Just in case anybody thinks I like Obama, let’s be clear, I do not. He is a duplicitous autocrat with a silver tongue. He seems to merge the authoritarianism of Nixon and Bush with the smooth talk and psudoliberal politics of Clinton. That’s a very bad mix. Of course, that shouldn’t be surprising considering his limited track record, but that’s what you get with electing a first term senator.
You would expect better from a constitutional scholar. But then again, he’s a lawyer, and that’s a profession that’s not known for the integrity of its practitioners.
Unfortunately all of the serious challengers are even scarier.
(Via Pharyngula)
Permalink
So….. Obama is saying that he won't allow the government to do illegal things…. but that he will instead make it legal to do those things that were previously illegal…. which he thinks will…… make it all better?!
Look I'm having trouble comprehending this: it seems like Obama is opposing what Bush did because it was illegal. Not because it he thought it was immoral or against the spirit of the US constitution – but because it was just against the words written in books.
You are right – he IS a lawyer. What he is proposing is scarcely any better than what Bush proposed – a little more open to scrutiny and oversight, but it is still indefinite detention without trial. This is the equivalent of putting a clear window on an illegally detained person's cell, thus allowing people to see that he's there, but still not giving him a trial or an explanation or his/her freedom. This is essentially just a shift from "hush, hush, let's bag this guy and hold him for however long we want" to "yep, we bagged him and we're holding him for however long we want and what are you gonna do about it, huh!? Tough guy!? What are you gonna do about it? HUH!? HUH!?"
Sad thing is, no other candidate says they'll get rid of indefinite detention. So, sadly, every single US Presidential Candidate that has a hope of winning supports indefinite detention.
If this could happen in the US, how long before it happens in Australia? We usually look to you guys to guide us.
Permalink
The issue is that it is unconstitional and a violation of the Geneva Convention. Per the US Constitution treaties rank above federal law and executive orders. All he's doing is trying to find a loophole to justify his actions which violate a campaign promise and open him up for criticism.
Sorry if there are spelling errors, I'm typing this on my phone during a break at work.