Renewing the Patriot Act
Things always look different from the “other side” of the fence, as the Washington Post points out this morning:
Perhaps an apology is due the Bush Administration. Those of us distressed by President Obama’s headlong rush to re-enact the economic and taxation policies of the 1970s are generally heartened by his foreign policy initiatives. An early mis-step had us worried: the ham-handed proposal to close Gitmo but still retain the policy of indefinite detention seemed dangerously symbolic and without substance. We were afraid his policies vis-a-vis the … what do we call them now? … oh yeah, terrorists … was window dressing. Changing the geographical location but not the practices seemed disingenuous. The fact that the left cheered it revealed they weren’t serious about it in the first place, and “close Gitmo” was more of a jingoistic campaign slogan than a heartfelt political position. A foreign policy predicated on appearance alone is one destined for problems, leading to dead Americans. But to his credit, President Obama seems intent on continuing most of the successful Bush policies, including those concerning domestic surveillance. Sure, the language has changed with “speaking softly” being emphasized over publicly wielding the “big stick”. But for results-orientated conservatives, this is a good sign. There’s still much to worry about … President Obama’s “World Apology Tour” generated as much media buzz as a Rolling Stones concert tour, and had about as much effect. Iran is more pugnacious, and North Korea remains as intransigent as ever. But, as Daniel Pipes notes, there may be reason for at least a bit of optimism over at least one aspect of the new middle east policy:The Obama administration has for the first time set out its views on the controversial USA Patriot Act, telling lawmakers this week that legal approval of government surveillance methods scheduled to expire in December should be renewed, but leaving room to tweak the law to protect Americans’ privacy.
This is a left leaning administration, but like every American President, when the rubber meets the road they tend to move towards practical solutions. There is hope that President Obama can resist the more narrow tendencies of his party’s dominance in the Congress to moderate the left-ward lurch back to the “stagflation” of the 1970s.Instead of Israel making yet more unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, in late May Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu called to “bring Arab states into the circle of peace.” U.S. special envoy George Mitchell and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak picked up on this and developed plans to integrate those Arab states into the diplomatic process. In mid-July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted that “Arab states have a responsibility … to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.”
A month later, Barack Obama declared his hope that “we are going to see not just movement from the Israelis, but also from the Palestinians around issues of incitement and security, from Arab states that show their willingness to engage Israel.” According to Foreign Policy blogger Laura Rozen – later confirmed by the White House – Obama “sent letters to at least seven Arab and Gulf states seeking confidence-building measures [CBMs] toward Israel.” (Those states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.)
