Forward (Power) vs. Backward (No Power)

I wrote this last month, but I neglected to post it. I feel so strongly about the President's double standard of looking forward for those in power, but looking backward to those who threaten those in power (or not in the inner circle of American Exceptionalism), that I just had to post this, albeit belatedly.

I urge everyone who reads this to listen to (or read) what Obama says about forward/backward looking. There is a glass ceiling. Above it, why, you're part of the forward moving crowd, not to be held accountable for past transgressions. Below the ceiling, and those in power will viciously go after you.

If the transgression is so egregious it can't be ignored, why those in power will just find "nobodys" low on the totem pole to take the fall (see the low ranking military guards from Abu Ghraib who got nailed while those "in power" overseeing the prison got a pass, promoted and such).

But on to the post:

Last month, President Obama has achieved the dubious distinction of "pursuing leak prosecutions" more than any other President. His latest target is the indictment of Thomas A. Drake for contacting a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. Mr. Drake was concerned about the "squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on failed programs while ignoring a promising alternative. "

He tried every avenue without success. Ultimately, he took it to the press. In addition to the persecution of Mr. Drake,

...in May, an F.B.I. translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for providing classified documents to a blogger; this week, the Pentagon confirmed the arrest of a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to the Web site Wikileaks.org.

After Obama's letting the Bush Administration officials off the hook for human rights, privacy and secrecy violations by using the "look forward not back" rationale, he decides to look backward at those who tried to prevent the abuses and nail them to the wall.

On April 15, 2009, when a Spanish court was "threatening to investigate former Bush officials for their complicity in torture," the President said this (Emphasis mine):

"I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there..."

In March, 2010, during an interview with an Indonesian reporter, he had this to say (Again, emphasis mine):

Reporter: "Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?"
Obama: "We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can't go forward without looking backwards . ."

It appears that his "looking forward, not back" platitude only pertains to the Washington, D.C. political elite and insiders. Looking back for condemnation is perfectly fine for the rest of America and the world. It is tragic to me that the general populace doesn't appear to be a bit concerned about this egregious (and obvious) double standard. Somehow, it's just completely ignored.

Keep 'em scared

H.L. Mencken once said,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary

A shining example of this can be found in a recent report that was obtained by the Associated Press. Of course, it had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get it. According to the report,

It's one of the safest parts of America, and it's getting safer.
It's the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data show it actually isn't so dangerous after all.

Furthermore,

The top four big U.S. cities with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix and El Paso and Austin, Texas, according to a new FBI report.

Lloyd Eaterling, spokesman for the U.S. Border Patrol, states that, "The border is safer now than it's ever been..."
OK...so what's the current spin by the lawmakers and governors in the region?

"Violence in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border continues to increase at an alarming rate. We believe that this violence represents a serious threat to the national security of the United States as well as a serious threat to U.S. citizens that live along the 1,969-mile long border," a dozen bipartisan members of Congress from border states wrote President Obama

Thus, President Obama is sending 1,200 National Guard troops and increasing funding by $50 million. I suppose to mollify those who are "clamorous to be led to safety."

But FBI crime reports for 2009 say violent crime in Arizona declined. And violent crimes in southwest border counties are among the lowest in the nation per capita - they've dropped by more than 30 percent in the last two decades. Of 25 of America's largest cities, San Diego - with one out of four residents an immigrant - has the lowest number of violent crimes per capita.

I live in the Back Country about 60 miles east of San Diego and am very involved in the community (volunteer communications for the local fire department, etc.). We have many "travelers" (as the local Border Patrol agents call them), and yet there are very little crimes associated with them, other than their being here illegally, of course. Our "crimes" consist mostly with alcohol-related issues or domestic violence by the local citizenry. There are isolated incidences, of course, but certainly not an "increase at an alarming rate."
Isabel Garcia of Derechos Humanos sums it up quite well,

"Politicians are hyping up this incredible fear across the country about the border, but these numbers show these are lies being perpetrated on the American public."

Score one more for the fear-mongers who are manipulating our country to further their own agenda.

Note: This can also be found on the Bill of Rights Defense Committee blog, where I posted it earlier.