Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties

Published on Friday, September 30, 2011 by The Los Angeles Times

Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.

by Jonathan Turley

With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

President Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay, continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals and asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo)

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms." Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

© 2011 The Los Angeles Times

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.

Obama’s Badge of Shame and Disgrace on the U.S. and All Who Support It.

Obama’s Badge of Shame

Abandoning principles for a seat in the White House

by Gulamhusein A. Abba / September 28th, 2011

The portion of Obama’s speech in the United Nations that referred to the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN earned for him a “badge of honor” from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (those are the very words used by Netanyahu when he congratulated Obama on his speech!). But, in the eyes of most of the world, it brought shame and disgrace on Obama and the US and made a laughing stock of both.

There are three points he made in his speech. One was that the Palestinian state cannot come into being through resolutions in the UN. He forgets that but for a resolution of the UN, Israel would not be even existing today. And it was a UN resolution that enabled NATO to actively help the Libyan rebels get control of Tripoli and most of Libya. Again, it was UN resolutions that resulted in the formation of the Alliance of the Willing and launching of Desert Storm. Once again, it was a UN resolution that enabled the launching of the war on Iraq purportedly to find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In Tunisia the US, along with the rest of the world, cheered the Tunisian rebels when they got rid of their tyrannical government. In Egypt the US supported, slowly, hesitatingly, cautiously and, at times, seemingly reluctantly, the Egyptian people and applauded the departure of dictator Hosni Mubarak, a long time and loyal ally of the US. In Libya the US went one step further. It spent billions of dollars and actively participated, along with NATO forces, in bombing Libya. But for the UN resolution sanctioning NATO intervention, the elected government would still be in power in Libya.

Not so long back, Iraq reclaimed Kuwait, which was once its province and an integral part of Iraq, and would have remained so had not the British, as was their common practice, drawn a line in the sand, carved out from Iraq what is now Kuwait and put a puppet on its throne. There are those who even today believe that Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait was done with a nod and a wink from the then American ambassador to Iraq.
US and the whole civilized world, notwithstanding any “justification” that Iraq may have had, was outraged at this breach of international law by Iraq. The question of sovereignty of lawfully constituted nations was involved. It acted promptly and decisively to end this illegal occupation of Kuwait and, in a reasonably short time, the Iraqi occupying force was not only driven out of Kuwait but chased almost to the gates of Basra.

No one told the Kuwaitis that the only way to end Iraq’s occupation was for them to negotiate with Iraq. There were some negotiations of sorts but not between the occupied and the occupier. Rather, it was with world powers.

In none of the above cases were the desired results obtained through negotiations.

More to the point is the recent prominent example, Kosovo. It was unilaterally recognized by the United States three years ago, even though its statehood did not come about through a negotiated settlement with Serbia

It is ridiculous to ask Palestinians to negotiate with Israel. Israel is the aggressor, the occupier and Palestinians are the victims of this aggression, the occupied. Besides, there is no comparison between them. Israel has the fourth largest army in the world and is heavily armed, its arsenal including nuclear arms. Palestinians have no army at all. They are completely asymmetrical.

Besides, one does not ask the raped to negotiate with the rapist or the robbed to negotiate with the robber as to which of the robbed items s/he is going to return, when s/he is going to do it and on what terms. The keepers of law and order step in and do the needful.

In this case particularly, more than in any other case, it is the duty and responsibility of the international community to step in. It is they who, in 1949, ignoring the strong objections and protests of the indigenous people, the Palestinians, and of all the neighboring Arab states which surround Palestine, carved out a little more than 50% of Palestine as it then exited, and gifted it to the Jewish community, which promptly started its ethnic cleansing activities in the demarcated area and its surroundings.

In the war that followed the attacks launched by the surrounding Arab nations, chiefly to halt the massacre of the Palestinians, Israel went beyond the area granted to it by the international community, and the truce lines at the end of that war added more territory to Israel.
Not satisfied, Israel in 1967 launched an attack on Jordan (which was then in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem), Egypt (which controlled the Gaza Strip) and Syria (to which belonged the Golan Heights).As a direct result of this aggression Israel gained control of and occupied all the said territory in Palestine, thus fulfilling its objective of establishing Eretz Israel, with Judea and Samaria, in all of the land between the Jordan river and the sea to the west. It continues this illegal occupation to this day, with impunity.

This occupation is the longest occupation in present history, and it is a brutal and tyrannical one. Human rights violations and violations of international law occur regularly in open sight of the whole world. Massive transfer of population by the occupying power into occupied lands, destruction of villages in the occupied territories, building illegal constructions thereon – all violations of international law — go on almost on a daily basis.

That this occupation and the Israeli settlements built on lands beyond what was earmarked for Israel is illegal is recognized and accepted by the whole world, including the USA. The international community, which created the state responsible for these illegal acts, instead of doing its duty and carrying out its obligations and responsibilities, asked the Palestinians to negotiate with the aggressor, Israel!

Having no other alternative, the Palestinians did just that. Arafat even signed, eighteen years back, the disastrous Oslo Accords, believing that under its terms, within five years all the occupied territory would be fully under the control of the Palestinians.

Israel used this agreement to expand exponentially its settlements in the occupied territories. The expected transfer of power after five years never happened. Instead fresh demands and conditions were put forward by Israel. When the Palestinians refused to accede to these preposterous demands, Israel shamelessly alleged that the Palestinians had rejected peace and chosen the path of terrorism!

Notwithstanding all this, the Palestinians have persevered and negotiated and negotiated and negotiated — Madrid (1991), Oslo (1993), Wye River (1997), Camp David (2000), Taba (2001), Quartet’s road map (2002), Annapolis (2007), bilateral negotiations (2008) and on and on. All to no avail. The grabbing of land, demolitions of Palestinian homes and even entire villages,, uprooting of produce, building of illegal Israeli settlements and “for Jews only” roads and highways has continued unabated.

Even the powerful USA and strong ally of Israel could not get Israel to at least cease and desist from further violation of international law by putting a halt to the construction of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

All that these “negotiations” got for Palestinians is almost 6500 Palestinian civilians killed since September 2000 alone, over 45,000 Palestinians injured (some maimed for life), over 6,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, many with no charges (including over 250 females and children under the age of 16), over 650,000 Palestinians detained and imprisoned, over 25,000 Palestinian homes demolished since 1967 – over half since 2003, including over 4300 during the Israeli military assault on Gaza in 2008-2009.

The number of Israeli settlers has more than doubled during the last ten years of “negotiations”, reaching a staggering figure of 650,000. There are 236 illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These occupy about 43 per cent of the land in the truncated West Bank and East Jerusalem and have displaced thousands of Palestinians. There are over four hundred checkpoints and Jewish-only roads. And, of course, the monstrous separation and land grabbing wall snaking through Palestinian territories.

Clearly the sole beneficiary of these “negotiations” is Israel, which is using the negotiations for this very purpose. The Palestinians have gained nothing. To the contrary. they have lost much from the meager amount they had.

Under these circumstances, to say that the only course for the Palestinians is to negotiate with Israel is, to say the least, cruel.
It is time for the international community to end this farce of direct negotiations between the helpless occupied and the all-powerful occupier. It is time for it to live up to its duty and obligations and take action to end the illegal occupation.

The first step is to approve the Palestinians’ application for full membership.

Regrettably, of all persons, Obama has threatened to veto any resolution granting this request!

Coming from the man who started his presidency by choosing the Palestinians to be the first to be called on phone, who gave the Cairo speech so full of hope and promise to the Arab world, who not so long ago snubbed Netanyahu, this stance by Obama is inexplicable and strange indeed.

But then, the President’s chair has magical powers. It changes men. Its occupant becomes addicted to it. S/he will do anything to retain this seat.

Alas, Obama has obviously chosen this path. From being a world statesman he has sunk to being a contender in the coming general elections in the USA. He used the international forum to speak to the electorate in the USA. Aware of the power of AIPAC, desperate to shore up his sagging popularity back home, he spoke what powerful donors and supporters wanted to hear.

In doing so, he has shown a complete disregard for justice and international law, has diminished himself, tarnished the image of America and, as between Israel and Palestine, has aligned himself with the oppressor against the oppressed.

Gulamhusein A. Abba is an 83-year-old writer with more than 50 years in journalism. Originally from Bombay (now Mumbai), he has been in the USA since 1982. He was co-producer of a weekly TV show Earth Matters and is presently sponsoring another weekly TV show The Struggle. He is chairman of The Danbury Committee for World Peace and of Justice for Palestinians Committee and is a member of the Danbury Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of immigrants and just and humane treatment of undocumented immigrants. He can be reached at: gaabba2000@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Gulamhusein.

This article was posted on Wednesday, September 28th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Egypt, Elections, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kuwait, Libya, Obama, Tunisia, United Nations.

Left vs. Obama Over Mortgage Deal

Published on Sunday, September 25, 2011 by Politico

Left vs. White House Over Mortgage Deal

by Edward-Isaac Dovere

President Barack Obama’s liberal base says he’s on the verge of selling out to the banks again.

This time, the problem is a subprime mortgage settlement that his administration is pressuring state attorneys general to sign off on — a deal that could stop many state investigations and prosecutions about mortgage lending practices.

That settlement, a collaboration between the Justice Department and the 50 state attorneys general much like the one that produced the landmark 1998 agreement with tobacco companies, would mean a lump-sum payment from the banks in exchange for a release from liability. But with negotiators in Washington this week trying to finalize a deal, it’s become the latest flashpoint of left-wing disenchantment with Obama.

“The least charitable view ties it directly to campaign donations,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which this week began mobilizing its 700,000 supporters against the broader deal. “The most charitable view, it’s a bunch of Wall Street hacks in the position of economic advisers who truly believe that giving billions to banks will trickle down to the middle class. The most charitable view is that they’re just wrong.”

For Obama, a settlement would be a chance ahead of next year’s election to claim progress on a key kitchen-table issue that’s particularly pronounced in several swing states — and tout it as an example of rare bipartisan success to boot.

For liberals, the fight over this issue — how much responsibility lenders have for the mortgage crisis — is an opportunity to put the banks on trial, forcing greater consumer protections and bigger payouts along the way. Between the bailouts and financial regulations, they say Obama’s already caved to the banks too much.

“There are a lot of progressives, and frankly everyday voters, who wish this White House would cut their ties with Wall Street, stop the sucking up to Wall Street,” Green said.

And the fear that the White House is pushing for an agreement that doesn’t go far enough is fitting into the larger frustration with Obama for how he’s handled negotiations over everything from health care to the debt ceiling.

“Yes, we have to get something done, but we’re not going to accept the false choice that requires us to take a settlement that doesn’t meet the scale of the problem — and it’s another example of the White House not knowing how to bargain effectively,” said one labor official, who asked not to be named because of ongoing involvement with the discussions.

For the past year, the 50 attorneys general and federal government have been negotiating a settlement with Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial and Wells Fargo. While the terms of the settlement aren’t finalized, a draft release submitted by the coalition to the banks — details of which were obtained by POLITICO — shows an agreement that addresses more than the original target of “robo-signing,” the practice of lenders signing mortgage documents without sufficient review of borrowers’ credit or ability to pay back the loans.

The problem, critics say, is that the settlement is being done without any investigations of the banks, which means that the extent of their wrongdoing isn’t known. The critics are not willing to sign away their own rights to get involved and bring their own cases for a possible deal that they see as a “slap on the wrist,” as MoveOn called the possible settlement, or “a nice, big gift to the banks,” as former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold of the group Progressives United predicted.

“If you as a state haven’t investigated because you’ve relied on someone else to do your investigation, then I think states fear they could be accused of not doing their due diligence,” said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who became the latest official to raise concerns with the deal. “It goes against the DNA of an AG to say, ‘I’m going to agree to a waiver of liability without investigation.’ ”

Eliot Spitzer, who made a name for himself browbeating financial institutions into concessions through the threat of prosecution during his time as New York attorney general a decade ago, urged against a broad settlement.

“Given the reality that every time you turn over a new leaf or turn over a new rock, there’s a new layer of impropriety … why give up the right to continue investigating, for what doesn’t appear to be dramatic or radical givebacks on the part of the banks?” Spitzer said.

The administration has quietly been trying to rally support for a faster and fuller agreement by turning up the heat on supporters of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden and current New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who have been leading the resistance to any agreement that’s too broad or done without more investigation. With the number of banks based in those two states, they’ve got the jurisdiction to throw off the entire agreement.

Biden’s resistance has sparked speculation that there’s division within the administration about making the deal that’s being back-channeled through the vice president’s son, while Schneiderman, who’s new in the office, is being accused of playing politics in the interests of making a name for himself.

The White House has been trying to stop them both through leaning on their political supporters with a variety of sticks and carrots. The Treasury Department has gotten involved, as has the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. There have been a barrage of phone calls, as well as a closed Washington meeting in mid-August that HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan — whose ties to Obama go back to their simultaneous rise in Chicago Democratic politics and is known to have her eyes on his old Senate seat — in which community, minority and labor groups were told that they were risking blowing up the whole deal by sticking with Biden and Schneiderman.

“The political pressure is huge. The danger is, I have not seen the administration or the other attorneys general talk about the releases [of liability]. That seems to be Biden’s and Schneiderman’s story to tell, and they come out as heroes,” said Janis Bowdler of the Latino civil rights organization the National Council of La Raza, who participated in the Aug. 19 meeting.

But Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller — a Republican leading the multi-state effort in tandem with Tom Perelli, the No. 3 official in Obama’s Justice Department — said there was a need to go for a broad settlement that effectively ends legal action for the states for foreclosures.

“It’s simplistic to say that this is all about robo-signing. Robo-signing was the catalyst, but this case goes beyond robo-signing. That being said, we’re not here to address everything under the sun — our main focus is homeowners, not investors,” Greenwood said. “It’s about servicing and foreclosure, past, present and future. Our concern about broadening the case is that it would add potentially months, if not years, to a potential resolution.”

The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s coming lawsuit against 12 mortgage banks has only further incensed the left — if the Obama administration thinks there’s enough cause for a federal lawsuit, the effort to stop a group of Democratic state attorneys general from pursuing their own efforts makes even less sense, they say, especially with the federal government trying to get all the attorneys general on board with a settlement before they’ve even seen it.

“We’ve got to look under the hood of this deal. We don’t want to do it without checking the details on it,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who’s pursuing some of her own negotiations and has already signaled that she’s likely to join Biden and Schneiderman in holding off. “It’s not just about getting the job done — it’s about getting the job done right.”

A settlement of $20 billion to $25 billion is expected to be included in the deal, which the Biden-Schneiderman camp points out is only a fraction of the underwater assets in the country. That figure could drop the more states opt out, especially if they’re joined in the no column by California AG Kamala Harris — who many expect to sign on but whose office declined to comment on its current position.

Schneiderman’s fight with the Iowa attorney general has gotten so intense that he was kicked off the executive committee of attorneys general overseeing the negotiations in August.

That’s only led to him going more public with his fight, enabling him to round up support among progressive groups and editorial boards.

And rather than getting them to fold, the White House pressure has managed to strengthen the resolve of many of the Biden and Schneiderman supporters they’ve been leaning on.

The result: a growing number of attorneys general have joined the resistance. In addition to Conway and Coakley, Minnesota’s Lori Swanson and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto have now said publicly they’re against the broader deal. Masto’s pursuing her own open case against Bank of America amid her concerns that the federal government hasn’t done nearly enough on the mortgage crisis so far, and says she’s not signing off on anything that limits her own prosecutions.

Masto — who’ll be term limited out of her current office in 2014 and is seen as a rising political star in the state — says she’s determined to give people in Nevada the action they’re eager to see.

“If you’re somebody who’s impacted because you’re losing your home, you’re paying attention,” she said. “You’re watching, wanting to know if there’s relief out there for you or not.”

© 2011 Politico

We the People: More Smoke and Mirrors at the Obama White House!

September 24, 2011 at 07:53:55

More Smoke and Mirrors at the Obama White House!

By Eugene Elander (about the author)

The Obama White House has once again come up with more smoke and mirrors to seem to deal with the many problems of America and Americans, while actually doing little or nothing on our behalf. Recently, The White House announced a new pseudo-program titled WE THE PEOPLE which appears to encourage all of us to share our concerns with the President and his staff. There is a three-step process to do this: after going to a new WE THE PEOPLE link on WhiteHouse.gov, we can initiate a petition, get others to sign it, and submit it back to the White House for their review.

Sounds good, if the present people in charge of our nation were trustworthy and really intended to carry out the many promises to the American people which got Barack Obama elected in 2008. But the WE THE PEOPLE fine print makes clear that all the work must be done by the petition submitter, and all the necessary "votes" must be secured before White House staff will even bother to look at any petition, let alone take action on it. Meanwhile, great pains are taken to avoid telling WE THE PEOPLE anything about how many signatures are required on each and every petition to get the attention of the White House -- that vital fact seems to be highly-classified information, which even Wikileaks probably could not dig out. It seems WE THE PEOPLE do not deserve the common courtesy of being told the "rules of the game."

This White House has the worst response record of any with which I have ever dealt, going back to Richard Nixon's term of office. It is highly doubtful that WE THE PEOPLE is really a sincere and serious effort to hear from the PEOPLE and take action on our concerns. No, this is just more smoke and mirrors, to give the appearance of not only caring about those concerns, but being serious about really doing something about them.

Hiding the number of petition signatures which is required to actually do anything is more than just a violation of the transparency in government which Candidate Barack Obama promised; it is a clear statement to all of WE THE PEOPLE that communications to the Obama White House, including our petitions, are in truth written in invisible ink as far as that White House is concerned. This new thrust would be better named: SEE NO EVIL -- HEAR NO EVIL -- ACT ON NO EVIL. But we should not be surprised -- the champions of low taxes on multi-millionnaires, the continuation of really bad health care, the appeasement of the worst of the Tea Party ideologues, and the wheeling and dealing to get the Federal debt limit extended (as required by the 14th Amendment to our Constitution) are dominated by another slogan: NO GUTS, NO GLORY!

Author's Biography Eugene Elander has been a progressive social and political activist for decades. As an author, he won the Young Poets Award at 16 from the Dayton Poets Guild for his poem, The Vision. He was chosen Poet Laureate of Pownal, (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

September 21, 2011 at 11:20:24

Obama's Re-Election Chances Fading

By Sherwood Ross (about the author)




Unless President Obama breathes life into a massive New Deal-type jobs and reconstruction effort, now , and not in some vague Tomorrow, his chances for re-election, will shrivel. (Not that I care: I plan to vote Green.) That's because this presidential campaign early on gives every appearance of one that will be fought out largely on domestic issues as the candidates appeal to voter self-interest. In all the Republican debates and Democratic oratory until now, it's been rare to catch a word about USA's engulfing the Middle East and Africa in wars to steal their energy resources.

Thus, the campaign talk is all-about rebuilding American infrastructure---not about restoring Iraq's infrastructure that we destroyed in an illegal war. The talk is about finding jobs for long-term unemployed Americans----not about the Depression-level unemployment we created in Iraq. Americans seem indifferent to the fate of those we are destroying overseas with our brilliant killing machines. And maybe that's not surprising as the six wars we are waging get so little media play. We think we can commit crimes against humanity and walk away from them---and so we do.

Last night's commentators on MSNBC television waxed eloquent about Mr. Obama's "tough talk" on creating jobs. It is as though they forgot this is the same man who talked like a liberal during his initial run for the White House but largely acted like any reactionary once elected. His pledge to get out of Iraq is visibly undercut by U.S. construction of a gigantic embassy-fortress in Baghdad. The U.S. has subjugated Iraq and intends to rule it until the last drop of oil has been squeezed from its soil.

It must be remembered that President Obama is a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency, the foremost international criminal organization in the world today; that his college loans were paid for by the CIA and that he got his first job after college from the CIA. And the CIA has long aligned itself closely with grasping oil firms out solely to plunder and profit---and who are reaping sensational war-time profits at this hour---the world's motorists and homeowners be damned. It needs to be understood those 900 bases the Pentagon has built are not for defense, but for offense, to control every region of the planet, as the latest deals with Colombia and Australia reveal.

So Mr. Obama is hardly a president deserving of re-election. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is right when he urges Democrats to challenge Obama in the upcoming primaries. Since Obama's foreign policy is identical to that of his Republican critics and his domestic policies have flopped, there is no better time to consider Green Party or libertarian alternatives.

Under Mr. Obama's tyrranical stewardship, the U.S. empire is expanding abroad as its policies are pauperizing Americans at home. Only yesterday, the New York Times reported more than one in three young families with children, 37 percent, are living in poverty. True unemployment is closer to 20 percent than 10 percent and there are four or five job-seekers for each available opening while more than 40 million people are living in poverty and like numbers are living on food stamps and nearly 100 million have housing problems. With a Congress made up primarily of the well-to-do, if not the millionaire class, and who are willing handmaidens of the corporate elite, USA is no longer a government of, by and for the people. The people wrote in 100 to one against a bailout and Congress ignored them.

In his Inaugural Address of 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed," a condition that seems likely to repeat itself. "I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children," FDR added, and those words resonate again as school teachers are laid off by the tens of thousands, as libraries are shut down for lack of funds, as State and municipal services are abandoned in favor of feeding the Pentagon's military machine. And so ends the American dream---not with a whimper but with a bang. #

(Sherwood Ross runs a public relations firm for worthy causes and writes on political and military topics.)

Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Obama Was for a Palestinian State before He Was against It

by Ahmed Amr / September 21st, 2011

This time we should reach for what’s best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.

– Obama’s speech before the General Assembly, September 23, 2010

When Barack Obama uttered these lines, the assembled delegates rewarded him with a standing ovation. That was last year’s promise. This year, Obama is promising to veto a Palestinian state for reasons that he has yet to clearly articulate. The president could always come out and explain his dramatic change of heart in plain language – but that might prove a little embarrassing. When it comes to matters of state, plain language can have a disastrous impact on America’s standing in the world. In the midst of the great Arab awakening – this single veto will not be cost-free. Lest we forget, this is the same president who supported Mubarak before he supported the Egyptian revolution. So let it never be said that Obama is inconsistent. He’ll always do the right thing when it’s convenient.

But that’s neither here nor there. If Obama was to speak plainly, we know exactly what he’d say.

“I was for the Palestinian State before I was against it. What the world needs to understand is that I am not the president of AIPAC – I’m just POTUS and I want a second term. Before casting the first stone, compare my poll numbers to the reception Netanyahu got in Congress after he refused to halt the construction of illegal settlements.”

“Even after I cast my veto, I expect Republicans and members of my own party to accuse me of throwing Israel under the bus for not imposing sanctions on the 150 states that are likely to support the Palestinian state.”

“I’ve seen the BBC polls. I know that people around the world support the justice of the Palestinian cause. I’m also aware that most Americans favor universal recognition of an independent Palestinian state. To be honest, I share their sentiment. It’s a rational and sensible position to take – if it doesn’t affect your job security.”

“Unfortunately, I’m not a private citizen. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acting on my conscience is not a privilege accorded the President of the United States. I share the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people and I yearn for their freedom but there is not a damn thing I can do about it. One way or the other, every president and every senator and every congressman has to answer to AIPAC.”

“As President of the United States of America, I have to do what I have to do which is pretty much what I’m told to do by the Israeli Lobby. I’ve got to parrot the line that direct negotiations must be given a chance knowing full well that after two decades of negotiations, Israel has done nothing but create obstacles to a two state solution. I’m obliged to feign Ignorance of the fact that the number of settlers in the West Bank have tripled since the Oslo agreement. My assigned duties require me to constantly raise a fuss about the illusionary security threats to an expansionist apartheid state that has a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire Middle East. Part of my job is to get along with psychotic dispensationalist congressmen and senators who believe that a ‘peace-loving’ Israel was doing God’s work when it murdered 1,500 Palestinians and demolished the entire infrastructure of Gaza in operation Cast Lead. And after doing the obligatory dog and pony routine, I’ve got to sign the annual three billion foreign aid check to a country that has a per capita income that earned it the right to join the Organization of Economically Developed Nations.”

“Seriously, what choice do I have in the matter? It’s part of my job description. If I don’t follow through with my marching orders, I won’t have to answer to the Republicans; my White House eviction orders will come from my own party.”

“Deep down, I’m hoping my veto will inspire responsible governments around the world to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As long as America monopolizes and dominates the ‘peace process’ – there will be plenty of ‘process’ but there will never be peace. So to those of you who understand the dynamics of American domestic politics, I beg you – take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict off my plate before AIPAC sets the dogs on me. Call me a hypocrite if you must but don’t call on me to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; I’m not Jimmy Carter and I don’t want to change my address before 2016.”

Ahmed Amr is the former editor of NileMedia.com and the author of The Sheep and The Guardians - Diary of a SEC Sanctioned Swindle. He can be reached at: Montraj@aol.com. Read other articles by Ahmed.

This article was posted on Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Israel/Palestine, Obama, Satire, The Lobby.

Bernie Sanders Criticizes Obama

By Matthew Rothschild, September 19, 2011

I heard Sen. Bernie Sanders speak a couple of times this weekend in Madison, Wisconsin, and he was inspirational.

He went after “the crooks on Wall Street.”

He assailed the giant corporations.

He denounced the rise in poverty as a moral disgrace.

He said the rightwing was going after Social Security because “it’s such a success,” and it undermines their argument that the government can’t do anything good.

He called for a redistribution of income and wealth.

He skewered the corporate media for caring “more about Kim Kardashian’s wedding than the collapse of the middle class.”

He bemoaned the drift of the Democratic Party. “There was a time when we had a center-right party in this country and a center-left party,” he said. “Now we have a rightwing extremist party, and a centrist party. And Democrats are proposing ideas that ten years ago no Republicans would propose.”

Sanders didn’t shy away from criticizing Barack Obama.

He blamed Obama for continuing “the Bush trade policies,” saying, “Free trade has been an unmitigated disaster for American workers.” He noted that 50,000 factories have closed down here in the last decade.

And he noted “without pleasure that the President of the United States was talking about cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” Sanders said, “FDR and Harry Truman would be rolling over in their graves.”

Sanders argued that such talk from the Democratic President “is not only horrible public policy, it is bad politics.” If both parties are advocating cutting these social programs, “The average person is going to say, ‘Where is the difference between the two parties?’ I don’t know who you think is going to vote for you when you say you’re going to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

Sanders said he’s “been in meetings in the White House where there have been very straightforward conversations with the President” about why he’s giving up so much ground. Sanders said he wasn’t sure what Obama’s motivations were but that the President has “a desire not to be confrontational.”

For his part, Sanders doesn’t back away from confrontation. He recommends it.

His advice for Obama: “Fight for a progressive agenda, and do not equivocate. You’re not going to be able to win unless you’re prepared to fight.”

If you liked this story by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine, check out his story "Bonnie Urfer, Jailed Anti-Nuclear Activist, Defiant."

Follow Matthew Rothschild @mattrothschild on Twitter

Obama's Top Broken Promises

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Promises about PolitiFact's Top Promises on The Obameter

The Obameter

1) Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners

Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes. "The Fund will not help speculators, people who bought vacation homes or people who falsely represented their incomes."

Sources:

"Obama: Protecting Home Ownership and Cracking Down on Mortgage Fraud"

Subjects: Economy, Housing, PolitiFact's Top Promises

Foreclosure prevention fund a “colossal failure,” special inspector says

Updated: Thursday, March 31st, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

When it comes to President Barack Obama's promise to create a foreclosure prevention fund, he's kept to the letter of law, but his administration has completely failed to meet its spirit. For that, we're moving this our rating to Promise Broken.

Let us explain.

Back during the campaign, Obama said he would create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners facing foreclosure. "Too many families are unable to refinance because no one will lend to them, and they are unable to sell their homes because the housing market has fallen," reads as statement of policy from Obama's 2008 campaign. "As president, Obama will fight to ensure more Americans can achieve and protect the dream of home ownership." We named it one of our top promises, among the most significant campaign pledges Obama made.

And soon after his election, Obama outdid the promise of $10 billion, creating a foreclosure prevention fund that totaled $75 billion, paid for with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Officials said the fund could help 9 million homeowners. We gave Obama a Promise Kept.

But as many months went by, the program never lived up to its promise. As of January 2011, the program had given permanent loan modifications to only about 500,000 homeowners.

The news website ProPublica has extensively investigated the program and reached a number of dismal conclusions.

"With millions of homeowners still struggling to stay in their homes, the Obama administration"s $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has been weakened, perhaps fatally, by lax oversight and a posture of cooperation—rather than enforcement—with the nation's biggest banks," ProPublica reported. "Those banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, service the majority of mortgages."

As we were considering whether to change the rating on this promise, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil M. Barofsky, penned a damning op-ed in the New York Times, calling the housing program "a colossal failure," blaming a lack of enforcement on the part of the U.S. Treasury Department.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has acknowledged that the program ‘won't come close' to fulfilling its original expectations, that its incentives are not ‘powerful enough' and that the mortgage servicers are ‘still doing a terribly inadequate job,;" Barofsky wrote. "But Treasury officials refuse to address these shortfalls. Instead they continue to stubbornly maintain that the program is a success and needs no material change, effectively assuring that Treasury's most specific Main Street promise will not be honored."

The evidence has been mounting for some time that the foreclosure prevention fund has fallen far short of its goals. If it ever rights itself, we'd certainly be willing to reconsider our rating. But today, it hasn't helped many homeowners faced with losing their houses. We conclude it's a Promise Broken.

Sources:

ProPublica, Govt's Loan Mod Program Crippled by Lax Oversight and Deference to Banks, Feb.17, 2011

ProPublica, Dems: Obama Broke Pledge to Force Banks to Help Homeowners, Feb. 4, 2011

ProPublica, Eye on Loan Modifications, various reports on various dates

The New York Times, Where the Bailout Went Wrong, by Neil M. Barofsky, March 30, 2011

Foreclosure fund has lackluster results so far

Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

Back in February, we rated Obama's promise to create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners as a Promise Kept. In fact, we noted, Obama actually exceeded his promise, sending $75 billion to the fund because the crisis had worsened since the campaign of 2008.

The program, called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, has been operating for almost a year now. The idea was that lenders would refinance loans for troubled homeowners, and the federal government would make a small payment to the lender as an incentive.

But the problem is that it's not working as hoped. Out of 759,058 mortgages modified on a trial basis through November, only 31,382 homeowners have received permanent modifications. For perspective, Moody's Economy.com estimated that 2 million homes were lost to foreclosures and short sales in 2009, and another 2.4 million will face foreclosure in 2010.

Criticism of the program has been widespread. "HAMP has made only limited progress for nine months now, and the residential foreclosure crisis continues to mount," said Richard Neiman, a member of the congressional oversight panel that monitors the program, in a story by McClatchy Newspapers.

''For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, to the New York Times.

The Obama administration continues to support the program, saying that the modification program is helping some homeowners

For our purposes here at PolitiFact, it's hard to let our Promise Kept rating stand when the fund has fallen short of its intended promise. We're going to roll back this promise to a Compromise, and keep monitoring the situation to see if how the mortgage modification fund ultimately concludes.

Sources:

New York Times, U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes, Jan. 1, 2010

McClatchy Newspapers, Homeowners often rejected under Obama's home plan, Dec. 17, 2009

FinancialStability.gov, Obama administration releases new data on modification program, Dec. 10, 2009

Obama unveils plan to aid homeowners

Updated: Thursday, February 19th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

What a difference a year makes. In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama talked about a plan to help homeowners with subprime mortgages refinance loans or sell their homes. About $10 billion should suffice, he said at the time.

The months went by, the economy worsened, and Obama won the election. On Feb. 18, 2009, President Obama unveiled his plan. Price tag: $75 billion.

By providing incentives to both lenders and borrowers, the plan allows some homeowners to refinance loans. It excludes investors, speculators, people who fraudulently obtained loans, and people who purchased homes so beyond their means that even refinancing won't help them.

"The plan I'm announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly," Obama said. "It will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild. It will prevent the worst consequences of this crisis from wreaking even greater havoc on the economy. And by bringing down the foreclosure rate, it will help to shore up housing prices for everyone."

The plan may end up more expensive than $75 billion because it also provides a guarantee of up to $200 billion in capital for federal mortgage holders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That guarantee may or may not be necessary, said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

A few parts of Obama's overall plan require approval from Congress, but most of the money comes from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, that Congress approved in 2008, Geithner said.

By putting $75 billion toward the program, Obama exceeded the terms of his campaign promise. Promise Kept.

Sources:

The White House Web site, President Obama's Housing Plan , Feb. 18, 2009

The White House Web site, Press Briefing with Treasury Secretary Geithner, HUD Secretary Donovan, and FDIC Chairman Bair , Feb. 18, 2009

The Boston Globe, President steers $275b to housing , Feb. 19, 2009

The Boston Globe, Questions, answers about the program , Feb. 19, 2009

Bloomberg.com, Obama housing plan questions and answers , Feb. 18, 2009

2) Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes

Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

Sources:

Obama campaign interviews with the Tax Policy Center

Subjects: PolitiFact's Top Promises, Taxes

President Obama signs off on continuing tax cuts for high earners

Updated: Monday, December 20th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

With 2010 coming to a close, President Obama brokered a major deal on taxes, agreeing to continue the current tax rates for high earners. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he intended to let them expire. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, were set to go up in 2011.

In giving in on his campaign promise, Obama got some other things in return. The current tax rates were extended for couples who make less than the $250,000 cut-off, and some tax cuts that were part of the 2009 economic stimulus law were also continued. Additionally, Obama won an additional year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes that would put 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks.

Obama said he still opposed the tax cuts for the wealthy, even though he agreed to the extension.

"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

There's a case to be made that Obama is not completely backing off his campaign promises. He agreed to only a two-year extension of the rates, not making them permanent.

However, this was a major campaign promise of Obama's that he repeated again and again. The tax cuts for high earners are now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, just as Obama completes his first term. At that time, we'll revisit this promise to see where it stands. For now we rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

Thomas, HR 4583

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

U.S. Senate Finance Committee, S.A.4753: The Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010

Tax deal signals Bush tax cuts will continue for those with higher incomes

Updated: Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Barack Obama sacrificed one of his top campaign promises -- raising taxes on high earners -- in a compromise with Republicans to extend current tax rates for everyone for another two years.

Obama also got a major extension of unemployment insurance, an expansion of college tax credits that were part of the 2009 stimulus, a measure to allow businesses to expense all of their investments in 2011 and a payroll tax reduction in 2011 that will increase take-home pay for workers.

Still, the deal means that upper-income people will pay the same lower rates for at least two more years.

Obama said he still opposes continuing the current tax rates for higher earners, but that he has been unable to persuade a majority of the Senate to go along with his position. He said he will continue to argue against making the tax rates permanent.

Whether the deal makes it through Congress remains to be seen, and staff members are still working out details of the proposed legislation. But the announcement of a framework indicates clearly that Obama is not holding out for his promise. For now, we're moving this promise to Stalled.

Sources:

The White House, Statement by the President on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits, Dec. 6, 2010

The White House, Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance, Dec. 7, 2010

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Dec. 7, 2010

Obama budget forecasts tax increases for higher incomes

Updated: Thursday, February 26th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Obama's Office of Management and Budget unveiled a broad outline of its plans for the 2010 budget on Feb. 26, 2009, highlighting investments in health, energy and education.

To pay for some of those items, Obama proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled on people who make more than $200,000 and couples who make more than $250,000. For those income levels, his plan increases rates on the two highest income tax brackets, raising the 33 percent bracket to 36 percent and the 35 percent bracket to 39.6 percent. Under Obama's plan, those tax cuts expire, as scheduled, in 2011.

When asked whether those tax increases would hinder economic growth during a recession, spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated that taxes for the wealthy would not increase until 2011, almost two years from this writing.

President Obama "doesn't believe that the changes that are being made would hinder economic growth," Gibbs added. "I would point out that many of these rates for families that make above $250,000 a year revert to the rates that we saw throughout the '90s, when this economy enjoyed fairly robust economic growth."

To be clear, the proposal is now simply an outline of Obama's budget, and the budget still has to be approved by Congress, where Republicans are likely to oppose any effort to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So for now, we rate this promise In the Works.

Sources:

Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010 , accessed Feb. 26, 2009

Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables , Table S-6, page 123, accessed Feb. 26, 2009

C-SPAN, Peter Orszag briefs reporters on the 2010 budget plan , Feb. 26, 2009

C-SPAN, White House Briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs , Feb. 26, 2009

3) Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."

Sources:

"Barack Obama: The War We Need to Win"

Subjects: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Terrorism

Obama announces changes to Guantanamo detention policy

Updated: Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 | By Robert Farley

On March 7, 2011, President Barack Obama signed an executive order making a number of changes to policies regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a reversal of his previous policy, the order resumes military trials for Gitmo detainees. It also establishes a "periodic review" process for for long-held Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer, "but must continue to be detained because they 'in effect, remain at war with the United States,'" according to a White House fact-sheet.

The new policy was viewed by many media outlets as an acknowledgment by the administration that it could not keep Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo facility.

The lede of a Washington Post story said the president's executive order "will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security" and that the executive order "all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy."

The New York Times, meanwhile, said that while the order permits military trials to resume, it is also "implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp."

And ABC News, said the order "sends mixed signals about the future of the controversial detention center and the president's own standing on the issue, experts say."

Although Obama did not mention the fate of Guantanamo in his brief released statement, the accompanying fact-sheet released by the White House maintains that the administration "remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay" and makes the case that the policy changes are "in keeping with" the president's long-term strategy toward that end.

But civil rights groups quickly denounced Obama's order as an admission that he has turned his back on his campaign promise.

"While appearing to be a step in the right direction, providing more process to Guantanamo detainees is just window dressing for the reality that today"s executive order institutionalizes indefinite detention, which is unlawful, unwise and un-American," Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a released statement. "The detention of Guantanamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America"s reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval."

"The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantanamo and the broken commissions system, and to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts," Romero stated. "Today"s announcement takes us back a step when we should be moving forward toward closing Guantanamo and ending its shameful policies."

Tom Parker, an official with Amnesty International said the administration's insistence that it remains committed to closing Guantanamo is merely "lip service to the things President Obama previously stated."

"It's very clear he is not prepared to make the tough decisions it would require to close it," Parker said.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Parker said, "With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law by referring detainee cases from Guantanamo Bay to federal courts rather than the widely discredited military commissions."

The administration, however, also maintains that it is committed to efforts to try some cases in federal court, despite Congress enacting significant roadblocks to that.

"As the Administration has long stated, it is essential that the government have the ability to use both military commissions and federal courts as tools to keep this country safe," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a released statement. "Unfortunately, some in Congress have unwisely sought to undermine this process by imposing restrictions that challenge the Executive Branch"s ability to bring to justice terrorists who seek to do Americans harm. We oppose those restrictions and will continue to seek their repeal."

That's hardly giving up, many experts argue.

Mason Clutter, policy counsel for the Constitution Project, a bipartisan group that has called for shutting the prison, pointed to a provision of the order that reads: "In the event detainees covered by this order are transferred from Guantanamo to another U.S. detention facility where they remain in law of war detention, this order shall continue to apply to them."

That suggests the administration is still committed to pursuing other alternatives to Guantanamo, Clutter said,

So does she think that will happen by the end of an Obama first term?

"Absolutely not," Clutter said.

There are still 172 people being held at Guantanamo, Clutter said. Congress has pretty well tied the administration's hands, prohibiting prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries, according to Clutter.

"Even if the review board determines someone should be released," Clutter said, "it will be hard to transfer them out of Guantanamo."

In other words, for the time being, there are no options other than Guantanamo. Until they figure out what to do with all of the detainees, Clutter said, it seems pretty clear they will remain at Guantanamo.

Duke University law professor Scott Silliman thinks it's premature to call this promise broken. The actions taken by Obama seek to reduce the number of detainees at Guantanamo over time. Obama has expanded the review process for those for whom there will never be a criminal trial.

"He hasn't given up on closing Guantanamo Bay," Silliman said. "Obviously, it's not going to happen soon." Given the political reality of the situation, he said, "Guantanamo is probably going to be open for a couple more years."

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, also contests the idea that that Obama's actions amount to an admission that he has broken his promise to close Guantanamo.

"I don't know where it's come from that they've thrown in the towel," Martin said.

The White House has long said it intended to try some of the detainees in military court. Martin said. And it has long maintained that it intended to hold some as law of war detentions (detentions based on legal principles of international law for nations during wartime). She noted that Congress' prohibition on transfers to federal courts in the U.S. expires in September and that Obama ought to have at least until then to change Congress' mind.

We disagree. Obama has now had a full two years in office, and the possibility of keeping this extremely difficult promise seems even more remote now than when his presidency began. Some argue that Congress is largely to blame, while others say Obama simply made a political calculation not to expend too much political capital on it. But blame is not the final arbiter of whether a promise is kept or broken. The administration has clearly not backed off claims that it continues to pursue this promise. But even those who think this promise is merely stalled instead of broken acknowledge that it's unlikely Guantanamo will be closed by the end of Obama's four-year term. We're not inclined to extend the timeline for this promise into a second term when resolution between now and then seems unlikely. We will revisit our rating should the situation change dramatically, but for now, we are moving this to a Promise Broken.

Sources:

White House website, Statement by President Barack Obama on "New Actions on Guantanamo Bay and Detainee Policy," March 7, 2011

White House website, Fact Sheet: New Actions on Guantanamo and Detainee Policy, March 7, 2011

White House website, Executive Order: Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, March 7, 2011

ACLU website, Press release: President Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite Detention, March 7, 2011

U.S. Department of Justice, Statement of the Attorney General on Guantanamo Bay and Detainee Policy, March 7, 2011

Washington Post, Op-Ed: "Obama's new Gitmo policy is a lot like Bush's old policy," by Dana Milbank, March 8, 2011

Washington Post, "Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay," by Peter Finn and Anne E. Kornblut, March 8, 2011

New York Times, "Obama Clears Way for Guantanamo Trials," by Scott Shane and Mark Landler, March 7, 2011

ABC News, "Decision to Resume Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions Muddies the Water," by Huma Khan, March 8, 2011

Pro Publica, "Obama Makes Indefinite Detention and Military Commissions His Own," by Dafna Linzer, March 8, 2011

Salon, "Obama's new executive order on Guantanamo," by Glenn Greenwald, March 8, 2011

Tribune Newspapers, "Guantanamo trials are resuming despite pledge," by Richard A. Serrano, March 8, 2011

Interview with Tom Parker Amnesty International, March 8, 2011

Interview with Mason Clutter, policy counsel for the Constitution Project, March 8, 2011

Interview with Duke University law professor Scott Silliman, March 8, 2011

Interview with Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, March 8, 2011

Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo

Updated: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

President Barack Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center has switched from In the Works to Stalled and back again (and again). All that movement reflects a simple dynamic: Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.

The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.

Obama didn't like those provisions and issued a statement deploring them. He said the limitation on transferring prisoners to the U.S. is "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority ... ." Of the new requirements on transferring prisoners to foreign governments, Obama said it could "hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security."

Obama stopped short of saying he would disregard the law, something presidents sometimes do via "signing statements." President George W. Bush issued many signing statements as president that said he would disregard parts of laws passed by Congress that he believed infringed on his executive authority. During the campaign, Obama said he would not "abuse" signing statements.

But nowhere did Obama say he would disregard the new restrictions. Instead, he said he would seek to repeal of the restrictions.

"Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my Administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this Act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011," Obama said in the statement. "Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."

Based on Obama's statement, he clearly still wants unfettered authority to move prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay facility. And at a press conference at the end of the year, he said it was important to close Guantanamo because it is "probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations."

"It is important for us, even as we're going aggressively after the bad guys, to make sure that we're also living up to our values and our ideals and our principles," Obama said at the press conference. "And that's what closing Guantanamo is about -- not because I think that the people who are running Guantanamo are doing a bad job, but rather because it's become a symbol. And I think we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else."

Obama may want to close Guantanamo, but legal impediments still stand in the way of him achieving his goal. The meter remains at Stalled.

Sources:

The White House, Statement by the President on H.R. 6523, Jan. 7, 2011

The New York Times, New Measure to Hinder Closing of Guantánamo, Jan. 8, 2011

THOMAS, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011

The White House, News Conference by The President, Dec. 22, 2010

Plan to close Guantanamo faces opposition from Congress

Updated: Thursday, September 16th, 2010 | By Lukas Pleva

Talk about a rating roller coaster! When we first reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in January 2009, we rated it In the Works. By May 2009, we moved it to Stalled, since the White House was facing significant opposition from Congress. In mid-October, it went back to In the Works, as Congress allowed some detainees to be temporarily moved to the United States for prosecution. That rating remained unchanged after our last update in January 2010.

We're well into the second year of Obama's administration, so we wanted to see whether things had changed since January.

First, however, a quick note. We've gotten a ton of e-mails from readers urging us to rate this Promise Broken. Obama promised to close the detention center within a year of taking office, the argument goes, and he has not done that. As we pointed out in our last update, however, he made that statement after taking office, not during the campaign. The Obameter only tracks promises that the President made on the campaign trail, when there was no such self-imposed deadline.

That said, let's look at how things have been unfolding.

In December 2009, the administration announced that it would ask Congress to appropriate money to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois to house Gitmo detainees. The plan took a blow, however, in May 2010, when the House Armed Services Committee inserted language into the 2011 defense bill which specifically prohibits the use of funds to purchase or modify any U.S. facility for Gitmo prisoners. The measure was adopted by the full House on May 28, 2010 in a 282-131 vote. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted a similar proposal on May 28, 2010. The two proposals have yet to become law, however. In June, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich announced that the administration plans to go ahead with the purchase of the facility for regular domestic federal prisoners.

Even more telling, however, are statements that the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, made in July 2010. Talking about closing Guantanamo, Hoyer said that "that's not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you're not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term."

Finally, in May 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force submitted a report to Congress, which includes recommendations on how to proceed with each of the detainees. But House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said that Guantanamo is not at the top of his priority list. "A war is going on. That"s my concern." Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said that moving prisoners from Gitmo to Illinois is "off the radar screen."

The White House maintains that President Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, but several high-ranking lawmakers make it clear that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. As always, we'll keep our eyes open, but for now, we are changing the rating to Stalled.

Sources:

Roll Call, Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill, by Jennifer Bendery, July 21, 2010

ABC News Political Punch, Some Gitmo Detainees Headed to Illinois Prison, Obama Administration to Announce Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2009

The Washington Post, Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says, by Peter Finn, May 29, 2010

The Washington Times, Obama's Gitmo plan takes another hit, by Stephen Dinan, May 28, 2010

Miami Herald, White House moves ahead on Illinois prison purchase, June 22, 2010

The New York Times, House Panel Rejects a Plan to Shift Detainees to Illinois, by Charlie Savage, May 20, 2010

Fox News Blogs, Key Senate Committee Rejects Obama Request for Alternate Gitmo Prison, May 28, 2010

Don Manzullo, Senate Appropriators Approve Plan to Buy and Use Thomson as Federal Prison Without Terrorists, July 23, 2010

Chicago Tribune, House votes to prohibit moving Gitmo detainees, by Katherine Skiba, May 30, 2010

The Washington Post, Votes Database: Vote 335, accessed July 26, 2010

Against obstacles, Obama still works toward closure

Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day, conservatives renewed calls for Obama to abandon his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

"Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader.

After the attack, Obama halted transfers of detainees to Yemen, the country where the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, may have received instructions on how to blow up the aircraft. But White House officials said Obama remains committed to closing the facility, and the plan to close the prison seem to keep moving forward, slowly.

The Obama administration has identified a prison in Thomson, Ill., that it hopes to acquire and renovate for detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and officials are working out details for funding the plan. The Senate seems amenable to the idea; in November, the Senate rejected a measure to restrict funds for the facility.

Obama said after the inauguration that he hoped to close Guantanamo within one year, and administration officials admit they won't make that deadline. During the campaign, Obama gave himself no such deadline, and we're judging him here on his campaign promises. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay, and concrete steps are being taken to do so. The promise remains In the Works.

Sources:

U.S. Senate, Senate vote, To prohibit the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to construct or modify a facility in the United States or its territories to permanently or temporarily hold any individual held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nov. 17, 2009

The Washington Post, In Senate vote, signs of shift on detainees, Nov. 18, 2009

Bloomberg, Guantanamo Detainees Won"t Be Sent to Yemen for Now, Jan. 5, 2009

Congress moves to allow some detainees on U.S. soil

Updated: Friday, October 16th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

President Barack Obama is again making progress in his effort to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The House of Representatives voted Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009, to allow some prisoners there to be temporarily transferred to the United States for prosecution.

Promise No. 177 made its first appearance on the Obameter on Jan. 21, 2009, the day after Obama was sworn into office. The new president had just directed prosecutors to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. A day later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

But by May, Obama's plans had begun to unravel. Congressional Republicans and Democrats said Obama needed to detail what he would do with the approximately 240 detainees held at the prison.

"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell at the time.

The opposition culminated in a May 20 vote, when the Senate voted to strip $80 million meant to shutter the facility from a war spending bill. House Democrats had already refused to include the funding in their version of the legislation.

Without support in Congress, Obama's plan to close down Guantanamo Bay had clearly reached a roadblock, so we decided to move Obama's promise from In the Works to Stalled.

Now, nearly five months later — with his one-year deadline looming — Democrats have changed their tune. In the Homeland Security Department funding bill is a provision that would allow detainees to temporarily be transferred to U.S. soil for prosecution. Nevertheless, members of Congress still want the White House to come up with a plan for the future of the detainees and the facility. And the legislation is expected to face opposition in the Senate.

But given these latest developments in the Guantanamo Bay debate, we're going to move this promise back to In the Works. We'll be watching the issue closely to see whether the rating holds.

Sources:

Politico, House Democrats give Obama Gitmo space , by David Rogers, Oct. 16, 2009

Reuters, US House backs Guantanamo prisoner transfer , by Andy Sullivan, Oct. 15, 2009

More difficulties, this time from inside White House

Updated: Friday, September 25th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

Promise No. 177 has hit another snag.

On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Two days after he took office, he vowed to close it within a year — by Jan. 22, 2010.

But his effort has been slowed by the difficulty in finding a place to house the approximately 240 prisoners held there and resistance from Congress. In May, the Senate refused to fund Obama's efforts to close the center until he provided more detail on what, exactly, he intended to do with the detainees housed there. Now, Gregory Craig, the White House insider who was put in charge of the effort, is being removed from the project, according to a Sept. 25, 2009, Washington Post article.

The Post article, co-written with ProPublica, said the White House will have difficulty meeting the deadline four months from now.

So, closing the detention center continues to encounter difficulties. We'll keep it at Stalled.

Sources:

Washington Post and ProPublica, White House regroups on Guantanamo , Sept. 25, 2009

Congress balks at Obama's plan

Updated: Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has run into significant opposition, most notably from members of his own party who stripped millions of dollars to shutter the facility from a war funding bill.

Closing the prison has been one of Obama's signature issues since he was a candidate. On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

For weeks, Republicans have opposed Obama's plan, voicing concern that the administration has not said what will happen to the approximately 240 detainees housed at the center.

"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

House Democrats have similar concerns; they refused to include the $80 million requested by the administration to close the facility in the war spending bill. Senate Democrats initially included the money in their $91.3 billion version of the measure, but then stripped it out by a 90-6 vote on May 20.

"This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this," said Democratic leader Harry Reid. "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president," though Reid stressed that he still believes closing the facility is a good idea.

Just five months ago, Reid had softer words for Obama's executive order, saying that, at first blush, it appeared "to lay out a responsible and careful path that maintains every effective tool needed to defeat terrorists. In fact, I am convinced these changes will strengthen and enhance our counterterrorism efforts."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration still aims to follow the executive order and seal off the facility within a year. Meanwhile, Obama plans to offer more details on his strategy for dealing with the prisoners in speech on May 21.

Obama's efforts to close down Guantanamo Bay are not dead, but they have clearly reached a roadblock. Based on these latest actions, we're moving the Obameter to Stalled and will be watching how it develops over the next few months.

Sources:

CQ Politics, Sen. Mitch McConnell's Comments on Guantanamo Bay , May 19, 2009

CQ Politics, Sen. Harry Reid's comments on Guantanamo Bay , May 19, 2009

White House, Transcript of Briefing of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs , May 19, 2009

Executive Order to close Gitmo

Updated: Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 | By Robert Farley

On his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order to review the disposition of prisoners being held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ordered that the detention facility be closed within a year.

According to the administration, closure of the facility is the ultimate goal. The order establishes a review process with the goal of disposing of the detainees before closing the facility.

According to the White House, "The Order sets up an immediate review to determine whether it is possible to transfer detainees to third countries, consistent with national security. If transfer is not approved, a second review will determine whether prosecution is possible and in what forum. The preference is for prosecution in Article III courts or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but military commissions, perhaps with revised authorities, would remain an option. If there are detainees who cannot be transferred or prosecuted, the review will examine the lawful options for dealing with them. The Attorney General will coordinate the review and the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security as well as the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will participate."

The order also requires that conditions of confinement at Guantanamo, until its closure, comply with the Geneva Conventions.

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," Obama said after signing the order.

The executive order clearly comports with Obama's campaign pledge to close Gitmo, and now sets the timeline for one year. But there is still work to be done, and until the detention center actually closes, we'll keep the status at In the Works.

Sources:

Whitehouse.gov, Executive Order: Review and Disposition of Indiviuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base and Closure of Detention Facility , Jan. 22, 2009

Obama gets 120 days to review cases at Gitmo

Updated: Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 | By Robert Farley

On the day he was inaugurated, the Obama administration took a major step toward his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center when it directed prosecutors to file a motion seeking to suspend legal proceedings against detainees.

The motion asks for 120 days in order to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."

A judge in one of the war crimes cases, Army Col. Stephen Henley, issued a ruling Wednesday agreeing to suspend the proceedings at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending the 120-day review.

According to the motion filed at the request of President Obama, the 120-day suspension of proceedings will provide the administration "time to conduct a review of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to evaluate the cases of detainees not approved for release or transfer to determine whether prosecution may be warranted for any offenses those detainees may have committed, and to determine which forum best suits any future prosecution."

The review is seen as a major first step toward his promise of ultimately closing the controversial detention facility opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations that have criticized the legal processes at Guantanamo as unconstitutional.

"On Day One, President Obama kept his promise to halt the unconstitutional military commissions by ordering the prosecution to seek a 120-day suspension," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Had the proceedings continued, the Bush administration would have permanently tied his hands and stopped him from being able to fulfill a top-level campaign promise. Within the next 120 days, we trust that the president's team will be studying and finalizing plans and a timeline for permanently closing Guantanamo, shuttering the military commissions and ensuring justice is served in the best of American traditions. President Obama's 'time out' comes at the perfect time in these shameful military commissions and shows he means business on Day One. President Obama has to restore an America we can be proud of again by once and for all shutting down Guantanamo and its shameful military commissions."

There's still a ways to go for Obama to fulfill the promise of closing the facility. But this motion was a significant first step, enough for us to move the needle to In the Works.

Sources:

U.S. v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al., Request For 120-Day Continuance In The Interest Of Justice , Jan. 20, 2009

Washington Post, Obama Seeks Halt to Legal Proceedings at Guantanamo , by Peter Finn, Jan. 21, 2009

4) Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters

"Will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format."

Sources:

Obama ethics plan

Subjects: Ethics, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Technology, Transparency

After nearly two years, no sign of centralized database

Updated: Monday, January 10th, 2011 | By Louis Jacobson

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to "create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format." As we noted in our previous update, much of this was actually implemented after passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, thanks to Obama's leadership in the Senate.

Under that law, the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate maintain databases of lobbying reports and campaign contributions by lobbyists and lobbyist-controlled political action committees. The databases provide much more information on lobbying and campaign contribution filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format than was previously available.

However, as we noted previously, the data is not located in a single, unified database but in a series of separate databases. And in the 14 months since our last update was published, there's been no further progress on centralizing them, experts said.

"No such single database yet exists," said Daniel Schuman, policy counsel for the Sunlight Foundation, a pro-transparency group.

In general, the administration has taken steps to improve public access to Internet-based data, whether it's on the stimulus-tracking Recovery.gov website or a series of other online portals. But we interpret the word "centralized" as the crux of this promise, since it would offer information-seekers the most convenient access to the data the administration says it wants to make available. And that hasn't happened yet. If it does emerge before Obama leaves office, we'll change our rating, but for now, we're calling this a Promise Broken.

Sources:

White House, Open Government Initiative innovations page, accessed Jan. 7, 2011

E-mail interview with Daniel Schuman, policy counsel for the Sunlight Foundation, Jan. 7, 2011

E-mail interview with Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, Jan. 6, 2011

E-mail interview with Jim Harper, director of information policy studies, Cato Institute, Jan. 6, 2011

Access to data is improved, but not as much as promised

Updated: Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | By Louis Jacobson

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to "create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format." Much of this was actually implemented after passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 thanks to Obama's leadership in the Senate.

Under that law, the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate maintain databases of lobbying reports and campaign contributions by lobbyists and lobbyist-controlled political action committees. The databases do indeed provide lobbying and campaign contribution filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format, watchdogs say. In fact, many media outlets have used these databases to research investigative stories.

"We have put more info online than ever before, in a searchable, sortable, downloadable format," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen.

But Holman and others add that HLOGA does not fully meet the standard Obama set out in his campaign promise. The databases available do not include ethics records, and they are not a single, unified database, but rather a series of separate databases.

Meanwhile, the administration has made a number of improvements in other varieties of disclosure, mostly in a piecemeal fashion. Organizations seeking money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program or the economic stimulus bill must disclose their lobbying activities, for instance, and these must in turn be offered to the public electronically. Some watchdogs have said the follow-through on these initiatives has been imperfect, but the administration has at least established the rules.

In addition, the public can now obtain financial disclosure forms for executive branch officials -- though at least for now, the forms have to be requested individually, rather than being immediately downloadable from the Internet. Finally, the White House is now posting visitor logs on the Web.

Transparency advocates agree that the administration's efforts fall short of ideal -- and fall short of Obama's campaign promise. But they add that disclosure of key information is now much more extensive and more user-friendly than it was just a few years ago. And they sense that, despite the current shortcomings, the White House is committed to improving transparency. So we'll rate their efforts on this promise as In the Works.

Sources:

Congressional Quarterly, Senate floor vote results on S. 1 from the 110th Congress, Jan. 18, 2007

The White House, SF 278 request form , accessed Nov. 19, 2009

Treasury Department, "Treasury Secretary Opens Term With New Rules To Bolster Transparency, Limit Lobbyist Influence in Federal investment Decisions" ( news release ), Jan. 27, 2009

Daniel Schuman, "The TARP Lobbying Rules: What They Say And What They Mean For Transparency" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), Oct. 15, 2009

Daniel Schuman, "TARP Lobbying Disclosure: What a Difference a Day Makes" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), Oct. 15, 2009

Daniel Schuman, "Stimulus Lobbying Rules, Take Two" (Sunlight Foundation blog post ), July 27, 2009

Interview with Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, Nov. 19, 2009

Interview with Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, Nov. 19. 2009

Interview with Interview with Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 19, 2009

E-mail interview with Brett G. Kappel, counsel at the law firm Arent Fox LLP, Nov. 19, 2009

Interview with Jim Harper, director of information policy studies, Cato Institute, Nov. 19, 2009

5) Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming

"Will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face."

Sources:

"Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future," Portsmouth, N.H., Oct. 8, 2007

Subjects: Cap and Trade, Energy, Environment, PolitiFact's Top Promises, Regulation

Obama abandons cap and trade as Republicans take over the House

Updated: Monday, November 8th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

The last time we checked in on cap and trade, its prospects didn't look good. The legislation had passed in the House in 2009, but had not been taken up in the Senate. And last week, President Barack Obama himself acknowledged the proposal was doomed.

What is cap and trade? The idea is that the government sets a limit (the cap) on how much carbon different companies can emit. The government then issues permits to companies -- typically electric utilities and manufacturers --and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.

Republicans, however, attacked the plan as a job-killing energy tax, a description that is not entirely accurate. The plan never made it to a vote in the Senate.

Last week, Republicans won elections across the country, increasing their presence in the Senate and winning the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. At a press conference the next day, Obama acknowledged a changed political landscape while holding out hope for other issues.

"I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year," he said. "And so it's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after. But that doesn't mean there isn't agreement that we should have a better energy policy. And so let's find those areas where we can agree."

"Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said later. "It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."

Obama may make headway on some of his other promises on energy and the environment, but it's clear he's giving up on this one because it can't make it through Congress. We rate it Promise Broken.

Sources:

The White House, Press Conference by the President, Nov. 3, 2010

The Washington Post, Elections alter climate and energy landscape, Nov. 4, 2010

Cap and trade will have to wait, say Senate leaders

Updated: Monday, July 26th, 2010 | By Lukas Pleva

We last reported on President Obama's campaign pledge to implement a cap and trade system in January 2010. At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since the House had passed a comprehensive energy bill in June 2009. Meanwhile, in the Senate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., released their own version of a cap-and-trade bill in May of this year.

It's been awhile since our last update, so we wanted to see how things have been unfolding.

Turns out, things have not been going so well in the Senate. On July 22, 2010, the Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters that Democrats "don"t have the votes" to pass a comprehensive bill that would put caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Reid said that he will introduce a bill to reform the regulatory process for gas and oil drilling, provide incentives for production and purchase of natural-gas fueled vehicles, and possibly lift the liability cap for companies that cause oil spills. Still, even these scaled-down provisions are facing opposition from political and industry groups.

Reid said that the leadership had to shelve the cap-and-trade bill -- which would set limits on carbon emissions -- because of Republican opposition, though Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, said that even Reid's own party does not unanimously support the measure. Kerry and Lieberman are hopeful that they can continue to work in September on a proposal to cut emissions from electric companies, but Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan said that he doesn't think that there will be time for "two energy packages on the floor this year."

We'll keep our eyes open to see what happens in September, but for now, it's clear that cap-and-trade will have to wait. We change the rating to Stalled.

Sources:

The Wall Street Journal, Senate Shelves Efforts to Cap Carbon Emissions, by Stephen Power, July 22, 2010

Bloomberg Businessweek, Senate Democrats Drop Carbon Caps From Energy Bill, Reid Says, July 22, 2010

Politico, Democrats pull plug on climate bill, by Darren Samuelsohn and Coral Davenport, July 22, 2010

Congress debates cap-and-trade in fits and starts

Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Catharine Richert

It's been a while since we updated President Barack Obama's promise to create a cap-and-trade system -- and there's a lot to report.

After Obama included the concept in his budget, House heavyweights Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts introduced legislation that would lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government.

The House passed the legislation 219-212 on June 26, 2009.

In the Senate, things got a little more dramatic. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barabara Boxer of California did not introduce their cap-and-trade bill until late September. Nevertheless, the legislation was incomplete; a big part of the bill language were omitted, leaving lots of room for negotiation. About a month later, Boxer released more details on her bill and pushed forward on debate despite objections from Republicans. Recognizing the legislation had no legs without GOP support, Kerry backed away from the bill and joined Republican Lindsay Graham and independent Joe Lieberman to draft a bipartisan version.

The idea, of course, was to have a bill passed in time for the landmark climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where world leaders were supposed to hash out an agreement to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. After two weeks of haggling, the final accord turned out to be only a statement of intention to take action on climate change. Without a binding treaty, some of the steam has been taken out of the domestic climate change debate.

And then there's health care, an issue that has overshadowed nearly everything else Congress has tried to tackle this year. Lawmakers plan to take up the massive health system overhaul again once Congress is back in session. After that, they'll turn back to cap-and-trade, with Senate leaders likely cobbling together the final version of the upper chamber's climate bill.

Clearly, this promise is still In the Works; cap-and-trade represents a major change, so we wouldn't expect this pledge to be fulfilled overnight. For now, we'll follow the issue closely and offer updates throughout 2010.

Sources:

The New York Times, A Grudging Accord in Climate Talks, by Andrew C. Revkin and John M. Broder, Dec. 19, 2009

CQ Weekly, 2009 Legislative Summary: Climate Change Mitigation, by Coral Davenport, Jan. 4, 2010

Cap-and-trade is in the budget

Updated: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

Barack Obama said during the campaign he would attack global warming by setting up a cap-and-trade system.

The idea behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.

When President Obama released his budget on Feb. 26, 2009, he included the cap-and-trade system as part of his plans. The initiative would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 2005 levels, by about 14 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

The policy would result in "dramatically reduced acid rain at much lower costs than the traditional government regulations and mandates of the past," said Obama's budget outline.

Obama also hopes the program will generate revenues for the government of about $150 billion over 10 years, starting in 2012. That money will go to paying for some of Obama's other initiatives, including helping communities transition to a green economy, according to the budget outline.

Republicans say the cap-and-trade system will result in higher electricity rates and higher prices for consumers. Those increases are a de facto energy tax, they argue.

Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, said electricity costs may go up but most Americans would see other benefits to offset the higher costs.

"I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being promarket is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations," Orszag said in an interview.

So cap-and-trade is in the budget outline. Orszag's remarks signal that the Obama administration intends to aggressively defend the plan in the face of opposition. We move this promise to In the Works.

Sources:

Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010 , accessed Feb. 26, 2009

This Week with George Stephanopolous, Interview with Peter Orszag , March 1, 2009