What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
365 Comments
- clvngodess, on 04/11/2009, -16/+292FTA:
...So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.
I'm not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out.
This is exactly why IMPEACHMENT should NOT have been taken off the table (damn the Pelosi!). This is why impeachment was created in the first place. It is a corrective action against such things as the abuse of powers. Had the last administration been impeached, and corralled in, as it should have been, we would not be in this position. The end result is now what we are witnessing. Who in their right mind would be willing to actually GIVE BACK power? Not these people. This is exactly the damage, the gift that keeps on giving, brought to you via the Bush legacy. Goddamn. - kdawg1012, on 04/11/2009, -9/+259President Obama is wrong on this issue.
- philosophyzombi, on 04/11/2009, -6/+215FTA
Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo.
The Bush/Obama position? I am throwing up in my mouth. If you told me six months ago that I would be reading a credible source discuss the continuation of reprehensible Bush II era policies by the Obama administration, I would have told you to give a call when the shuttle landed. This is the definition of politics: speak to get elected, act like the campaign never happened. I am so angry I can barely see straight. - sheeplescareme, on 04/12/2009, -18/+127a politicians lied to secure votes?! i'm shocked!
actually, i'm disgusted that the morons who fell for the hope and change rhetoric are now scuttling about trying to excuse this nonsense. we're all losing and trying to justify this behaviour is simply pathetic - he's messing up, get angry about it. - BullBearMS, on 04/12/2009, -8/+81Glenn Greenwald speaks out to his critics on this issue: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19830#comment-1201 ...
"To recap everything I just read here:
(1) I used to be a really insightful and sober writer (when I was criticizing Bush)—my entire character transformed on January 20, 2009, when I suddenly became a totally over-the-top, hysterical, slothful and rhetorically reckless purist (when, totally coincidentally, I began criticizing Obama for doing exactly what Bush was doing).
It’s just like how, according to the Right in 2002-2003, Andrew Sullivan was a brilliant and inspirational writer—until the day he began criticizing Bush, and then he was suddenly a dementia-plagued, morally depraved hysteric.
It’s amazing how people’s character and judgment changes over night based on whether they’re praising or criticizing a particular political leader.
(2) We can’t possibly judge The President because he knows so much more than we do, has access to much secret information, has superior insight—thus: we must blindly trust his judgment, even more than our own.
Besides, we can all just feel in our "gut" that Obama is a Good Person and would never violate the law or exceed the proper limits of his power—even when it seems like he is.
I used to only read things like that on National Review and Weekly Standard; as of 1/20/09, I read it regularly here and on Daily Kos.
(3) When Bush asserted the power to abduct people and put them in prison for life with no charges, he was a Constitution-hating tyrant.
When Obama does it, he’s being really careful and cautious and doing it to protect us for really good reasons even if we can’t know what they are and he won’t tell us.
(4) People like me who criticize Obama are just motivated by a desire to get on TV (just like Bush critics, said National Review, were motivated by a desire to sell books).
It can’t possibly be because what he’s doing is actually wrong.
And, somehow, it’s really good for the career of Obama critics like me to criticize him even though doing so prompts hordes of previously supportive people to intensely attack your motives and judgment; and, finally—most amazingly of all:
(5) According to the Obama-justifying comment which John copied and pasted into the post, Obama isn’t really doing what Bush did in this case even though:
(a) the Obama DOJ filed a 2-sentence brief in February saying they adopt the Bush position in full on the issue of presidential detention authority at Bagram;
(b) the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Charlie Savage—who used to be beloved in the liberal blogosphere prior to January, 2009—wrote that the Obama DOJ is arguing "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team" (Savage probably just said that to get on TV and sell books);
(c) This liberal international law professor expert, a long-time critic of Bush, today is mocking Obama for trying to transport Guantanamo to Bagram; and,
(d) the entire brief Obama just filed does nothing but argue that the district court was wrong in ruling that Bagram detainees have the right of habeas review, and then asserts propositions of laws that would make David Addington and John Yoo proud, such as: "the Court’s decision threatens the public interest by sanctioning second-guessing of conclusions that are at the core of war-making powers—judgments as to the level of activity or association with potential terrorism and other activities that warrant detention of an individual so as to effectively subdue and incapacitate the enemy."
So: the Obama administration is overtly defending the power of the President to keep imprisoned with no charges people who were abducted by the U.S. and flown to Afghanistan and kept there for 6 years with no charges. Obama refuses to give them a trial. The Obama DOJ is arguing that the courts have no right to interfere with the President’s decisions about detention. And they’re aggressively arguing in favor of one of the most extremist and lawless Bush/Cheney powers.
But it’s all totally different when Obama does it. Even if we can’t see the differences, it’s probably because he knows more than we do and sees what we can’t see. And anyone who compares what Bush did to what Obama is doing here—Charlie Savage, Kevin Jon Heller, me—is justifiably risking their reputation and going way over the line!
I hope I didn’t leave anything out. I probably did—there are probably lots of other reasons why it’s OK when Obama does exactly what liberals criticized Bush for doing, and I look forward to reading more of those reasons here." - xGORDOx, on 04/12/2009, -4/+67Really?
You are suprised at this?
Maybe I have been voting and reading the news for longer, I dunno, but this has been a part of every administration in some way shape or form.
Suer most of the teens on Digg attribute the wiretaps and secret prisons to Bush, because they don't know better, but Clinton was involved with domestic wiretapping prior to his re-election in 96 and Secret Prisons go back to early wars in America. In fact pretty much all governments have secret prisons.
The only surpise here is that people thought Obama was some holier-than-thou icon and would actually bring "change". The only change will be a tighter grip on all things America. Look at the direction in which Bush/Obama has brought us, it looks like The Peoples Republic of China does it not?
Domestic spying, secret prisons, government owned banks and auto makers, Joe Biden declaring paying more taxes is patriotic?
Jeez, all hail Chairman Mao, huh Joe?
Change? Yea, a complete 180 from what America is supposed to be.
Thanks Government for reassuring my assumptions that I am merely a peasant within your kingdom. - pwner, on 04/12/2009, -4/+61What would Lincoln do?
Oh crap... - nellre, on 04/11/2009, -44/+99If anybody asks me if I think Obama is doing a good job I'd say he is not. All the good stuff he's doing is superficial when compared to this.
He has betrayed America. Bush was far worse than I thought he would be. Obama's got him beat big time. - Tr33fiddy, on 04/12/2009, -2/+56I'm not sure what is worse; indefinite detention of suspects without legal oversight or the speed with which the Obama-inspire Hope movement is disappearing.
What I will say, wishing not to dismiss Obama as one of the biggest presidential disappointments of all time just yet, a quote FTA by him in 2006 on the issue of Guantanamo detainment (which is now mirrored in Bagram);
"I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary."
I guess someone finally must have. - diggduggjoe, on 04/12/2009, -8/+58As they have always said, "The new boss...just like the old boss".
The ObamaNation did not pay attention when we all told you of his ties to the CFR. He is just as much a puppet of the elite as Bush was.
I try not to be a NWO nut, but damn when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know the rest.
When the president can do a 180 on so many policies in less that 2 months, you know everything he said he stood for is BS.
Many could never choose a libertarian for they prefer socialism or militarism, but few libertarians double-speak like the Republicrats.
Why can we not just stand for liberty like we did in the past? We should re-embrace our Constitution and try to live up to the ideals presented in our Declaration of Independence. We use to stand for something noble. I am not sure WTF we stand for now, but is not noble at all. - Ades, on 04/12/2009, -6/+56DUDE.. Obama needs the right to abduct and torture not only americans.. But people all around the world!... Thats going to solve everything.. Thats the CHANGE we need!
- mfc5200, on 04/12/2009, -6/+54I'm going to start keep tracking:
attempt to dismiss court case against warrant-less wiretaps
increase troops to Afghanistan
keep combat troops in Iraq
increase military budget by 20 billion yearly
actively attempt to deny habeas corpus
Am I missing anything else?
The guy is as bad as Bush. He's a neo-con AND a bigger spender than Bush was (not easy to do) - bobburn1, on 04/12/2009, -7/+52Change you shouldn't have believed in.
- sandbun, on 04/11/2009, -6/+50"Basically what the government is saying is that they haven’t had time to review all of the cases at Bagram yet and it would be nice to have that opportunity before the courts say all of the detainees have habeus rights"
You need time to decide whether these people deserve habeus rights? Really, you're justifying his excuses and that's the best you can do? Candidate Obama didn't need time to know if they deserved these rights - he said they absolutely did. Also there is a world of difference between asking for a delay while you review the cases and saying that the Bush claims are correct. Where do you see the JOD asking for more time to review cases? Obama is not asking for time, he's saying the Bush claims are correct. But nice try. - frcc, on 04/12/2009, -14/+55Americans who fell for the hype - Neoconed
- richmomz, on 04/12/2009, -10/+49Chains We Can Believe In
- ismhmr, on 04/12/2009, -21/+57That is because Obama is in charge of nothing. The same people that controlled Bush, are controlling the Obama administration. To think that he would be someone that they would put in there, that would have real authority is crazy.
Watch the Obama Deception for free on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od8bcCvX3jU - CdnBacon, on 04/12/2009, -16/+51He had many fooled including myself, very good smoke and mirror show, but now you guys are starting to see the true Obama, just an extension of the Bush regime.
Ron Paul see's right through all of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtUfGUL2dwU <---- Part 1 (Strange it was removed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkrWsKoUSrY&fea ... <--- Part 2
It's too bad the populous wouldn't see how great of a leader he would have been.
I'm not American, just my perspective. - richmomz, on 04/12/2009, -4/+39People are starting to realize that our two party system is a fraud, and that both sides have been pushing the same agenda for decades. I hope that four years from now we will finally break out of our "I have to vote for the lesser of two evils" slave mentality and put someone into power that will actually represent our interests.
- mogebier, on 04/12/2009, -10/+44CHANGE!!
Oh, wait..... - eatporktoo, on 04/12/2009, -7/+41saying "I told you so" is really starting to get old....
sometimes you wish you were wrong... - richmomz, on 04/12/2009, -1/+33It's not the only issue he's been raising eyebrows about lately - he is also in favor of maintaining Bush's warrentless wiretapping program.
- bobburn1, on 04/12/2009, -0/+30Suspend habeas corpus, lock up thousands of Americans and then have some who had committed no crime banished from the country (yeah, banished).
- freedomjoe, on 04/11/2009, -41/+70food for thought--from ballon juice:
the SCOTUS blog does here with a much more indepth explanation of the Justice Department’s stance
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/u…..at-bagram/
If you look at the substance of the argument it has nothing to do with continuing Bush policy. It has EVERYTHING to do with
1. Waiting to see if the other Judge was right about extending Habeus rights to the prisoners at Bagram which would set a precedent that would extend to more than just the 3 plaintiffs.
2. To try to give the government time to finish their review of detainee policy at Bagram which they believed would be finished within 6 months when President Obama signed the executive order creating the Task Force to study it.
Basically what the government is saying is that they haven’t had time to review all of the cases at Bagram yet and it would be nice to have that opportunity before the courts say all of the detainees have habeus rights and we get a mountain of litigation from those detainees asserting those rights. If you go to the actual link to the court filing the Justice Department points out that just because a detainee was grabbed outside of the theater doesn’t mean they didn’t commit crimes in the theater and then leave. It also talks about the problems that would occur if we were to capture suspects in Pakistan and then not be able to detain them in Bagram (which is in Afghanistan) because of these rulings. Please remember that fighting terrorists isn’t just the same as fighting normal crimes. Especially in a war zone.
The key word in all of this is time. This isn’t Bush confident in his policies and telling the courts to get bent. This is President Obama reviewing the process so they can make changes going forward as soon as they have some recommendations. I understand that for whichever of those prisoners who might truly be innocent in Bagram and have been there for years that they want to be out yesterday. But on the other hand the government has to be careful not to open a pandora’s box whereby the bad get released with the good in the middle of what is truly a war zone.
I guess Glenzilla will end up on the cover of Newsweek and have an appearance on Morning Joe soon since he has now said effectively that President Obama is worse than Bush but he is just about to over play his normally spot on hand with his rhetoric. And that's real. - Exhibitionist, on 04/12/2009, -6/+35Maybe all those folks who now feel betrayed by Obama will vote for a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich in 2012.
- dalittle, on 04/12/2009, -3/+31Obama is playing a very dangerous game. This one issue could turn all of his supporters against him over night. They have secret courts for high risk warrants. There is no reason to suspend habeas corpus or for Obama to fight for Boumediene v. Bush and holding people without charges indefinitely.
- poprocksandsoda, on 04/12/2009, -6/+34So because he doesn't paint a rosey picture of Obama he's now an opportunist?
- clvngodess, on 04/12/2009, -2/+30I'm not sure that the population really knew what they were choosing or that they actually deserve what they got. Ask people if they read the party platforms and the candidate platforms and see what they say. Very few people will actually tell you that they read the platforms and comprehended what was there. The marketing messages and the platform are two different things. The branding and advertising say one thing, the core message, aka, the platform is another. Many don't get this.
- shaunheiser, on 04/12/2009, -7/+33It's funny when the liberals go out of their way to say "well the same thing happened with Bush." It's as if you want to criticize Obama and you get jumped on by a bunch of people saying "well, what makes you think McCain would be any better? It's a cop out, dems need to give up on the thought of Obama being the savior of the world, he's not living up to what he said he would do, and there's nothing about him as a president that puts him in any more favor than any other person that was running for the job. It's so frustrating that a guy with an empty promise can occupy the most prominent seat in the country and maybe the world.
- Logrusmage, on 04/12/2009, -29/+55It seems like he's wrong on most issues. He's appears to be exactly what he campaigned as: Bigger and more powerful government. I honestly don't get why all of you are surprised. People who voted Bush in 2000, THEY get to be surprised. But you guys? You knew, or SHOULD have known, what you were getting into. You voted for you believed to be the lesser of two evils (I hope) and he turned out to be like this.
I'm assuming you still all think he's the better man for the job (I have no opinion on the issue TBH) but shock at his preference for big government really shouldn't be there. - Unreal030, on 04/12/2009, -3/+28He wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade because the process was unconstitutional, it has nothing to do with his personal anti-abortion beliefs. He has clarified this several times during interviews when asked about it. He has stated, and I am paraphrasing, "That it is not important what I believe, what is important is what the people want." He wants to leave it up for the individual states to decide. If that is not going back to our core values I don't know what is. I don't see how you can be against that. Mind you I am a pro-choice person (within reason, i.e. no abortions after 1st trimester unless medical difficulties occur)
Most of the people that disagree with Ron Paul have their information on him wrong. He is the closest presidential candidate we have had to the founding fathers and the core beliefs of America for quite a while. I love how people always complain about having to pick the lesser evil but then when a good candidate like him comes along people will nitpick and find any little excuse to disagree and not vote with him. I hardly see even his most controversial positions as being able to be held up to the fact that Obama voted in favor of the patriot act and wiretapping. Give me a break. You don't want America back you want more of the status quo. If you actually cared you wouldn't make little (and incorrect in this case) nitpicks that are dwarfed by the things done and said by quite a few of our past presidents.
I would very much like to see your reasoning for not voting on Ron Paul based on some factual information. Don't get mad at him for bringing up Ron Paul because you know very well we wouldn't be in this situation if we had elected him. They warned you but you refuse to listen and we all have to pay for that. - PakoBedejo, on 04/12/2009, -8/+33People should have voted for Ron Paul instead of following the charismatic rock star that just wanted to take them back-stage & ***** them...
- thejimmyo, on 04/11/2009, -0/+25>>"did you miss the part that said: "food for thought from balloon juice"? those weren't my words"
I made the same mistake, Joe. Maybe quotation marks would help next time.
>>"None of us have seen the actual case files and can make informed judgments about whether revealing the relevant information in particular cases would actually pose a threat to national security."
Courts are already equipped to deal with sensitive national security information. That's no excuse to deny someone altogether the legal right to seek judicial review through habeas proceedings (which is an important check against the Executive detaining people indefinitely outside of any review process whatsoever).
>>"it's been 90 days."
This isn't a criticism that he has failed to act. It's a criticism that he has taken the wrong action. Furthermore, as sandbun pointed out, "Obama is not asking for time, he's saying the Bush claims are correct."
>>"I'm tired of people like you jumping all over any idea that doesn't agree with your agenda."
I love you, freedomjoe, but don't you think this sentiment applies to yourself as well? I think that sandbun made a perfectly reasonable point, and you jumped on him with some pretty angry lines (saying that he is not "intelligent" and telling him to "give it a ***** rest already"). If we all "have good minds for digesting different opinions and ideas," then we should probably dial the anger back a notch. - freedomjoe, on 04/11/2009, -8/+33a note to Phil: I always like your submissions, and I wish I had started off my food for thought post by saying that first. I also like Greenwald and find him worthwhile, even when I don't agree-- so I'm glad you posted this. I think the ability to disagree and to collect all evidence before making a judgment is something we all agree upon. Greenwald's opinion is an important one to consider.
- minimitable, on 04/12/2009, -0/+23"Why can we not just stand for liberty like we did in the past? We should re-embrace our Constitution and try to live up to the ideals presented in our Declaration of Independence. We use to stand for something noble. I am not sure WTF we stand for now, but is not noble at all."
Agreed...and it is sad. - jsffive, on 04/12/2009, -1/+24Bravo Mr. Greenwald. Even though you are a liberal, you have not allowed the election of President Obama to cloud your clear reasoning.
Thank you for your continuing skepticism. - JT706, on 04/12/2009, -0/+21I think it's the "Obamabots" that are supporting this story the most. This one hurts. I mean, really, really hurts.
- MaynardJK, on 04/12/2009, -2/+23@Synchro
He meant that some people wouldn't vote Libertarian because those people prefer socialism, where the Libertarians don't. - JRowe3388, on 04/12/2009, -4/+24And you're obviously a dumbass.
- Reebee52, on 04/12/2009, -3/+23I agree with JRowe, and I tend to vote conservatively. You sound like an ignorant fool.
- polytron, on 04/12/2009, -5/+25This is exactly why I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats. Regardless of their campaign rhetoric, politicians from both parties always end up supporting the same fascist policies. The only way we the people can stop this is to stop electing Republicans and Democrats. Vote for third party candidates, even if they stand no chance of winning. Isn't it better to vote for the loser than to throw your vote away on lying fascist?
- roystgnr, on 04/12/2009, -1/+20Synchro, I think in the phrase "they prefer socialism", the antecedent of "they" was intended to be "many", not "libertarian".
- WilliamDavis, on 04/12/2009, -3/+22"When Obama was elected, he was beholden to no lobbyist group except the massive voter base collected through grassroots efforts."
LOL. - WaldoX, on 04/12/2009, -2/+21let the congress view the 1000 page trillion dollar stimulus package for an hour before a decision was to be made on it.... obviously obama is issuing a blank check to the banks with no transparency.
- richmomz, on 04/12/2009, -0/+19I know what Andrew Jackson would have done...
- bobburn1, on 04/12/2009, -5/+23Yup. Dems, Republicans--doesn't matter. They're all neo-cons when it comes for foreign policy and civil liberties.
- whiskeythief, on 04/12/2009, -4/+22Good Lord, you drank all the kool aid didn't you?
New Orleans had a Mayor and a Governor, remember? - bklny, on 04/12/2009, -9/+27Sad Obama is a Trojan horse I was really hoping for change all we got was window dressing
- novenator, on 04/12/2009, -20/+38not even close.
- nofreedom4theUS, on 04/12/2009, -4/+21Give him a chance..he's only been in office for 100 days.
LMAO....now I can turn it around on all the kool aid drinkers. Vegas should have a line on how long it will take before he's officially worse than Bush. -
Show 51 - 100 of 379 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is