Hey remember this?
"we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the [practice] of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries." Candidate Obama 2007
Remember how he criticized Bush for invoking the 'state secrets' privilege to get cases thrown out of court? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/TakingBackOurGovernmentBackFinalFactSheet.pdf
Remember the example made of the five men who sued the Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan over its role in helping the CIA arrange prisoner flights during the Bush administration?
Last week the Obama administration used the 'state secrets' privilege to throw that very case out of court! The Obama administration argued, they cannot be allowed to pursue their claims because doing so might endanger national security, and last week the 9th Circus accepted the administration's position.
LOL! Candidate Obama told us to be wary of presidents who use national security as a cover for violating people's rights.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 15, 2010, 10:29:14 AM
Candidate Obama told us to be wary of presidents who use national security as a cover for violating people's rights.
That is sage advice. Are you being wary?
Quote from: Townsend on September 15, 2010, 10:39:30 AM
That is sage advice. Are you being wary?
Not really. I understand that sacrificing intelligence that may risk the lives of our people, both clandestine and otherwise is problematic. Rendition practices are a clear violation of everything this country stands for and should not be tolerated by the people. Part of President Obama's platform was justice for those affected by such practices and an end to the policy.
I know many people who's primary reason for supporting Candidate Obama was this very firm pledge, combined with his promise to end the wars and close the facility Guantanamo.
I understand that he is no longer campaigning and such pledges must be addressed with the reality of how they may affect other lives involved, and the security of the country. He now has to make the tough decisions that he criticized the previous administration for.
On the one hand, I'd like to think that there is concrete information that has caused Obama to shift his position on this and other similar issues. On the other, I can't help but pulling a guido and thinking "F U, YOU POS!"
I'm the sort who doesn't think it's worth giving up the principles that make us the great nation we are (were?) for the expedience of safety. I was against it when Bush was behind it, and I'm still against it now that Obama has continued this idiocy.
As a candidate, President Obama had not been fully briefed on national security issues that a sitting President would have so it would be easy to campaign against something you were not fully versed in. Now he's got direct access to all these intelligence advisors and realizes reality trumps idealism quite often, especially in areas of national security.
It's really going out on a limb for a candidate to make promises like he did, but all that matters at that time is to get elected, not worry about being "right". You can always explain it away later if you can't wind up doing what you thought you could before you had the office.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 15, 2010, 12:14:20 PM
It's really going out on a limb for a candidate to make promises like he did, but all that matters at that time is to get elected, not worry about being "right". You can always explain it away later if you can't wind up doing what you thought you could before you had the office.
That's every politician since the dawn of politics.
Quote from: Townsend on September 15, 2010, 12:20:39 PM
That's every politician since the dawn of politics.
That was generally my premise...
Quote from: Conan71 on September 15, 2010, 12:14:20 PM
As a candidate, President Obama had not been fully briefed on national security issues that a sitting President would have so it would be easy to campaign against something you were not fully versed in. Now he's got direct access to all these intelligence advisors and realizes reality trumps idealism quite often, especially in areas of national security.
It's really going out on a limb for a candidate to make promises like he did, but all that matters at that time is to get elected, not worry about being "right". You can always explain it away later if you can't wind up doing what you thought you could before you had the office.
It was kinda an "Underpants Gnome" campaign anyway.
1. Promise Hope & Change
2. ?
3. Profit
1. Pass Massive Spending Programs
2. ?
3. Employment
1. Pass 2,000 Page Healthcare Bill (without reading)
2.?
3. Cheap Healthcare for Everyone
1. Order Guantanamo Closed
2. ?
3. No More Terror
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff200/baseball_crank/Blog/gnomes.png)
There's no substance between the promise and the deliverable, therefore the deliverable never manifests.
you guys sound like conspiracy theorists. I am sure that the poor suckers who got swooped up one day for no reason and sent to Guantanamo are really going to reveal national security issues. The nation security they don't want to reveal is the whole rendition operation, just like the war, when people see how absolutely soulless our "policies" are they will repudiate them. Keep these people out of court and the proles in the dark and the show continues.
Quote from: altruismsuffers on September 17, 2010, 12:40:40 PM
you guys sound like conspiracy theorists. ....
I nearly spit my soda all over the monitor reading this...it conjurs up just this...
(http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/000-1007162622-pot_kettle.jpg)
Quote from: Hoss on September 17, 2010, 01:39:30 PM
I nearly spit my soda all over the monitor reading this...it conjurs up just this...
(http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/000-1007162622-pot_kettle.jpg)
+1
Nice to know alt has a sense of humor.