THE MORE THINGS CHANGE.... By Ron Tabor President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise of change (“Are you ready for change?” he asked repeatedly), but at least in some areas, the change from the Republican administration of George W. Bush to Obama’s Democratic administration has been more style than substance. In case you didn’t notice: 1. Although Obama has declared that “America will not torture” and made a show of signing an order closing the US government’s internment and torture facility in Guantanamo Bay, he has, much more quietly, ordered that the Bush administration’s policy of “extraordinary rendition” continue. For those who don’t remember, “extraordinary rendition” is the euphemism for sending so-called “enemy combatants,” that is, non-US citizens suspected of “terrorism,” to other countries where they will, most likely, be...tortured. (If not, why send them?) Thus, Obama may say “America will not torture,” but “outsourcing”, as LA Times conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg put it, “is still OK.” (Goldberg is for the policy.) The administration also supports the Bush policy of imprisoning without trial “enemy combatants” captured abroad, although they have decided to discontinue use of the term. Administration lawyers argued in a court case brought by Afghan prisoners at the US Air Force base at Bagram, Afghanistan, that the “government adheres to its previously articulated position,” that is, the position of the Bush administration. Moreover, a new Pentagon study commissioned by the Obama administration to look into the conditions at Guantanamo has found that the facility does, in fact, meet the standards of the Geneva Convention. So, it seems possible that while Guantanamo will be closed, Guantanamo II may be opened shortly. In the meantime, new CIA chief Leon Panetta has announced that the intelligence agency will be looking into the efficacy of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques. I am waiting to hear what they decide. 2. Also on the QT, the new administration has intervened in a court case over the question of warrantless wiretaps. The case involves a lawsuit, brought by the Oregon chapter of the now-defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, that claims President George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized warrantless spying on their organization. The Obama administration’s lawyers went to court to try to halt the lawsuit from proceeding. This was the second time in a month that the new administration has argued that the presidential “state secrets privilege” overrides federal law in questions involving national security. This is the same position as the Bush administration. Fortunately, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration, so the lawsuit will proceed. This will enable another court to determine whether the previous administration’s policy of warrantless wiretapping was legal. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Congress created a special national security court to pass on “sensitive” wiretap requests. The Bush administration bypassed the court in its pursuit of terrorism suspects after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The Obama administration can still go to the Supreme Court to try to get an emergency injunction to prevent the lawsuit, now in US District Court in San Francisco, from proceeding. (How progressive!) 3. During the presidential campaign, Obama stressed his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and criticized the Bush administration’s policy. He recently announced his own plan to withdraw troops from Iraq in a series of stages over the next 19 months. This is only 4 months short of the plan put forward by the Pentagon, which was consistent with Bush’s policies. And, of course, the planned troop withdrawal might be delayed if circumstances in Iraq were to require it, such as a resurgence of the armed opposition or other signs of “instability.” Moreover, Obama wants to leave a permanent force of from 30,000 to 50,000 soldiers in Iraq, a number that has even shocked Obama administration supporters in Congress. (This is withdrawal?) 4. Meanwhile, drone missile attacks by US forces on suspected Taliban militants in Pakistan’s northwest territory continue. These attacks also murder innocent civilians, which of course the administration is sorry about. Although the missile strikes are very unpopular among the people of Pakistan and the government is officially on record as opposing them, it is believed that Pakistanti president Asif Ali Zardari tacitly approves of them. The Obama administration has also called for sending an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. This will almost definitely be just the first stage of an escalation of the conflict in that long-suffering country, since US and allied forces are faring very poorly in the struggle against the Taliban-led resistance there. 5. As a candidate and since his election, Barack Obama has claimed his intention to veto congressional spending bills that contain “earmarks.” These earmarks are specific projects sponsored by senators and congressional representatives to benefit their own states and districts. While these projects have long been a favorite of congress, Obama has labeled them as “pork.” However, Obama recently signed a $410 billion spending bill passed by Congress that contains 8,600 earmarks worth $7.7 billion. Obama’s anti-earmark rhetoric was “last year’s business” (meaning, campaign rhetoric), conceded administration spokespersons. 6. Last (for now), it is reported that the new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has decided that the punitive and destructive No Child Left Behind Act, a major “achievement” of the Bush administration to reform the nation’s public school system, should be retained and, at best, only moderately changed. To cover this up, he has suggested that the act should be “given a new name.” (Hmmm.)