Obama, our new Command... I mean President today threw open the curtain reveling secret Bush documents about the CIA and the war on terror...
It seems the "sideshows" are beginning to distract the sheep... Baaaa.
Nevermind my attack on the 2nd amendment, look what Bush did to the 4th....
Mr Osama, it ain't about Bush anymore. You claim to have won the election-- as you so elequently yelled at McCain a couple months ago, so act like a man and lead the country and stop trying to place blame on the old president. Its your show now, deal with real issues, not stuff from the past. (OPINION OBVIOUSLY)
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.
"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."
The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.
The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.
The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.
That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.
Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, did not return messages seeking comment.
The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.
Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.
A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the tapes of interrogations.
Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."
It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values.
ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.
"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said.
CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."
The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.
The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.
But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.
The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were legal.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding — simulated drowning — was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations were recorded.
John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil lawsuit were dealt with.
This is a VERY big deal. Obama broke an unwritten rule, "don't dis your predecessor."
The Presidency is a very small club and once you are out of office you and the other presidents have to get along for the good of the country. There is no question that most of these guys wouldn't hang out together over a beer. But they get along and work together for the good of the country. Bush was very magnanimous is not wasting time pointing out how badly Clinton ****ed up the nation. He just went on with his job and looked forward, not backwards. This is the advice each president passes on so that the focus can be on the country's future.
Obama has made a HUGE mistake, not only because it will exclude him from the Presidential circle once he is booted from office, but he now looks WEAK! He looks like a man seeking to shift blame for everything from himself instead of taking charge to fix things.
He may be using it as a smoke-screen to divert attention from the not-so-great things he's doing. And speaking of playing zero-sum games with our rights... the comment about restoring 4th Amendment rights at the expense of 2nd Amendment rights comes to mind.
He may be using it as a smoke-screen to divert attention from the not-so-great things he's doing. And speaking of playing zero-sum games with our rights... the comment about restoring 4th Amendment rights at the expense of 2nd Amendment rights comes to mind.
Right! Divert the nations attention, while they steal our wallets. The lowest scumbag thing anyone could ever imagine is the daily diet of the average politician.
Only if you play some funny 'interpretation' games that are so common out in DC. Most ( all? ) of the rights in the constitution only apply to citizens.
Don't you guys get it? This is the "transparency" he was talking about. With past administrations. You didn't think he meant he would make his own administration transparent, did you?
Calling for votes on the "stimulus" package before any member of congress had the opportunity to read it...I mean had it even been printed in final form at the time of the vote?
Signing evecutive orders but not publishing them.
"Transparency" only applies to previosu administrations....throw back the curtain....see what they did!!! Oh my goodness...nevermind what I am doing...lookj what they did...
IP: Logged
02:56 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
To my knowledge, no. Constitutional rights do not extend to foreign nationals not on U.S. soil. Foreign nationals apprehended in the U.S. may be entitled to due process, unless they are Enemy Combatants.
IP: Logged
06:36 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Originally posted by htexans1: yes they are, but at least I do it in a humorous fashion.
And the thread is marked "Politics"
its done in a humorous fashion to make the polotics more bearable for people like me. (I am new to talking politics.)
and its (still) a free country, feel free to participate in "Comrade" threads, or not.
My post was more along the lines of asking for you (and everyone else) to not disrespect him just for the sake of doing so. The open disrespect of politicians keeps good people out of politics. It is possible to express your anger and frustration with the current administration without it. Granted, most political threads do turn ugly anyway.
Besides, if you start a debate with name calling, you've already lost, no one takes you seriously.
IP: Logged
07:11 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected. Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo. The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values. "The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said. ____________________________________________________________________________________________
There are several important issues here.
Bush and his administration decided that they were not going to let congress and the supreme court neuter the presidency in a time of war. We are supposed to have a balance of power, and he decided (well, actually it was Dick Cheney) that the supreme court had usurped the balance of power to it and they were going to fight back and have the presidency assume the correct amount of power.
That is something that is open to debate. It isn't a debate Obama would have, though. He is a sissy and he is a lawyer. Not a good combination for a president. So he, (duh), is going to throw all the decision making power to the courts. And that is what he has done.
The 4th amendment only protects against UNWARRANTED search and seizure. Bush decided that terrorism made any search and seizure related to it--WARRANTED automatically. He wasn't going to sit around and give power to the COURTS to decide whether it was warranted. He felt that was deferring power to the COURTS. HE was going to have that decision making be done by the PRESIDENTIAL branch, not the courts. Then there is a debate over interrogation techniques. Bush would call them harsh and justified. Obama and democrats would call them torture. Bush would say they weren't torturing people. Having someone lie on a cold floor isn't torture. Unless you are a democrat.
Obama gives sound bites that have no practical meaning. He is "committed to ending torture..." He doesn't define what was really "torture". Much like he doesn't define most of what he says. He is going to end torture "...while also protecting American values." Also meaningless. And also doesn't say ANYthing about protecting American LIVES. Which is what Bush was trying to do.
Obama plans to "protect American lives" by having 'dialogues' with enemies. Apparently to convert them into friends. People that don't WANT friends. That don't respect 'olive branches'.
Then this guy Singh says, "...the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations..." Nobody said the interrogations were ILLEGAL. You may not like them. But it is intentionally inaccurate to call them illegal.
You sum it all up, and there are some very important principles to be decided here. NONE of them being addressed by Obama in an intelligent, helpful way. Is anyone surprised at this?
IP: Logged
07:11 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
Are we talking about the same guy who wrote a letter a few weeks ago asking the Russians to take care of Iran in exchange for abandonment of a missile defense shield that would otherwise be used to save American and Allied lives?
Originally posted by frontal lobe: It isn't a debate Obama would have, though. He is a sissy and he is a lawyer. Not a good combination for a president. So he, (duh), is going to throw all the decision making power to the courts. And that is what he has done.
Silly me! And here I thought the judicial branch was responsible for the interpretation of the law.
IP: Logged
07:39 PM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
My post was more along the lines of asking for you (and everyone else) to not disrespect him just for the sake of doing so. The open disrespect of politicians keeps good people out of politics. It is possible to express your anger and frustration with the current administration without it. Granted, most political threads do turn ugly anyway.
Besides, if you start a debate with name calling, you've already lost, no one takes you seriously.
So, we should only disrespect politicians if we have a valid reason? Where were your objections for the last 8 years?
IP: Logged
09:57 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Bullcrap. Bush wanted to do things that were clearly in violation of the law so he didn't make them public.
A President cannot decide unilaterally that what he is doing is lawful and therefore NOT subject to judicial review; that is not the prerogative of the POTUS, but that of kings and dictators - a condition the constitution was specifically designed to prohibit.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: There are several important issues here.
Bush and his administration decided that they were not going to let congress and the supreme court neuter the presidency in a time of war. We are supposed to have a balance of power, and he decided (well, actually it was Dick Cheney) that the supreme court had usurped the balance of power to it and they were going to fight back and have the presidency assume the correct amount of power.
That is something that is open to debate. It isn't a debate Obama would have, though. He is a sissy and he is a lawyer. Not a good combination for a president. So he, (duh), is going to throw all the decision making power to the courts. And that is what he has done.
The 4th amendment only protects against UNWARRANTED search and seizure. Bush decided that terrorism made any search and seizure related to it--WARRANTED automatically. He wasn't going to sit around and give power to the COURTS to decide whether it was warranted. He felt that was deferring power to the COURTS. HE was going to have that decision making be done by the PRESIDENTIAL branch, not the courts. Then there is a debate over interrogation techniques. Bush would call them harsh and justified. Obama and democrats would call them torture. Bush would say they weren't torturing people. Having someone lie on a cold floor isn't torture. Unless you are a democrat.
Obama gives sound bites that have no practical meaning. He is "committed to ending torture..." He doesn't define what was really "torture". Much like he doesn't define most of what he says. He is going to end torture "...while also protecting American values." Also meaningless. And also doesn't say ANYthing about protecting American LIVES. Which is what Bush was trying to do.
Obama plans to "protect American lives" by having 'dialogues' with enemies. Apparently to convert them into friends. People that don't WANT friends. That don't respect 'olive branches'.
Then this guy Singh says, "...the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations..." Nobody said the interrogations were ILLEGAL. You may not like them. But it is intentionally inaccurate to call them illegal.
You sum it all up, and there are some very important principles to be decided here. NONE of them being addressed by Obama in an intelligent, helpful way. Is anyone surprised at this?
IP: Logged
08:19 AM
PFF
System Bot
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Why? You and others had no problems disrespecting Bush. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by IEatRice:
My post was more along the lines of asking for you (and everyone else) to not disrespect him just for the sake of doing so. The open disrespect of politicians keeps good people out of politics. It is possible to express your anger and frustration with the current administration without it. Granted, most political threads do turn ugly anyway.
Besides, if you start a debate with name calling, you've already lost, no one takes you seriously.
IP: Logged
08:25 AM
Raydar Member
Posts: 41363 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
Bullcrap. Bush wanted to do things that were clearly in violation of the law so he didn't make them public.
A President cannot decide unilaterally that what he is doing is lawful and therefore NOT subject to judicial review;
Not at all clearly in violation. He had his legal team review options and decided that he was within the constitutional rights and it was the correct balance. He wasn't going to sit around and wait for a review by the court. He was going to act after obtaining legal opinion.
Now, of course, you do say SOMEthing true. The president IS subject to judicial REVIEW. So they can review what he DID.
2 approaches. ASK permission BEFOREhand of the courts. Or act in accordance to what you believe is constitutional, and let the court RETROSPECTIVELY review it.
Clinton was a lawyer and a sissy. So he gave the courts power to pre-emptively review and waited for their permission. So will Obama. Same issues. Lawyer and sissy.
Bush said, no, that is giving the courts too much power. I'm the president. I'm acting. They can do their job as a court and REVIEW.
There are many things that are tight judgement calls. Even for the supreme court. Lots of 5 to 4 decisions. So for you to make the "clearly in violation of the law statement" is false, and ignores how many issues are close calls and can go either way.
My post was more along the lines of asking for you (and everyone else) to not disrespect him just for the sake of doing so. The open disrespect of politicians keeps good people out of politics. It is possible to express your anger and frustration with the current administration without it. Granted, most political threads do turn ugly anyway.
Besides, if you start a debate with name calling, you've already lost, no one takes you seriously.
And what about those who dislike his 'values' to the core? They are not 'disrespecting just for the sake of doing so' but truly believe in what they are saying, that he's an evil socialist.
Some people honestly dislike the man and what he stands for ( and has stood for all his life ), and comrade isn't that far of a stretch and wouldn't be considered 'name calling'.
IP: Logged
11:34 AM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Actually not that bad to call him Comrade.. If we called him the Chimp in Chief like some did for Bush we'd be labled racists. Comrade is one of the few "names" we can call him without having to deal with race issues.. As it is if you speak out against him you're almost called a racist by default.. even if you just disagree with his economic policies
IP: Logged
12:24 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
The 4th amendment only protects against UNWARRANTED search and seizure. Bush decided that terrorism made any search and seizure related to it--WARRANTED automatically. He wasn't going to sit around and give power to the COURTS to decide whether it was warranted. He felt that was deferring power to the COURTS. HE was going to have that decision making be done by the PRESIDENTIAL branch, not the courts.
This power would make a tyrant giddy.
If the president needed a warrant for something terrorism related the courts will undoubtly give it to him, the courts are not going to sit on their hands. The fact is, his power is checked, you know why the founding fathers put in place these checks and balances? So because of terrorism, the president has the power to spend trillions upon trillions without congress approval? Based on what you are saying, yes.
Because of terrorism, it in itself gives the president the power to overrule anything in the Constitution? Ah, no.
IP: Logged
01:33 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
If the president needed a warrant for something terrorism related the courts will undoubtly give it to him, the courts are not going to sit on their hands. The fact is, his power is checked, you know why the founding fathers put in place these checks and balances? So because of terrorism, the president has the power to spend trillions upon trillions without congress approval? Based on what you are saying, yes.
Because of terrorism, it in itself gives the president the power to overrule anything in the Constitution? Ah, no.
The only one spending trillions and trillions is the sitting President. If his plan fails so will the entire nation.
IP: Logged
01:44 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
About disrespecting. I think we can stop too. He does it to himself with most of the stuff he does and says. All one need do is call him out on the goofed up stuff.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
If the president needed a warrant for something terrorism related the courts will undoubtly give it to him, the courts are not going to sit on their hands.
I agree with you on the first statement. In my discussion, I didn't say I was FOR the approach Bush (which is well documented that it was actually Cheney's idea) took. With the information I have available, I would probably think they went too far in what power they took. I was just saying that it is a logical approach in the power balance struggle.
I disagree with the second statement. We have a bunch of liberal, pacifist judges that are more than happy to sit on their hands and severely limit the ability of the executive branch, and law enforcement, and the military, from engaging the enemy. That was the reason for Cheney's approach. He felt the courts were being obstructionist tyrants.
You don't think the courts are tyrants, look at Roe v. Wade. Forget what you think about the actual issue of abortion. That was the flimsiest piece of judicial "logic" of practically all time. Those tyrants threw out the legislative branches power to write laws regarding this topic, and forced it on the whole country. Usurped state's rights in the process.
So although I probably disagree with the scope that Cheney and Bush went to in RE-establishing the executive branch within the balance of powers, I certainly understand what they were reacting to.
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Aren't these wire taps still going on, or did I miss the big announcement? Seems like I heard they would continue because they were needed in the war on terror.
Aren't these wire taps still going on, or did I miss the big announcement? Seems like I heard they would continue because they were needed in the war on terror.
They were expanded once Obama took office. I think it was day 2.
IP: Logged
02:21 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
They were expanded once Obama took office. I think it was day 2.
So why are some people's panties in a bunch over Bush doing this, but now it is OK to do the same thing because Bo is doing it. Someone please explain, I am confused. Here kity kity kity.
IP: Logged
02:39 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3152 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
Does the 2nd amendment guarantee Canadians' rights to keep and bear arms ? (not to imply the Canadians are enemies... just speaking to the point of the bill of rights' application to non-US citizens)
[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 03-04-2009).]
Does the 2nd amendment guarantee Canadians' rights to keep and bear arms ? (not to imply the Canadians are enemies... just speaking to the point of the bill of rights' application to non-US citizens)
Our 2nd amendment doesn't directly protect a Canadian's rights. They are American rights. It does set a precedent for other countries 'bills of rights', but the rights are not extended to other countries, be they friend of foe.
So why are some people's panties in a bunch over Bush doing this, but now it is OK to do the same thing because Bo is doing it. Someone please explain, I am confused. Here kity kity kity.
One word: Hypocritical.
IP: Logged
05:27 PM
Nohbdy Member
Posts: 587 From: Grand Rapids MI Registered: Dec 2008
the president has the power to spend trillions upon trillions without congress approval? Based on what you are saying, yes.
no thats not what i think. i think that while bush did screw up when he went to war, he would hav had a lower public approval rating then he does now. face it, after 9/11 ppl WANTED this war. you were all 100% behind it (no i wasnt btw, i thought it was a stupid idea, politicians have decided they can run wars better than our generals in the last 40 years, so i knew this was wat it would lead to.) when he presented the idea. congress voted yes, and i believe it was nearly unanimous. if we could stick to one idea for more than 6 months we might b able to make one work, but when we realize that its not an instant fix we ditch it, and hope the other side was right. also, i did the math a while ago, assuming bush spent 6 trillion in his 8 years (which if i remember correctly is a bit high) thats 750billion a year. obama has spend more than that already, and is planning about 410billion dollar package, while economists are looking at this and going *o crap we just screwed up very very very badly.* having said this, last i heard the nearly 800billion spent last time wasnt even looked at by democrats or republicans. they accepted or rejected it on party politics. if u want someone to blame, u hav to look at both sides. abolish the parties that we have and MAYBE our government could do something worthwhile. in the meantime, we r screwed bcuz no1 wants to think about the country, they want to take potshots at the opposite party, screwing over the entire nation in the process.
Does the 2nd amendment guarantee Canadians' rights to keep and bear arms ? (not to imply the Canadians are enemies... just speaking to the point of the bill of rights' application to non-US citizens)
The Constitution limits the power of government. It doesn't grant or guarantee rights, per se. So the 2nd amendment simply means no laws can be written that would violate the 2nd amendment. Any foreign national without diplomatic immunity is bound by U.S. law while in U.S. territory, so you would have to follow the same legal steps require to purchase or carry a firearm as a U.S. citizen.
Just my interpretation. Not intended to be a doctoral thesis on Constitutional law.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-04-2009).]
IP: Logged
10:50 PM
Mar 5th, 2009
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
