Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
A few articles I found interesting on how much change Obama is bringing
1-
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have “no constitutional rights”
As the Who said, Meet the new boss same as the old boss:
Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.
The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.
Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.
The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.
Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice departments decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and enormously disappointing.
The exact quote from the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice? Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position. The DoJ and the DoD consider Bagram detainees unlawful combatants without any rights to access the US court system and with no recourse for release.
Just as it did in the George Bush administration. Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? Id like to see how they square the circle with Obama now. A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism.
Just as we did in the George Bush administration.
All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates. Thats something that the HopeandChangizoids have begun to learn just a month after the dawning of the Age of Obama. A lot of them owe Bush and us apologies.
2-
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hope and Change: Obama protects wiretap program secrets
For over three years, since the New York Times exposed an NSA surveillance program that tracked conversations from suspected terrorist phones to points within the US, the Left has pilloried the Bush administration for shredding the Constitution. Early in Barack Obamas presidential campaign, he made that a central reason why America needed Hope and Change. Eventually, however, Obama voted for the FISA language that essentially made the program explicitly legal, but promised to make significant changes to it once elected.
Now that hes President, however, the perspective looks a little different:
President Obamas administration is moving aggressively to protect what the government insists are state secrets from a Bush-era wiretapping program.
Justice Department lawyers filed an emergency motion Friday with a federal appeals court in an effort to block a lower courts order that the government must show lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation a copy of a document indicating that the groups communications were being intercepted. The document has been the subject of a running legal battle since the papers were accidentally sent to attorneys for the group in 2004 and subsequently retrieved.
The government wants the wiretapping lawsuit thrown out on the basis of the state secrets privilege, but a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the privilege is overruled by a law Congress wrote, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Its an interesting case. Many of the lawsuits filed against telecoms in relation to the NSAs Terrorist Surveillance Program got tossed for lack of standing; the plaintiffs had no proof that their communications had been surveilled. The DoJ helpfully handed that proof to Al-Haramain during discovery when they accidentally released a Top Secret-Compartmented document to their legal team. The government wants to unring the bell here, and the judge has thus far not allowed them to do it.
If Obama meant what he said on the campaign trail, one would expect him to side with Al-Haramain. After all, he spent a great deal of time talking about how the Bush administration ran roughshod over the rights of Americans and American residents with his NSA program. Wouldnt that include Al-Haramain in this instance, according to Obamas own construct?
Now, suddenly, Obama seems to appreciate the need for state secrets and surveillance on international communications involving suspected terrorists. That suits me fine, as I think the TSP program was on solid ground from the beginning, but its more than a little hypocritical for the Obama administration to suddenly switch sides and support the Bush position without so much as an oops. It certainly seems that Obama has endorsed the Bush policies that he once criticized in harsh terms, a remarkable turnaround for someone in office only a month.
How does that Hope and Change feel now, Obama voters? Anyone ready to give President Bush an overdue apology?
However, i am willing to guess since Obama is doing the same it will be legit, but when Bush did it he was the devil
1-
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hope and Change Administration: Detainees have “no constitutional rights”
As the Who said, Meet the new boss same as the old boss:
Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.
The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.
Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.
The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.
Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice departments decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and enormously disappointing.
The exact quote from the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice? Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position. The DoJ and the DoD consider Bagram detainees unlawful combatants without any rights to access the US court system and with no recourse for release.
Just as it did in the George Bush administration. Remember how the Left considered Bush a war criminal for taking this exact position? Id like to see how they square the circle with Obama now. A few like Glenn Greenwald will rip Obama on principle, but the rest will suddenly discover the reasonableness of detaining terrorists and treating them not like burglars but like enemy combatants who have themselves violated Geneva Conventions through their terrorism.
Just as we did in the George Bush administration.
All statements from Barack Obama come with expiration dates. Thats something that the HopeandChangizoids have begun to learn just a month after the dawning of the Age of Obama. A lot of them owe Bush and us apologies.
2-
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hope and Change: Obama protects wiretap program secrets
For over three years, since the New York Times exposed an NSA surveillance program that tracked conversations from suspected terrorist phones to points within the US, the Left has pilloried the Bush administration for shredding the Constitution. Early in Barack Obamas presidential campaign, he made that a central reason why America needed Hope and Change. Eventually, however, Obama voted for the FISA language that essentially made the program explicitly legal, but promised to make significant changes to it once elected.
Now that hes President, however, the perspective looks a little different:
President Obamas administration is moving aggressively to protect what the government insists are state secrets from a Bush-era wiretapping program.
Justice Department lawyers filed an emergency motion Friday with a federal appeals court in an effort to block a lower courts order that the government must show lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation a copy of a document indicating that the groups communications were being intercepted. The document has been the subject of a running legal battle since the papers were accidentally sent to attorneys for the group in 2004 and subsequently retrieved.
The government wants the wiretapping lawsuit thrown out on the basis of the state secrets privilege, but a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the privilege is overruled by a law Congress wrote, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Its an interesting case. Many of the lawsuits filed against telecoms in relation to the NSAs Terrorist Surveillance Program got tossed for lack of standing; the plaintiffs had no proof that their communications had been surveilled. The DoJ helpfully handed that proof to Al-Haramain during discovery when they accidentally released a Top Secret-Compartmented document to their legal team. The government wants to unring the bell here, and the judge has thus far not allowed them to do it.
If Obama meant what he said on the campaign trail, one would expect him to side with Al-Haramain. After all, he spent a great deal of time talking about how the Bush administration ran roughshod over the rights of Americans and American residents with his NSA program. Wouldnt that include Al-Haramain in this instance, according to Obamas own construct?
Now, suddenly, Obama seems to appreciate the need for state secrets and surveillance on international communications involving suspected terrorists. That suits me fine, as I think the TSP program was on solid ground from the beginning, but its more than a little hypocritical for the Obama administration to suddenly switch sides and support the Bush position without so much as an oops. It certainly seems that Obama has endorsed the Bush policies that he once criticized in harsh terms, a remarkable turnaround for someone in office only a month.
How does that Hope and Change feel now, Obama voters? Anyone ready to give President Bush an overdue apology?
However, i am willing to guess since Obama is doing the same it will be legit, but when Bush did it he was the devil
