PassedOut Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 The Obama DOJ argument is that the Executive Branch can claim national secrets vital to national security and thus place any action the executive branch has either authorized or taken as off limits to scrutiny by the courts, effectively eliminating any checks and balances on the power of the president to commit and order crimes committed in the name of national security. Do you really want people like Nixon, Haldeman, and Erlichman to have that kind of power?. Of course I don't want claims of national secrets to conceal crimes. But some information, if revealed, can put in danger the lives of real people. Obama now has the responsibility for protecting those lives, and it seems to me that he clearly takes that responsibility very seriously. Obama can release all kinds of economic and governmental information without putting lives at risk, and so far he's doing just that. But I certainly think he'd be abdicating his responsibilities by releasing information that would risk the lives of those serving the US, so he needs to be very careful about what does get released. He certainly shouldn't release sensitive information to avoid political heat. I do hope that more information will be released in the future, and released more quickly than it has been. But judges are not perfect either, and they do not have the same responsibilities that a president has. As voters, we need to be sure to elect leaders we can trust. If it turns out that we can't trust Obama, he'll have to be turned out of office. That's very slow, and far from perfect, I realize. But I'd rather be kept in the dark about some matters than have other people lose their lives to satisfy my curiosity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 I do agree with PassedOut on this one. Some of you, no doubt, will consider this prima facie evidence that he's wrong. :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 I do agree with PassedOut on this one. Some of you, no doubt, will consider this prima facie evidence that he's wrong. :ph34r: Given we have decades of evidence that the CIA, NSA and DIA go around breaking the law, the laws of many countries. At the very least lets put those people in front of the Hague Court. Wiretapping, bribery, weapon running, etc etc etc. As Winston has said if we are going to enforce the law, lets enforce all of them and not pick and choose. BTW has anyone noticed how many people we are spying on inside the USA. Call it surveillance or whatever. Just last night CNN reported how the FBI is spying on American muslims in NYC who thought the killings at Fort HOOD were a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Just last night CNN reported how the FBI is spying on American muslims in NYC who thought the killings at Fort HOOD were a good thing. Is that reprehensible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Just last night CNN reported how the FBI is spying on American muslims in NYC who thought the killings at Fort HOOD were a good thing. Is that reprehensible? First off you do not quote 90% of my post or my main point which is about spying /breaking the law outside the USA. CNN said these guys do not break any laws, so spying on Muslims is ok? They have not been tried or arrested or convicted, but spying on them is ok? Just not sure where this line is? Ok to spy on you for what you think? Ok to spy on you without a warrant or telling the American people the details is ok?, when? BTW you do not quote 90% of my post which is about breaking the law outside the USA. I mean this sounds just like Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 BTW has anyone noticed how many people we are spying on inside the USA. Call it surveillance or whatever. As you know only too well, Mike, there is no "whatever" to it. What is done and how it is done is the essence of legality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Just last night CNN reported how the FBI is spying on American muslims in NYC who thought the killings at Fort HOOD were a good thing. Is that reprehensible? First off you do not quote 90% of my post or my main point which is about spying /breaking the law outside the USA. CNN said these guys do not break any laws, so spying on Muslims is ok? They have not been tried or arrested or convicted, but spying on them is ok? I quoted only this line from your post because I pretty much agreed with the rest of your points. I don't hold with breaking laws outside the US and I don't believe in indiscriminate spying on citizens, whatever their religion. In the one line I quoted though, it seemed plausible to me that those being watched had earned that distinction legitimately. This is the same FBI that came in for a lot of criticism for failing to follow up on leads about the eventual 9/11 hijackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Ah, but see, they get to have it both ways - if the FBI (or whoever) fails to spy on somebody or other, and they do something bad, well then, the FBI screwed up, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. And if the FBI does spy on somebody, well then, they're violating that somebody's rights, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. Hell with it. Let's just purge the FBI, the CIA, and any other part of government we don't like. That'll fix it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Ah, but see, they get to have it both ways - if the FBI (or whoever) fails to spy on somebody or other, and they do something bad, well then, the FBI screwed up, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. And if the FBI does spy on somebody, well then, they're violating that somebody's rights, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. There are some (I won't mention Mike777) who have mastered the art of confusing the issue by using words and ideas that are similar but which in fact do not state the issues but only serve to mask the case. The issues here are not spying, monitoring, or any other euphenism for investigative police work - the issues here are state-sponsored crimes, kidnapping, renditioning, systemic torture as national policy, and then not allowing any kind of investigation into wrongdoing due to claims of "state secrets priveledges".Given we have decades of evidence that the CIA, NSA and DIA go around breaking the law, the laws of many countries. We do not have many decades of evidence of systemic state-sponsored torture as official U.S. policy. That began with Bush-Cheney.We do not have decades of evidence of systemic NSA wiretapping without warrants as a national policy. That began with Bush-Cheney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Ah, but see, they get to have it both ways - if the FBI (or whoever) fails to spy on somebody or other, and they do something bad, well then, the FBI screwed up, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. And if the FBI does spy on somebody, well then, they're violating that somebody's rights, and we should round 'em up and shoot 'em. Hell with it. Let's just purge the FBI, the CIA, and any other part of government we don't like. That'll fix it!Blackshoe, I hope you don't take this personally as I think you are quite bright - but this post reminds me exactly of the type of thing my brother has often said that ends our discussions. Like our last discussion when in one giant leap backwards for mankind's logic my brother went from a somewhat civil discussion of the effective potential and even legitimacy of a counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan to his saying, "So we won't do anything, then, just wait until they blow up a suitcase nuke in Portland." Huh? How does one answer that type of accusation/statement/claim/exaggeration/fictional belief/reason/hype? "Hell with it. Let's just purge the FBI, the CIA, and any other part of government we don't like. That'll fix it!" This is is not really argument - it is misdirection by oversimplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Winston, the CIA and NSA are in the business of state sponsored crimes. They are sponsored by the government and they go around the world doing illegal stuff. They have indeed done this for decades, forever, not just the last couple of years. They wiretap, they bribe, they run weapons, they try and kill people and overthrow governments, etc etc. Now if you are suggesting the CIA, FBI and NSA are breaking USA law, lets cut off their funding and have them investigated by each other or by Congress or by someone. As far as I know the CIA has been investigated in the past, is being investigated today and will be investigated in the future. At the very least lets have Congress set up an oversight committee to, well, do oversight. Lets make the President also do oversight of these agencies. This would seem to be at least a first step. Lets have the FBI check out the CIA and NSA. Lets have the Justice Dept check out everyone. IN fact FBI guys have been thrown in jail for crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Winston, the CIA and NSA are in the business of state sponsored crimes. They are not in the business of systemic torture as U.S. policy. At least they were not in that business until after 9-11. That is the very real and very big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight FBI guys have been thrown in jail for crimes. They've also not been thrown in jail for crimes. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, to be honest. Perhaps it's moved from time to time. Winston: next time they're handing out senses of humor, you should try to be there. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Winston, the CIA and NSA are in the business of state sponsored crimes. They are not in the business of systemic torture as U.S. policy. At least they were not in that business until after 9-11. That is the very real and very big difference. Hopefully at some point the CIA will stop torturing people as state policy. I guess it remains state policy to still have the CIA kill people. I think I have read news reports that the CIA has killed directly or by proxy hundreds of people this year alone. If true I hope someone tells the CIA director and the President. At some point the President and Congress will need to step in and put their feet down if the CIA keeps hurting people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 from the nytFor all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession — until now. With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression. In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.from the birmingham newshttp://cagle.com/working/091106/stantis.jpgjust thought i'd get it back on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 But our financial friends are back to reporting big profits! All is well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 But our financial friends are back to reporting big profits! All is well. It is the redistribution of wealth, socialist style - only we are allowing the taking from the middle and lower classes and redistributing to the upper classes. I suppose that is how it should be - after all, the upper class knows how to successfully invest all that money, while the poor would simply squander it on silliness like food and rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Considering that Summers and Geithner are STILL calling the shots (errrr doing what they were and are told to do by their "betters" (financially and economically speaking of course)) should we be surprised? Privatize profits and socialize losses. Now if only I had some money left to invest in something that wouldn't end up failing before I can cash out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Obama's new slogan Change you can't spend.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 or, let's hope for some change we can spend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Obama's new motto: CHANGE? I dun't need no stinkin' CHANGE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.