The Office and the Man

[Shawnee123]

Cite!

haggis

[TheMercenary]

[Urbane Guerrilla]

We'd've cared less about any blowjobs if it'd been Hillary doing them. Some of us would've thought it was cute, great head competing pretty dang well with great anything else. Lying under oath by the fellow at the other end of the penis, well, that makes for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Merc, you might have cared about a blowjob. I cared about getting us into a war that we had nothing to contribute to, except our bravado. This is not a slam on our brave soldiers, this is a slam on us as the only superpower.

Now here's one of those anti-human arguments you make, but I don't, which is why I figure I've got a better grasp on keeping the humanity in my thinking than you do. In what wise could it be wrong to overthrow a capital-F Fascist régime, liberating a people or three from totalitarian oppression, and replace it with something far more democratic, and for all our nurturing and encouragement, still at the end of the day planted in its own native soil and home grown? Given their personal druthers, any people will prefer to maintain a large say in governance of their affairs -- they but endure the lack of such a say. They do not flourish generally under it. Nonflourishing, unchangingly so, was the condition of Iraq under the Ba'ath Party. Now there is change. Turmoil also, but who could expect otherwise, particularly in a region where tribal consciousness has never been supplanted by national consciousness?

Remember the zero deficit?

Unless you were born before 1961, you're unlikely to remember those times personally. The last time the Federal budget balanced was 1968, IIRC. Two generations ago.

You will point to your guns as the savior of freedom,

Which have the virtue of working when nothing else does, and of keeping us a democratic republic when nothing else can. Do not dispense with this, nor poormouth others who keep arms even when you do not. Stick to poormouthing actual murderers; much better.

but most of us know better: that being hated by nations that will easily one day take us over is antiquated and unrealistic. Being vulnerable by selling ourselves to China is not going to fare well.

Which has zilch to do with private weaponry and should be in another paragraph. As for "hated," I don't think so. There's been lots of screaming about getting ourselves hated -- but all of it emanates from quarters inhabited by people I wouldn't trust to manage a yoghurt stand -- on the basis of their expressed views. The people I do trust -- they don't say such things.

When will you get on board? When you're in your safe bunker and railing against the awfulness of it all? It won't work in the long run. Two week supplies (and running out of precious bullets) is not enough. Time to try a different tack.

Caricature. At variance with fact, and unworthy of you. If you believe your caricature, you will fall into dumbth. And we'll still be here. Unaffected, in two senses.

Where is the wrong in you getting on board with us? I'm sure you believe it would be, but I'm at a loss to see why. You guys tend not to speak of your philosophy of life, at least not in any well-jointed fashion.

[Shawnee123]

All any of that really means is that you have a big old crush on me!

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This whole statement is comical on so many levels.

Actually it is quite cogent and tragic. I was never a big fan of the whole "I must destroy it to protect it" mindset. I agree with Redux.

[TheMercenary]

Redux:

George Bush abused the office. He unilaterally extended and expanded the powers of the presidency with dubious legal justifications....he authorized policies that violated basic Constitutional rights of US citizens...

Oh look! Well how about that...

August 9, 2009
Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us...gewanted=print

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Redux:

George Bush abused the office. He unilaterally extended and expanded the powers of the presidency with dubious legal justifications....he authorized policies that violated basic Constitutional rights of US citizens...

Oh look! Well how about that...

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us...gewanted=print

Signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is how they are used and on what provisions of laws.

Signing statements have been used by many presidents in the past. But the fact remains that Bush used signing statements on specific provisions of legislation more than any president in history, in fact more than all past presidents combined.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

And he used signing statements like a line item veto, according to some legal authorities, which the Supreme Court had ruled was unconstitutional.

I would agree with the conclusion of one authority in the NY Times article:

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made.” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office

He might be testing the limits....more than I might think is appropriate because of the precedent set by Bush....but by no measure, has he reached the the Bush level.....yet. Will he push the envelope as far as Bush? IMO, you're jumping the gun a bit with another "gotcha" that is far from conclusive.

But putting that aside, the unilateral expansion of power that I was referring to were actions like the interpretation that a Congressional "Authorization of Use of Military Force" (AUMF) gave the president the same extended powers in "wartime" as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress specifically did not authorize. ...

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...and was kept secret from Congress...

...and actions like unilaterally reinterpreting US constitutional treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees -- authorizing enhanced interrogation (torture), extended use of extraordinary rendition to countries that torture their own citizens, CIA black prisons. (all of which Obama ended with an EO).

added:
I have said on more than one occasion that in regards to national security, I dont agree with all of Obama's actions...which in some respects, are "Bush lite"...probably where most of the country is. I would always like to see more of a tilt towards preserving constitutional rights and privacy protections.

I knew going in that Obama was more centrist than leftist on national security....but IMO, there is nothing to-date to suggest a repeat of the worst of Bush's abuses I noted above.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...

You mean the same one the Demoncrats repeatedly approved after years of bitching about it? Yea, they approved it on the second go round.

You can't make excuses for things that Bush2 did and were such an abonimation and now Obama gets some kind of a pass on it. The double standards abound. I am sure they will continue to mount until eventually you will see that the Demoncrats and Republickins are not much different from one another.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You mean the same one the Demoncrats repeatedly approved after years of bitching about it? Yea, they approved it on the second go round.

WTF are you talking about?

The new FISA legislation was enacted after the Terrorist Surveillance Program was exposed as being illegal for warrantless wiretaps of US citizens within the US with virtually no oversight. It included explicit checks on who (and how) warranteless wiretaps can be used as well as greater judicial review and reporting by the FISA court of warrantless wiretap requests by the WH and greater oversight by Congress so that illegal and secret actions like those taken by Bush could not be repeated.

And yes, Obama voted for it (an example of my "Bush lite" reference).

I still would have voted against it...I dont think the privacy protections go far enough and it still granted immunity to the telecomms for their past actions and allows them to continue to do so at the request of the WH based solely on the word of the DoJ that the actions would be legal.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

WTF are you talking about?

You know exactly what I am talking about. Don't act like you don't know. The Demoncratically controlled house approved the action after bitching about how bad it was for years by approving Patriot Act 2 and the FISA Bill. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.

Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../09/fisa_vote/

The bitch about the betrayal of the Dems and what it means to live with their vote.:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...isa/index.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You know exactly what I am talking about. Don't act like you don't know. The Demoncratically controlled house approved the action after bitching about how bad it was for years by approving Patriot Act 2 and the FISA Bill. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.

In fact, less than half of the Democrats voted for the FISA amendments, including Obama. I would not have.

I know exactly what I am talking about....as bad as I thought the bill was, at least it included the provisions that I noted that will prevent Obama or any future president from acting unilaterally, outside of the FISA Court and Congressional oversight, on warrantless wiretaps in the manner that Bush did.

Damn...read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations.

[TheMercenary]

Further:

In a letter (PDF) dated June 15, 2009, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin wrote to the White House, saying, in part:

I am writing to reiterate my request for you to formally and promptly renounce the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush Administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping. As a United States Senator, you stated clearly and correctly that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal. Your Attorney General expressed the same view, both as a private citizen and at his confirmation hearing.

It is my hope that you will formally confirm this position as president, which is why I sent you a letter on April 29, 2009, urging your administration to withdraw the unclassified and highly flawed January 19, 2006, Department of Justice Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President ("NSA Legal Authorities White Paper "), as well as to withdraw and declassify any other memoranda providing legal justifications for the program. Particularly in light of two recent events, I am concerned that failure to take these steps may be construed by those who work for you as an indication that these justifications were and remain valid.

Sen. Feingold's letter comes after the Obama administration actually went beyond Bush administration arguments in its legal efforts to head off a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over allegations of widespread illegal surveillance of Americans' phone calls and other communication. The government claims that the merits of the case don't matter, because the government's conduct is beyond the reach of the courts.

The current administration's stance isn't simply a continuation of its predecessor's case, but actually a toughened stance. As Tim Jones, EFF's Activism and Technology Manager, points out:

The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

The Obama administration's pro-secrecy -- and implicitly pro-warrantless-wiretapping -- stance has disappointed people who remember his campaign-trail criticisms of the last president's "wiretaps without warrants." After eight years of a growing security state, Obama was widely hoped to be the champion of badly eroded civil liberties.

Then again, even while the campaign was underway, Barack Obama flip-flopped and supported legislation authorizing free-wheeling surveillance. Ultimately, he supported not just the FISA bill, authorizing such wiretaps, but also voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.

Feingold's letter, then, seeks to hold President Obama to civil liberties promises he made early in his campaign, but which he may have thoroughly discarded even before he won the election.

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-...ss-wiretapping

Read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations about what Obama can and cannot do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, less than half of the Democrats voted for the FISA amendments, including Obama. I would not have.

I know exactly what I am talking about....as bad as I thought the bill was, at least it included the provisions that I noted that will prevent Obama or any future president from acting unilaterally, outside of the FISA Court and Congressional oversight, on warrantless wiretaps in the manner that Bush did.

Damn...read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations.

I have read it. The point is that you have made sweeping generalizations about what Bush did for 8 years and in fact the Dems, including Obama, have actually continued and retained many of the same provisions of privacy invasion in their actions on the hill by re-authorizing PA2, The new FISA Bill, and now with a continuation of the abuse of presidential signing statements. You can't hide behind this duplicity. Stop making excuses for the parallels.

Damn...even the bad FISA bill that a minority of Democrats voted for in 08 does not allow acts comparable to those that Bush authorized.

Hell...I'll even highlight a few of the provisions of the bill for you:

Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to jointly authorize, for periods up to one year, the targeting (electronic surveillance) of persons located outside the United States in order to acquire foreign intelligence information, under specified limitations, including: (1) prohibiting an acquisition intentionally targeting a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in order to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be inside the United States; and (2) requiring the targeting to be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Requires: (1) certain targeting and minimization procedures to be followed; (2) the AG to adopt guidelines to ensure that such limitations and procedures are followed; (3) the AG to submit such guidelines to the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court) for review; and (4) prior to such targeting, a certification by the AG and DNI as to the necessity of such targeting and that appropriate procedures and limitations will be followed.

Requires the AG and DNI, at least every six months, to: (1) assess compliance with required targeting and minimization procedures and related guidelines; and (2) submit assessment results to the Court and the intelligence and judiciary committees.

Provides Court jurisdiction for approving the targeting of a U.S. person located outside the United States when the acquisition of information is conducted inside the United States.

These are all safeguards to prevent any future reoccurence of Bush's illegal TSP.