There have been a couple of things in the news lately that I haven't been able to figure out. Given the level of sophistication of this blog, that shouldn't surprise you. But these are particularly tough, so I'll just throw them out there.
I was watching the Rachel Maddow Show last night, which I like. It's a good program. Rachel herself is thoughtful and offers a unique way of discussing issues -- tough, complicated issues -- which I find refreshing and in a strange way, calming. On this score she sort of let me down last night. Last night was apparently the night -- and there've been a few, now -- to scold the Obama Administration for not repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the really crappy governing rule for the military, enacted by President Clinton, to essentially keep gay and lesbian service men and women in the closet. Your military superiors won't ask if you're gay -- and you'd better not tell.
It's just terrible policy, we can all agree on that.
But why is Rachel bringing this up now? Why is it important today?
Because Obama has been in office just over 100 days, and he hasn't done anything about it, apparently. And there are now gay members of the military who are deliberately outing themselves to their superiors in order to kick off law suits. In fact, the Supreme Court just rejected a challenge to the law.
Which actually gives us some insight into why Obama may be waiting on this particular issue. See, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not a regular law -- it's an Executive Order. Remember, Bush was famous for abusing Executive Orders, early and often.
And the thing with Executive Orders is they are fairly easily overturned. Some of Obama's first acts as President were to overturn various Bush Executive Orders, notably the restrictions on stem cell research.
Here's the point. Could Obama issue an Executive Order overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Sure. And liberal and progressive activists and Americans -- myself included -- would cheer. America would even be safer with these loyal patriots continuing to bravely serve their country.
But who's to say the next president -- maybe a Republican, maybe a close-minded Democrat -- won't just issue another Executive Order overturning the Obama Executive Order? Or issuing his own Executive Order which could even be worse than "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
If you are angry that Obama hasn't overturned this policy yet, consider this: do you believe that the struggle for gay and lesbian Americans to be equal is a Civil Rights struggle? If you answer yes (as I do), then you have to believe that the issue, as it relates to the United States Military, must be bigger than just the stroke of one president's pen -- it must be codified into law in a more permanent way.
Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I think we ought to consider that he is attempting to address this in a more permanent way, ie, a law, which he would sign, which would guarantee rights of gay Americans to serve their country.
There is one more aspect to this, and I hate to bring it up -- and you're going to hate to hear it. But it's true.
You know, I remember in 1993 when Clinton issued "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I was a 23-year-old low-level staffer, but even I knew it sucked. It was an equivocation that favored a bigoted establishment. That was the worst part of it.
But it was also bad politics. It was bad politics from a guy who was known for his political skills. Clinton got taken to school by the conservatives who didn't want to even come close to accepting gay people as legitimate. And he got taken to the wood shed by his more liberal-leaning base who believed he'd sold them out. It was lose-lose. And it was handled poorly -- it was one of his first acts as President, and the negativity of the whole thing stuck with him for some time. The media had a field day -- several, actually -- at his expense.
This is a politically sensitive issue, and I know that the Obama Administration wants to handle this the right way legally. They also want to handle it the right way politically. That means giving them a little breathing room.
It's not nice, it's not pleasant -- good people are losing their jobs. But it's also what we mean when we say politics is an ugly business.
If we can keep in mind the big picture, we'll get there, together.
And speaking of pictures, that's another issue that I haven't been able to fully unwrap: the change in heart by the Obama Administration to keep photographs of torture secret -- for now.
It's another one where I'm going to depart -- slightly, for now -- from my progressive colleagues.
First of all, let me be clear: I support open government. I support less secrets, not more.
But I do believe in secrets. And I do believe that secrets must be kept. I do believe, tough as it is to do, that sometimes you have to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Especially when it is leaders you have supported, and continue to support, politically.
So why do I think it's okay for Obama to keep those photos secret for now, even though he said on the campaign trail that they should be made public?
Because -- and I'm just guessing, here -- probably the release of the photos could or would put at risk the life of an American or the lives of many Americans.
Okay, A.) how is that possible, and B.) why didn't Obama think of that during the campaign?
Well, question 'A' is easy. We already have al Qaeda operatives in custody who are telling interrogators -- not torturers, interrogators -- that the reason they joined the fight against America is because of the images they have already seen of abuses in Abu Ghraib and have heard about from Guantanamo Bay. We've heard this from people who were there.
Alright, so we know that terrorist groups use images of Americans torturing to recruit more terrorists. That seems fairly indisputible.
'B' is a tougher question. I think that it seems reasonable that Obama, at the time he made the statements, maybe wasn't familiar with the full content of the pictures. It's true that at some point he started getting full national security briefings, but I don't know that this would necessarily be at the top of the list. Back to that whole "secrets" thing, I guess.
What if there are images of the people doing the torture in the pictures? Are they implicated as torturers? Even if they are American soldiers or CIA operatives? Maybe, but don't think for a minute that this is an easy legal question. What if there are pictures of foreign operatives in the pictures? Do we risk their lives -- and a possible international incident -- by releasing the images?
Painful though it may be, I believe we must someday show the world brutal images of the harm Americans did to others under the regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Those images should be Exhibit #1 in any investigation we or the international community conducts into what could amount to war crimes charges. The world should see those images. Some day.
But the world should not see them at the expense of the lives of good Americans. Like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it's not as simple as yes or no, black or white. It is a complicated legal issue, intertwined with political issues which are just as complicated, maybe more so.
These issues are critically important. Changing our current policy with respect to both -- equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, ensuring we set the standard for leadership and openness and honesty at home and on the international stage -- are of paramount importance to me. It's one of the reasons I supported Senator Obama's candidacy for president in 2008. And that is why I'm willing to give President Obama and his team more time on this now.
Comments