reduce the risk of terrorism by creating a police state and effectively eliminating all of our Constitutional protections, but the price is the end of our Republic. And that is too high a price to pay.

Cato Scholars Fact-Check President Obama’s FINAL State of the Union Address

Last night, President Obama delivered his final State of the Union address, laying out his goals for the final few months of his presidency.

In our annual response video, Cato scholars fact-check the President’s speech and outline what his words might mean for the future of liberty.

Like our video? Share it on Facebook and Twitter, and post your reactions on Twitter with #CatoSOTU.

Watching the State of the Union Tonight?

image

Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, join us on Twitter for a libertarian perspective on President Obama’s final State of the Union address. 

Happy New Year from the Cato Institute!

image

Our greatest challenge in 2016 is to extend the promise of individual liberty, economic freedom, and limited government.

As we approach the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, we note that one of President Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up federalism or the separation of powers but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document.

President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015….

Supreme Court Validates Obama’s Executive Power Grab

image

The Supreme Court has ruled in King v. Burwell that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government are eligible for tax subsidies.  

Says Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon, “The Court today validated President Obama’s massive power grab, allowing him to tax, borrow, and spend $700 billion that no Congress ever authorized.…In doing so, the Court has sent a dangerous message to future administrations: If you are going to violate the law, make sure you go big.”

Today at 3: p.m. EST, Cato scholars will be answering your questions on King v. Burwell’s overall impact and what the decision will mean for individuals enrolled in state health plan exchanges.

Tweet your questions using ‪#‎CatoConnects‬ & SHARE with your friends.

Want to read up on the case before today’s event? Check out these links:

What Will Obama Do if He Loses King v. Burwell?

image

Originally posted by garhedlund

We’ve famously been told that the Department of Health & Human Services has no Plan B if the Supreme Court decides against the administration in King v. Burwell. But what if the Supreme Court forces the executive branch’s hand?

 Ilya Shapiro takes a look ahead to what President Obama will do if the government does indeed lose King v. Burwell

Read more….

The Minimalist Surveillance Reforms of USA Freedom

image

The Senate on Tuesday passed (and President Obama later signed into law) the USA Freedom Act, which reforms the way U.S. agencies conduct surveillance and gather data. 

Cato scholar Patrick G. Eddington argues that while the USA Freedom Act is an improvement, it still needs work: “The USA Freedom Act would not end the executive branch’s authority to collect metadata; it would (assuming the best case scenario) simply narrow the scope of such metadata collection.”

Watch Tim Lynch discuss Obama’s police militarization executive action on MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts.