Obama Administration » Undiplomatic

5 January 2009 Charles J. Brown
04:12 pm

A Few Additional Thoughts on the Panetta Pick

In my last post, I asked whether the mandarins at Langley would listen to an outsider. It therefore might be useful to remember the last time someone from the real world tried to run the place: Porter Goss.

Let’s not mince words: Goss was a complete disaster. Despite his many years in Congress (or perhaps because of them), he couldn’t manage his way out of a paper bag. His purge of senior and mid-level officials helped gut the CIA of many of its most talented officers. He hired cronies to staff key posts, leading to several scandals (see Foggo, Dusty).

In addition, Goss apparently was under orders to get rid of officers perceived as openly sympathetic to the Kerry campaign. The end result was a significant decline in the CIA’s capability.

So this is not the best analogy. Unlike Goss, Panetta is neither inexperienced in the ways of a large bureaucratic organization nor a total idiot political hack. Nonetheless, he would be wise to look carefully at the experience of Goss — as well as others, like Stansfield Turner — who were given a mandate to fix the agency only to crash and burn.

Transition: Panetta to CIA, Kagan and Johnsen to DOJ

The NYT Caucus blog is reporting that former Clinton White House chief of staff (and Congressman) Leon Panetta will be named CIA director.

This is a fascinating choice — as far as I know, Panetta’s only direct foreign policy/national security experience comes as a result of his membership on the Iraq Study Group. Here’s the Obama team’s argument as reported by the NYT:

In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills, his strong bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House and his service on the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that examined the war and made recommendations on United States policy. The officials noted that he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.

I can see the argument — both the Chief of Staff and (to a much lesser degree) the OMB do play a role in foreign policy. And Panetta certainly knows how to run a bureaucracy — he is largely credited with bringing a semblance of order to the Clinton White House. But I wonder just how much the mandarins in Langley will listen.

Last March, Panetta published an op-ed in The Monterrey [CA] Herald that outlines his views on secrecy, the political use of intelligence, torture, and the politics of fear. It’s worth quoting at length:

Unfortunately, fear remains an appealing weapon in the modern political arsenal. In a tight battle, the temptation is to scare the hell out of the public in order to win an issue or beat an opponent. Consultants design campaigns to get voters to vote their guts and not their brains. This appeal to the lowest common denominator afflicts both the way this nation elects its leaders and ultimately the way these leaders govern.

Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president’s decision to invade Iraq.

More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The president says the rules are too But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. restrictive, implying that the use of some forms of torture just could help avoid another Sept. 11.Our forefathers prohibited “cruel and unusual punishment” because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear. . . .

The good news is that the American people appear to have rejected the tactics of fear. They really do want change and a nation unified by a can-do spirit that will confront problems and give our children a better life. They do not want patriotism defined simply by fear of terrorism, the prospect of perpetual war and the historic prejudices against race and gender.

Oddly enough, the purpose of the op-ed was not to criticize the Bush Administration, but to encourage the Presidential candidates to conduct a more open and civil debate. In fact, it outlines several specific steps — public financing and a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates — subsequently rejected by the Obama campaign.

Nonetheless, the piece makes it clear that Panetta wanted to see the country move away current policies on torture, rendition, indefinite detention, and the politicization of intelligence. That leads me to conclude that he’s taking this job because he wants to clean out the stables and end the current stain on America’s record as a human rights advocate and champion. It certainly isn’t careerism: moving from White House chief of staff to a position that no longer holds cabinet rank certainly seems odd from the Washington-insider perspective.

But that’s exactly why I think it could be a great choice: a savvy political operator who knows how to operate in byzantine bureaucratic settings. He may not know the puzzle palace, but he sure knows palace politics.

Combined with the appointment of Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan as Solicitor-General and Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, the Panetta appointment bodes well for those seeking to overturn the current torture regime.

Now the only question is whether Obama will allow for a grand jury investigation into the role of Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and others in systematically violating U.S. laws against torture.

The Real World, West Wing Edition

Or is it The West Wing, Real World Edition?

For the past eight years, I’ve driven Molly nuts by watching episode after episode of The West Wing while getting all misty and sad. No more — now I can watch it in real time and know it’s even better than fiction.

And just for the record, I know that this was not just drinking the Kool-Aid, but diving in and going for a swim. I’ll try to be back to my usual snarky self soon.

Photo of the Day

Via Time (h/t Swampland):

Pictures are worth a thousand words, but this photo needs only one: relief.

Oh No You Didn’t

All across the country today average people were surprised by suddenly stinging cheeks. They were slapped. Hard. Who would do such a thing? The President-elect? No. I don’t believe you!

Yes. He. Did. Obama chose the Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.

Mr. Obama…we fought for you. We worked for you. We believed we could do it. I’m not referring to gays, Mr. Obama. I’m referring to people. Individuals all across the country who believed that, with your election, the dream of equal rights for all Americans finally had a chance of coming true.

We voted for you in droves. And you invite Rick Warren to speak? At one of the most historic moments in the history of our country?

Let’s remember who we’re talking about here.

[Warren] compared gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy and repeated the inaccurate charge that without Prop 8, conservative preachers could be prosecuted for hate crimes. He described ’social gospel’ Christians of the 20th century as closet Marxists.

Still don’t get it? Replace the word “gay” with “interracial.” Still think it’s no big deal?

I had hope, Mr. Obama. For one shining moment, when you stood on the podium in Chicago and addressed Americans so inclusively by race, gender, class…I don’t even remember all the words. But I do remember you saying “gay or lesbian.” Tears streamed down my face. I thought praise God. . . . .Yes We Can.

Then you invite someone to speak at your inauguration who compared millions of hard working, tax paying, family oriented, respectable people to pedophiles. And you think that’s okay?

Yes We Can? How about Oh No You Didn’t?

Rumor of the Day

State Department (non-Obama transition) sources are reporting that the big rumor inside the building is that the Obama Agency Review Team will recommend a major reorganization of the Department, including the elimination of certain bureaus and the consolidation of others.

Not a lot of substance to what I’ve heard, so it’s not clear whether this is grounded in reality or merely fear.

I will say that the Department could benefit from a significant reorganization of both its regional and thematic bureaus.

Anyone else hearing anything?

Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!

This week President-elect Obama named his energy and environment team, including Nobel laureate Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy. Of all the science and technology issues that could be discussed on a site like this, few are more global than planet-wide environmental issues, so I thought I’d take a look at the new team.

First, the lineup as it was predicted by the New York Times last Thursday:

The officials said Mr. Obama would name Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as his energy secretary, and Nancy Sutley, deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environment, as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Mr. Obama also appears ready to name Carol M. Browner, the E.P.A. administrator under President Bill Clinton, as the top White House official on climate and energy policy and Lisa P. Jackson, who until recently was New Jersey’s commissioner of environmental protection, as the head of the E.P.A.

The selection of Dr. Chu in particular has interested commentators, as his responsibilities are formidable:

Dr. Chu will be taking on one of the most challenging jobs in government at the Department of Energy. He will be responsible for the maintenance and development of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as for modernizing the nation’s electrical power delivery system.

He will also play a central role in directing the research and development of alternative energy sources needed to replace fossil fuels in a era of constrained carbon emissions. Mr. Chu shared a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997 for work on supercooled atoms.

At the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, he has sponsored research into biofuels and solar energy and has been a strong advocate of controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group, said he was pleased that Dr. Chu had the technical expertise to realistically assess future energy technologies.

“His experience seems to dovetail perfectly with the president-elect’s commitment to bringing new energy technology to market in a timely fashion,” Mr. Segal said. “An understanding of the art of the possible in energy technology will be critical to the development of a cost-effective climate change policy.”

I like the Obama team for the professionalism it represents: people with experience getting things done in Washington as well as people with sufficient technical backgrounds to appreciate the practical difficulties involved in the various options with which they will be presented. The proposed team is good, competent, and since I don’t know enough about the economic, political, or technical issues involved in this area, I will simply wish them well and ask them to get on with it.

I am reasonably well-informed citizen of the United States, though millions of Americans are surely more current on a whole range of issues than am I. Also, I am a working scientist whose paycheck derives from the small contribution of my research to the economic value I help to create for my employer. I think I have a useful perspective on a set of issues which I freely admit I don’t fully understand.

But I have to admit I am a little nervous about social engineering on this scale, and in realizing that, I have hit upon a tongue-in-cheek theme for this post: “prove me wrong, rocket scientist!” Here’s my unsolicitied advice to Obama’s new team:

Although most people agree that global warming and other planet-wide changes are underway, and that human activity is at least partially a cause of some of these effects, most Americans aren’t engaged on the issue. The Obama team needs to remind us of the evidence in a way that could also convince those who voted for John McCain and George Bush.

Scientists can identify technical trends and options, and predict their logical outcomes. Economists can estimate the costs of doing this, that, or nothing at all. But society in general has to decide what cost it is willing to bear to achieve a certain social or political goal.

The Obama team needs to tell us what we would be getting for your expenditure of my economic and social capital. If you don’t think this first step isn’t necessary, remember that millions of children in the world die every year from diseases that are technologically treatable, but are not deemed worthy of the financial output of either their own country, ours, or the world’s population in general. Or, think about people starving to death in a world awash with food: the answer exists, but no one is willing to pay for it.

I am playing devil’s advocate here, but a different way to structure the question is this: humans are as much a part of the Earth’s ecosystem as any other species, so if the methane emissions of elephant and wild cattle gastrointestinal tracts can contribute to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus to global warming, why can’t humans?

There’s an easy answer to that, but the case for the costs and sacrifice have to be made clearly and successfully.

I am not an economist, but I remember reading somewhere that most countries’ carbon footprint can be pretty well related to their overall economic output. The Obama team needs to tell me whether this is true or not. If it is, tell me clearly why I should accept reduced economic output for the environmental goals you want to achieve (Americans, two-thirds of our economic output is consumer spending, so reducing economic output means reducing consumer spending, which means we all receive less services and goods).

If it is a moral argument, that is fine, but make it clearly, and make an argument to the undecided and unsure rather than just repeating to the choir why they already believe what they do on this issue.

Along the same lines as above, like most Americans I don’t believe the government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, but I would be interested in knowing if there are exceptions to the carbon footprint = economic output rule, and if there are, what lessons you think we should draw from that, and how our government can help incentivize economic actors to pursue these more promising approaches. Prove to me that there is a path forward that doesn’t mean I have to walk fifteen miles to work every day wearing a burlap sack and snacking on a turnip grown without irrigation.

Tell me why this whole thing can’t be simply reduced to the following strategy: a cap-and-trade scheme that sets an overall limit on carbon dioxide emissions for United States (you can avoid a carbon tax on individuals by letting oil and power companies build the cost of their credits into the price of energy and gasoline, or you can impose a carbon tax on gasoline, coal, natural gas, and heating oil, but one way or another individuals must also bear the cost of this choice), and substantially increased government funding for research and development on clean energy.

I may also buy increased government spending on public transport, an upgraded energy grid, and eventual worker retraining once it becomes clearer what kinds of skills might be competitive in the rejigged economy that would result from this, but it isn’t obvious to me why anything else that has been proposed could not and should not be done better in the private sector (where incidentally it might even create a few jobs). So, if you want to do things beyond these few steps, or do other things instead, tell me what they are and why they are better.

Tell me what compromise you can envision between the stated environmental desires of other countries (ignoring for now whether they truly intend to meet their obligations), and the political reality that any climate treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. We are the world’s leader and so we should lead, but we should lead from a position of agreement within and outside of ourselves. So realistically what is that position, and how are you going to avoid passion-wasting political cul-de-sacs?

Finally, the kicker — the issue that I think people are avoiding right now. Before the recession was fully realized, the environment was the most typical common ground in a divided populace, and also the area in which candidates Obama and McCain were more similar to each other than either was to President Bush. But beginning to price the environmental impact of economic choices by both corporations, individuals, and other actors will surely exert a further drag on the economy in the short-term, and as the unemployment rate continues to climb in 2009, another area of potential spend is likely to shove this aside: health care and coverage of it for individuals.

To put it bluntly, I care much more about my ability to maintain my health and that of my family (and indeed of any other human being on the planet) than I do about my ability to zero out the impact of humans on the environment, and I suspect most people would agree with me if they thought about it in those terms. So prove to me that we can do both, because if we can’t, I know which one I prefer.

That’s it: my open letter to a rocket scientist. If you want my advice, forget about a carbon tax on individuals, poll a thousand climate scientists as to the minimum level of carbon emissions that would be 90 percent likely to have a minor impact on the global climate, price the total set of emission credits representing that at a tenth of what we spend on health care and defense, auction them off over a couple of years in a manner that allows for small players to borrow the money to play, and then sit back and see what happens.

It doesn’t have to be exactly right the first time, and it may turn out to be a lot harder or more expensive than anyone realizes. Don’t worry about penalizing or rewarding early buyers if you have to change the price of the credits later, as the price of lots of assets change constantly. Just ask the Treasury Secretary about how he’s suddenly making a profit selling three-month notes.

Obama on Human Rights: We Must Practice What We Preach

Even I missed this, but President-elect Obama issued a statement on Human Rights Day:

The United States was founded on the idea that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that principle has allowed us to work to perfect our union at home while standing as a beacon of hope to the world. Today, that principle is embodied in agreements Americans helped forge — the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and treaties against torture and genocide — and it unites us with people from every country and culture.

When the United States stands up for human rights, by example at home and by effort abroad, we align ourselves with men and women around the world who struggle for the right to speak their minds, to choose their leaders, and to be treated with dignity and respect. We also strengthen our security and well being, because the abuse of human rights can feed many of the global dangers that we confront — from armed conflict and humanitarian crises, to corruption and the spread of ideologies that promote hatred and violence.

So on this Human Rights Day, let us rededicate ourselves to the advancement of human rights and freedoms for all, and pledge always to live by the ideals we promote to the world.

Pretty good stuff. He explicitly referred not only to the UDHR but also the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture, and highlighted the American role in helping to make these treaties a reality. I especially like the last line about pledging “to live by the ideals we promote to the world.” He couldn’t have sent any more of a clear signal to the rest of the world that we will soon leave behind the exceptionalism and war crimes of the Bush years.

Rocking Climate Change

One of the best parts of being a scientist is getting enthused about the “what-if” possibilities of a new idea, which must be similar to the enthusiasm felt by political campaigners. In the November 11 print edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (h/t The Economist — original not yet online, unfortunately), two scientists from Columbia University, Peter Kelemen and Jurg Matter, demonstrated that a single rock (located in the desert in Oman), known as peridotite, is sequestering tens of thousands of tons of CO2 every year, in the process converting the gas to a mineral similar to limestone or marble.

Here’s how The Economist describes it:

Some people have looked at the idea of grinding up peridotite and using it to soak up emissions from power stations, but the process turns out to be expensive, partly because of the costs of transporting all the rock. The transportation would also create emissions. Kelemen and Matter suggest an alternative: pumping the gas from places where it is produced and into underground strata of peridotite.

They then suggest a method of treatment in which the capacity of this CO2 sink could be significantly increased, to the point where it would consume a meaningful fraction of the CO2 produced by humans every year and dumped into the atmosphere.

The team has shown that the Omani peridotite absorbs tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, far more than anyone had thought. By drilling and fracturing the rock they believe they can start a process to increase the absorption rate by 100,000 times or more. They estimate this would allow the Omani outcrop, which extends down some 5km, alone to absorb some 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is a substantial part of the annual 30 billion or so tonnes of the gas that humans send into the atmosphere, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

The science and international relations angle to all of this is that environmental issues such as climate change are global and thus international by definition. Although the impact of climate change may have slightly different manifestations locally, the underlying problem is global. In addition, solutions don’t have to come from any one country, and technically effective solutions almost certainly can’t be implemented by just one country.

Although people generally don’t like to consider this aspect of the situation, minimizing the negative effects of global change, like many other social goods, will have an economic cost, and that cost should be borne globally , since the total may be too expensive for just one country, and the benefits will accrue to all.

Permit me to offer some thoughts on what could be done to follow up on Kelemen and Matter’s discovery:

1. We should be surveying for other naturally occurring materials that could perform similar functions, especially within or near North America and Europe, and China. These could be on either public or private lands but, if the latter, they will instantly become a very lucrative holding when combined with a carbon emission cap-and-trade system, thus encouraging their proper development and use for sequestering CO2.

2. We should explore the feasibility of synthesizing millions of synthetic versions of this type of rock to discover alternatives that could be made cheaply and used locally to scrub CO2 out of emissions from power plants, cars, etc. They may either be more efficient than the naturally occurring material, or could be transformed into an economically attractive product that could then be sold on, thus generating further incentive to develop carbon-capture sinks.

The Obama camp has been notable for its willingness to listen to ideas from all quarters and adopt what might work, so in that spirit I offer these up as a couple of free green business ideas. If anyone knows anyone on the environment/energy team, feel free to pass them on.

The Perfect Christmas Gift?

A brilliant little video that uses humor to highlight the need to shut down the global trade in small arms (h/t Slog):

For years now, activists and a number of countries have been trying to draft and get UN approval for a treaty limiting trade in small arms. Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association have convinced their friends in the Bush Administration to oppose these efforts, and has portrayed them as some sort of world government conspiracy.

Perhaps under the Obama Administration, the United States can demonstrate some leadership. It won’t be easy — the NRA will portray any small arms ban as an effort to deny their members their guns. But it could save tens of thousands of lives.

Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge

Google Zeitgeist has put together some end of the year trends, including most searched items (”Sarah Palin” topped the charts). They also put together some interesting charts. One, in particular, caught my eye:

(note: CFL is compact flourescent lightbulb)

The spike and subsequent crash in searches for hybrid cars demonstrates the challenge President-elect Obama faces when it comes to energy policy. Folks want the world to be a greener place, but they care a lot more when it has an impact on their pocketbook. The challenge for Obama will be to find ways to encourage folks to think more about hybrid cars even when gas prices are below two dollars a gallon.

Here’s hoping his new energy and environment team — including an honest to god Nobel prize-winning rocket scientist — can make it happen.

Human Rights Day

Today is the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you’re not familiar with it, here’s a short (and extraordinarily cool) primer, via the Human Rights Action Center:

The Declaration’s opening sentence is “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” I think that pretty much sums it up.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of helping to organize the White House’s celebration of the 50th anniversary. President and Mrs. Clinton attended, as did numerous human rights activists. And while the Clinton Administration’s human rights record was not perfect, it was far better than what we have now and, for that matter, one of the best ever. (Full disclosure: I served in the Clinton Administration as Chief of Staff in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, so I’d like to acknowledge that I’m not unbiased on this matter.)

Among the events that day was a ceremony awarding the first-ever Eleanor Roosevelt Awards, which were created by President Clinton to honor Americans who had made major contributions to the cause of human rights both at home and abroad. Those honored during his term included John Lewis, Bette Bao Lord, Burke Marshall, Dorothy Thomas, Robert Bernstein, and the late Fred Cuny.

Since 2001, the Human Rights Day commemoration has taken place at the State Department. President Bush ended the tradition of celebrating Human Rights Day at the White House. As far as I’m aware, the Bush Administration never conferred the Eleanor Roosevelt Award.

Anyone want to guess as to the reasons why?

It’s often overlooked because of the other crises we face (economy, two wars, etc.), but the reality is that President-elect Obama must spend considerable time over his Administration dismantling the torture regime (and rendition regime and indefinite detention regime and. . .) created by his predecessor. It’s going to take a lot of time and effort, but it’s crucial not only because we as a nation need to return to our ideals, but also because the rest of the world will want to know that we practice what we preach.

Part of that effort is naming and shaming those responsible. But part also is returning to remembering days like today, where we can recognizing the ideas and values that have helped shape this nation, as well as the role of courageous Americans in ensuring that we live up to our core principles.

Here’s hoping that President-elect Obama restores the tradition of a White House ceremony on Human Rights Day, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Awards. And let’s also hope that among the earliest honorees are those who have, for the past eight years, fought so courageously to oppose and expose the Bush Administration’s war crimes.

Changing the Culture IV: Fitzgerald at FBI, IG in Congress

Per Midwest (in comments), Patrick Fitzgerald for FBI. Talk about the right person to shovel out the stables. As Hilzoy noted, Fitzgerald is the perfect person to be given the mandate to investigate fully the crimes of the Bush Administration — and, for that matter the alleged misdeeds of some Members of Congress (albeit within the constraints of separation of powers).

The only downside I can see is that Republicans will accuse Obama of getting Fitzgerald out of the way of the Blagojevich investigation. The Obama team would have to find a way to address that.

One other thought: why doesn’t Congress have an Inspector-General? It would be far more effective than an ethics committee.

Your thoughts?

What She Said

Hilzoy on Patrick Fitzgerald’s pursuit of Rod Blagojevich:

Oh, and one more thing: it’s clearer than ever to me that Obama and the Congress should give Patrick Fitzgerald the job of investigating the Bush administration’s war crimes. Give him complete freedom from interference, and let the chips fall where they may.

As I’ve noted before, I favor an independent investigation. Were it to be done by a U.S. Attorney or a special prosecutor, all the better.

Quote of the Day

Atrios, on the tempest in the netroots about Obama advisor David Hildebrand telling progressives to stop whining about President-elect Obama’s Cabinet choices:

The Obama campaign didn’t exist to make me feel good, and the Obama presidency won’t either. I don’t especially like his people punching the dirty fucking hippies under the bed, but on the other hand if they manage to convince people that Obama is a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty, while those DAMNED DIRTY HIPPIES just won’t shut up about their magic ponies, it’s fine by me.

For years we’ve had Democrats railing against those crazy hippies as an excuse to not do all of those things. If Obama’s people are going to rail against the hippies and use it as an excuse to do them, fine with me.

Changing the Culture II: Role of the VP

Steve Benen over at The Washington Monthly has a brief piece on another effort to rein in the Bush Administration’s trampling of the separation of powers. For the past eight years, Dick Cheney met regularly with the Senate Republican caucus, which reversed decades of Senate policy. Yesterday, however, the Senate Democratic Caucus decided to exclude incoming Vice President Joe Biden from their weekly meetings. As Benen notes,

Were it not for the last eight years, this wouldn’t be newsworthy at all. Indeed, it’d be entirely normal. For generations, administrations have tried to exert influence over the Senate by inserting the Vice President into his caucus’ affairs, ostensibly as a de facto member of the chamber. And for generations, senators have pushed back, citing the separation of powers and the need for checks and balances.

Over the last eight years, the model has been turned on its head. Whereas every V.P. has tried to exert undue influence over the Senate, the Republicans of the Bush era are the first to actually accede to an administration’s demands. Cheney attended the weekly Senate Republican strategy luncheons, and effectively issued marching orders to members. Lacking institutional independence, a sense of pride, and respect for our constitutional traditions, the GOP caucus, with no obvious debate, effectively let Cheney become part of the Senate Republican leadership. . . .

It’s unlikely to happen again.

I disagree with Benen’s last point. Given the the possibility that the next Republican President could want his/her VP to return to the Cheney precedent, we can’t assume that we’ll never see a similar situation in the future.

That gets me back to an argument I made yesterday about the al Marri case: we can’t assume that merely reversing policy will prevent future abuses of executive power.

So what does that mean in terms of the role of the Vice President? I doubt that legislation clarifying the VP’s role in the Senate would hold up to a Constitutional review. What we need is a national dialogue, led by Biden but including both Senate Democrats and Republicans. It would be useful were the Vice President to be more than just a hood ornament, but it also may be useful to define a stronger role than merely waiting for the President to kick the bucket.

That may mean, as some have suggested, abolishing the vice presidency. It could mean eliminating it and creating a full-time President of the Senate, second in line to the Presidency, whose role would be analogous to the Speaker of the House (the current President pro-tem is a figurehead, usually given to an elder in the party in power). It could mean giving the VP a COO role, different from but similar to the current chief of staff job.

While they’re at it, they might want to rethink the current line of Presidential succession, which puts people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd in line to become President before people half their age and twice their fitness for the job.

Why SCOTUS Should Hear the Al-Marri Case

Daphne Eviatar over at The Washington Independent has a good piece today on why Supreme Court probably will never hear the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri even though it has agreed to review it. Al-Marri is a legal U.S. resident who the Bush Administration alleges was an al Qaeda sleeper agent. He was arrested on September 11, 2001 as a material witness to the attacks, and since then, the government has held him without charge in the same South Carolina brig where they held Jose Padilla.

As Eviatar notes, the Bush Administration may choose to charge al-Marri as a criminal (and move him to a regular prison) rather than risk losing the case. Even if they don’t, the Obama Administration is likely to reverse the Bush Administration’s position, either charging al-Marri in civilian courts or releasing him. Either way, the chances are pretty slim that the case will actually get heard.

That would be unfortunate for two important reasons.

First, it’s largely forgotten now, but al Marri was one of those picked up during the FBI’s post-9/11 profiling orgy dragnet, during which thousands of people were detained only because someone thought they looked or acted suspicious. Some turned out to be violating immigration law, but in many cases, the FBI held legal U.S. residents and citizens, instead instead naming them as “material witnesses” in the 9/11 investigation.

Since then, the Bush Administration’s disastrous pursuit of the war on terror — torture, indefinite detention, rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. — has meant that these events have fallen down the memory hole. As the Obama Administration weighs what to do to document and assign responsiblility for the Bush Administration’s past actions, it should not overlook the events of the first few months after the attacks, a time when the U.S. Goverment mounted the largest mass round-up of U.S. citizens and legal residents since the detention of Japanese-Americans in World War Two.

By hearing the al-Marri case, the Court would provide an important opportunity to remind Americans that the Bush Administration’s crimes did not start with its interrogation policies, that long before we knew about torture memos, secret renditions, and other crimes, average American citizens and legal residents were locked up just because someone thought they looked suspicious or acted strangely. By arguing that al-Marri should not be detained, the Obama Administration would demonstrate its willingness to repudiate even the more obscure components of the Bush Administration’s policies.

Second, were SCOTUS to hear and rule on the case, they are likely to overturn the government’s argument that a U.S. resident can be detained indefinitely. That would close another legal loophole, preventing a future president from taking similar action in the future.

The reality is that we need to do more than merely change the Bush policies and prosecute those responsible. We also need to change the torture-permissive culture that celebrated such acts.

There are two components to that effort: legal precedent and popular culture.

In the case of the former, SCOTUS already has begun to create a framework that will make much more difficult any future attempt to pursue Bush-like policies in the future. The al-Marri case represents an important part of that effort, and therefore should be heard and decided. (Yes, I am assuming that the case will be decided in al-Marri’s favor, in large part because that would be consistent with every other Supreme Court ruling on Bush’s policies).

In terms of the latter, changing the culture will take more time. We need to rethink a world in which “24″ can repeatedly show brutal torture without public complaint while half the country goes nuts over the brief appearance of Janet Jackson’s breast. One way to make that happen is to air out the Bush Administration’s dirty laundry. The al-Marri case offers just such an opportunity to the incoming Administration.

To draw an analogy, the civil rights movement succeeded when it did not merely because of laws but also because Americans decided that they no longer would tolerate Jim Crow. That represented not merely a legal triumph but also a fundamental change in American culture.

We need something similar to happen to ensure that we eradicate the torture culture once and for all. To that end, the Obama Administration should actively encourage the Court to rule in al-Marri’s favor. Only when we change the way we look at torture will we eliminate the risk of a future President pursuing similar policies.

Loyalty v. Ideology (Reboot)

Editor’s note: Somehow the original version of this post disappeared — apparently I overwrote the Big Three post on top of it. Apologies to those subscribers who saw it already — you can stop reading now.

Apparently yet another media outlet is trying to play up the Obama-Clinton rivalry:

Preparing for her new role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband’s administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.

For her team of foreign policy experts, the nation’s third female secretary of state is expected to draw heavily from the staff of the first, Madeleine Albright, who was an early supporter of Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And to deal with internal Obama administration affairs, State Department bureaucratic politics and media pressures, the former first lady appears set to tap current Senate aides and former White House “Hillaryland” stalwarts, whose reputation for insularity and staunch protectiveness has already set off anxiety among career foreign service officers. . . .

The prospect of their imminent arrival in Foggy Bottom has been a hot topic of nervous corridor conversation among many in the professional diplomatic corps who fear they will be frozen out of positions of influence.

Okay folks, this is ridiculous. Here’s a list of the people identified in the story as “Hillaryland stalwarts.” I’m excluding those identified as candidates for her personal staff (which means people working in the office of the Secretary), since any Secretary of State brings such folks with him/her:

James Steinberg (supported Obama during the primaries)
Andrew Shapiro
Lee Feinstein
Doug Hattaway
James Rubin
Suzy George
Wendy Sherman
Michael Sheehan
Rand Beers (former foreign service officer)
Robert Einhorn
Robert Gelbard (former foreign service officer)
Daniel Kurtzer
Dennis Ross
Toni Verstandig
Michael Guest (former foreign service officer)

I know a few of these folks personally, and know all by Verstandig by reputation. All, with the exception of Ross (who served both Bush I and Clinton) and perhaps Gelbard are at the very least left-of-center. Most are dyed in the wool progressives.

Let me be clear here. When word first surfaced that Hillary was being considered as Secretary of State, I reported on what I was hearing within the Obama camp: unhappiness and fear that those who supported Obama during the primaries would be frozen out of the State Department. Some remain concerned, but most do not — they see the choice of Steinberg, for example, as evidence that Hillary will put together a team that is not only from her “camp.”

More importantly, every single one of the folks on the above list supported Obama in the general. It’s not like we’re talking about rampant disloyalty to the President-elect.

There are two other problems with the story. First, Matthew Lee, the reporter, has selectively picked from the transition team lists those known to have supported Clinton from the primary. Someone else could just as easily have picked those known to have supported Obama. I’m guessing it’s even possible to pick those who supported Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. Breathlessly reporting that some Hillary supporters just might get jobs working for her is not exactly presenting a full picture.

Second, word that some foreign service officers are anxious that they will not have senior positions in a Clinton State Department also is nonsense. Several senior posts, including the Undersecretary for Political Affairs and the Undersecretary for Management, usually go to career FSOs. Yes, as Life after Jerusalem notes, only one Secretary of State came fromt he ranks of the foreign service (Eagleberger), and very few have risen to the rank of Deputy Secretary:

[P}olitical appointees hurt morale. Most of us serve knowing that no matter how good we are, we can't expect to attain the highest positions in the Department unless we win the lottery. Only one Secretary of State has been a career Foreign Service Officer (points if you know who), and many of the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and the Ambassadors at the nicest posts are political appointees. Which sends a strong message that the rank and file don't measure up.

And the truth is we do measure up. We serve, year after year, advancing the President's foreign policy to the best of our abilities agenda regardless of who occupies the White House. Because we are professionals. And just like professional soldiers, we should be able to expect that the majority of our leaders have gotten where they are by succeeding on the same path we are walking, not by the size of their checkbook or the happenstance of their birth.

LAJ is right in saying that we would never have a general who is a political appointee, and that we should have a more professional diplomatic corps. But I have to disagree with her argument that most senior people got their position as a result of their wallet or birth. Although that may be true about political Ambassadors, it’s not an accurate portray of senior people at State, many of whom have been among the most talented and capable people I’ve ever met (including some of the list above).

To put it another way, we shouldn’t confuse loyalty with ideology. Support for Clinton in the primaries does not translate into opposition to Obama, un-progressive views, or the inability to do their jobs. Both the press and the foreign service (and, frankly those of us who supported Obama in the primaries) need to stop whining and give the Secretary-designate the benefit of the doubt.

UPDATE: Before the original post disappeared, Life after Jerusalem did post a comment (which now appears at the bottom of the Big Three post), and I want to reproduce it here:

I didn’t mean to imply that all politically appointed senior people within the Department are not talented and capable. The Assistant Secretary in my bureau, for example, is very talented and capable and is also a political appointee. Lots of the senior political appointees are. But particularly among political appointee ambassadors, there are a lot who lack qualifications beyond knowing (or having contributed to) the President.

The folks in the list above don’t fall into that category. They are a talented and experienced bunch who I have confidence will serve the Secretary and the Department well. And I recognize the need for some political appointees. It is natural for a new Secretary to want to have advisors she already trusts and can depend on. But I guess I think the practice could be scaled back. In much the same way as real diversity can be achieved not by lowering standards but by casting a wider net, more of the senior postions could be filled by the rank and file of the Department if only our leaders would notice the talent base that is here.

Oh, but I will say that if there are anxious conversations in the cooridors about Clinton’s selections and of people being “frozen out” of influential positions, I haven’t heard them.

The Human Rights Secretary of State?

During her years as First Lady, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton was a fierce champion of human rights, speaking out about a variety of abuses, with a particular focus on women’s rights. Here, for example is an excerpt from the speech she gave in 1998 at the White House commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone here today, however, knows how far we still have to go to ensure that the circle of human dignity embraces all citizens. Whether it’s young girls being sold into prostitution in Thailand, women who are victims of violence in their own homes here in this country or elsewhere, boys being used as human shields in Uganda, those recovering from the ravages of the Yugoslav conflict, or those arrested in China for political activity; we have to recognize the depth of injustice and human suffering that still exists around us. . . .

When we celebrate today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we do have much to be thankful for. And many of us are living in societies and democracies that have gone such a far distance in the last 50 years to honor and protect human rights.

But let us not forget the hundreds of millions of people who are still at risk, the 100 million children who live in the streets, the 160 million children who are not even in primary school, those who are denied freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom to express an opinion, who have no choice that they can make to determine the course of their own lives.

This is not a marginal issue. Human rights goes to the very center of what we in the United States believe politics and democracy should be about. And so today we celebrate the progress, but we also challenge ourselves to continue to seek out opportunities, wherever possible, to do all that we can to eliminate the continuing scourge of human rights abuses, wherever they may be found.

Should Hillary continue to frame human rights as going to “the very center” of America’s self-conception, she could be the perfect messenger for the new Administration, explaining to the world that we no longer will ignore the very principles at home that we so ardently championed abroad.

In addition (and perhaps as importantly), she could help bring about a sea change in the way the State Department itself looks at human rights. Within “the building,” there is considerable bureaucratic ambivalence (and not infrequently hostility) toward human rights issues. There are two reasons for this.

First, the dominant role played by the regional bureaus, in terms of policy means that country teams often regard human rights as a nuisance that gets in the way of things like trade, military cooperation, narcotics interdiction, and anti-terrorism. During my time at State, I witnessed (and participated in) dozens of fights over whether to consider human rights when adopting a specific policy (say, trade with China, military assistance to Uzbekistan, or the war on drugs in Colombia). Although we would win our share of the battles, we never were able to get past the general perception that human rights should only be talked about when dealing with countries that were not our friends or allies.

Second, the dominant role played by the regional bureaus also has an impact on career decisions. If you’re a young foreign service officer working on the China desk, and your next step up the latter depends on a positive evaluation from your boss, the head of the China desk, and s/he thinks human rights should not get in the way of good relations with China, what position are you going to take? There certainly is little incentive to buck your boss.

In addition, this has created a widespread perception that service in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor can be a career killer. DRL has two knicknames: “DRooL” and “the NGO inside the building.” To say the least, neither of these is exactly an incentive to serve there.

This certainly is understandable. If you want to move up the ladder, the last place you want to be is in a bureau that constantly bucks the system. During my time in DRL, we struggled to get talented junior foreign service officers to serve (which is not to say we weren’t successful), and we saw senior foreign service officers who had served (or were serving) in DRL get passed over for the Senior Foreign Service.

Just to be clear, this does not mean that there aren’t talented and dedicated foreign service officers in DRL, or that there aren’t foreign service officers working in other bureaus (and overseas) who have pushed their offices to oppose human rights abuses. Both exist, and both should be commended. It also does not mean that there aren’t those who serve in DRL who go on to serve in significant positions — Mona Sutphen, Obama’s new deputy chief-of-staff, is one such example. But overall, recruiting and keeping talented FSOs is far harder than it should be.

Clinton should think seriously about significantly expanding the size and budget of DRL. It is sorely understaffed and in need of significant additional resources to do its job, which has only been made much harder by the policies of the Bush Administration. Doing so also would send a strong signal to the rest of the building that DRL can and should play an important role in policy decisions.

Transition Open Thread

It’s going to be a light blogging day today, as I’m in consulting land. In the meantime, what do you guys think of the WaPo report that Richard Holbrooke will serve as the President’s envoy to South Asia? And does this news in any way undermine The Condi’s efforts in the region?

Talk amongst yourselves.

A Few Additional Thoughts on the Panetta Pick

Related posts

Transition: Panetta to CIA, Kagan and Johnsen to DOJ

Related posts

The Real World, West Wing Edition

Related posts

Photo of the Day

Related posts

Oh No You Didn’t

Related posts

Rumor of the Day

Related posts

Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!

Related posts

Obama on Human Rights: We Must Practice What We Preach

Related posts

Rocking Climate Change

Related posts

The Perfect Christmas Gift?

Related posts

Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge

Related posts

Human Rights Day

Related posts

Changing the Culture IV: Fitzgerald at FBI, IG in Congress

Related posts

What She Said

Related posts

Quote of the Day

Related posts

Changing the Culture II: Role of the VP

Related posts

Why SCOTUS Should Hear the Al-Marri Case

Related posts

Loyalty v. Ideology (Reboot)

Related posts

The Human Rights Secretary of State?

Related posts

Transition Open Thread

Related posts