quote:

Originally posted by josh4 You'll have to elaborate I'm missing your point.

moving ahead with military trials for guantanamo detainees is the antithesis of repudiating bush policies and limiting executive power in a period of crisis. You do realize that military tribunals take place completely within the executive branch. As such, military tribunals, of non-executive branch employees [i.e., 'enemy combatants], expand the president's power. Moreover, it is quite a departure from liberal progressive policies.

Just one more example to support my thesis that you can never really be progressive (or "left") as a US president. The responsibilities of office will wear down your ideology.

To be honest im much more up in arms about his failure to fulfill the campaign promise of signing the freedom of choice act.

___________________

I'm with pkc on this one - no President accomplishes each of his/her campaign promises - unfortunately the rigor of the job and politics can sometimes get in the way.

I'm disappointed by this news, and certainly curious as to why Obama seems to be headed back in this direction, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Why so many of you think that all Obama supporters are constantly feeling betrayed is beyond me. I mean, we're realistic.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo he's the one that will have to answer to the people who put him where he is today at the expense of the credibility he had with those same people yesterday. you're just proving he has nothing to worry about. thats something you must reconcile with yourself...thats fine too. i have no problem with Bush's third term in the war on terror.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 moving ahead with military trials for guantanamo detainees is the antithesis of repudiating bush policies and limiting executive power in a period of crisis. You do realize that military tribunals take place completely within the executive branch. As such, military tribunals, of non-executive branch employees [i.e., 'enemy combatants], expand the president's power. Moreover, it is quite a departure from liberal progressive policies.

Ok, where to start. Obama didn't promise a full repudiation of all Bush era policies. Developments like this in no way come close to suggesting Bush's third term in anything. You can't even cry hypocrisy because it wasn't Obama that decried these tribunals, he only attempted to stall them until he could gather the facts. You can't assign fault for that.

You are confusing the far left progressive's opinions and motivations with the Administration's. Obama never labeled himself a progressive, or a liberal for that matter, and he has never openly endorsed those views as his own ideology. In fact many of his policies and/or actions thus far have been causing as much disappointment in the liberal left as the conservative right. An example could be his willingness to make significant changes to the stimulus package for a few Republican votes - the left didn't think it went far enough. Another example could be his unwillingness to set up an investigatory panel into the Bush administration - dismissing it as a "witch hunt."

Yes Obama is a Democrat and a liberal in the traditional sense, but (both directly and indirectly) tagging him with the viewpoints of umbrella terms would be a mistake. Its been a long theme that his views are hard to pin down. He goes with what works. At best he is a pragmatist.

So chasing this story as proof of anything but happenstance is folly. Its only hypothetical at this point, key word May Revive. It would also be folly to assume everything the Bush admin did was wrong. I'm sure in many cases there will be parallels between this and last administration. For another example, again to the dismay of the liberal left; state secrets

Awesome..... Whats next or should I say tomorrow? Maybe it is true that 36% of his voters were uneducated. "I voted for the black guy". NO WAY!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 You do realize that military tribunals take place completely within the executive branch.

we hold some of our citizens to the same standard. and not just in times of crisis.

quote:

As such, military tribunals, of non-executive branch employees [i.e., 'enemy combatants], expand the president's power.

and how is that unreasonable given the circumstances of this so-called crisis? in accepting the term 'enemy combatants', who fights the enemy? not the other two branches of government.

did they wage war on us or not?
did we not respond as a nation, not just the executive, in kind?
are there national security issues at stake here in legal disclosure?
are many of those issues military in nature?

so many more questions, BUT THESE ARE NOT NEW QUESTIONS!!! of course he's going to go in this direction. he must go this direction.

what is so damn frustrating and my beef with this whole thing is that most people around here (not you necessarily) obviously haven't been paying attention the last 5 fuckin years. then all of a sudden someone with a purty mouth comes along and appeals to their intangible sensibilities telling them one thing, clearly not thinking it through, then telling them another based on something he only had to think about for a matter of weeks???????? fuckin c'mon give me a fuckin break.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Developments like this in no way come close to suggesting Bush's third term in anything.

not this one development. ALL of them though, sure does make a statement

quote:

Obama never labeled himself a progressive, or a liberal for that matter, and he has never openly endorsed those views as his own ideology.

why would he have to?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Ok, where to start. Obama didn't promise a full repudiation of all Bush era policies. Developments like this in no way come close to suggesting Bush's third term in anything. You can't even cry hypocrisy because it wasn't Obama that decried these tribunals, he only attempted to stall them until he could gather the facts. You can't assign fault for that.

quote:

Democratic Ticket on Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay Barack Obama Democratic Party Nominee - President President-elect Obama says Guantanamo should be closed and habeas corpus (AP) should be restored for the detainees. He says the United States should have “developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.” In June 2008, Obama praised (NYT) a Supreme Court decision allowing Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention in civilian courts. He called the ruling "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." In February 2008, Obama criticized the prosecution of six Guantanamo detainees charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He said the trials are "too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges" (SFChron). Instead, Obama said, the men should be tried in a U.S. criminal court or by a military court-martial. Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (PDF). Click here for this candidate's position on other top foreign policy issues. Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democratic Party Nominee - Vice President For years, Sen. Biden (D-DE) has been calling for the prison camp at Guantanamo to be shut down, saying it has “become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world.” Biden says the prisoners should be moved to the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has cosponsored legislation that would release all Guantanamo prisoners who have not been charged. This would mean releasing nearly all the prisoners. Biden praised the Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision that Guantanamo prisoners have the constitutional right to contest their detention in federal courts. He called the ruling “an important and much-needed check by a co-equal branch of government on an Administration which has shown utter contempt for the rule of law.“ Biden voted against the Military Commissions Act. Click here for this candidate's position on other top foreign policy issues

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14751/

First thing you should realize is that I wasn't advancing my position with those posts. I was pointing out inconsistencies in posts of Josh4.

Next, everything I said is true. Military tribunals over suspected terrorist expands the president's power. Whether it is a good or bad thing was not relevant for purposes of my posts; like i said before, i was pointing to an inconsistency.

Last, I have no problem with terrorists being tried in a military tribunal so long as it's the same tribunal that tries american soldiers (or the same system that formerly tried POWs and was given an implicit or explicit ok by other countries), and as long as they aren't captured in the United States. If they are captured in the US they should be tried in a US district court. I kind of don't like the secrecy behind the military tribunals, but i could live with it as long as it doesn't ruin our credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo we hold some of our citizens to the same standard. and not just in times of crisis. and how is that unreasonable given the circumstances of this so-called crisis? in accepting the term 'enemy combatants', who fights the enemy? not the other two branches of government. did they wage war on us or not? did we not respond as a nation, not just the executive, in kind? are there national security issues at stake here in legal disclosure? are many of those issues military in nature? so many more questions, BUT THESE ARE NOT NEW QUESTIONS!!! of course he's going to go in this direction. he must go this direction. what is so damn frustrating and my beef with this whole thing is that most people around here (not you necessarily) obviously haven't been paying attention the last 5 fuckin years. then all of a sudden someone with a purty mouth comes along and appeals to their intangible sensibilities telling them one thing, clearly not thinking it through, then telling them another based on something he only had to think about for a matter of weeks???????? fuckin c'mon give me a fuckin break.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on May-04-2009 at 16:02

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14751/

yaya ok i'll give you that but the significance of this is being blown out of proportion

well it's official. team Hopeychangey has caved to logical reality. the assimilation is complete...welcome to Bush's third term in the war on terra.

another friday night leaked whitewashing to avoid the normal news cycles. fucking cowards >LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well it's official. team Hopeychangey has caved to logical reality. the assimilation is complete...welcome to Bush's third term in the war on terra. another friday night leaked whitewashing to avoid the normal news cycles. fucking cowards >LINK<

while this is disappointing, at least....

quote:

The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.