Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
EJ
Published Letters: 486 Editor's Choice: 1
I agree with you both. I was just at the Obama site again and posted the link and a snippet of the analysis. And again became heartsick at much of what I read from supporters who won't hear of any criticism of Obama.
Glenn's been quoted and linked to all over the place in those comments. I think his analysis is extremely valuable, especially if a few who want more information from over there come over here. And many people need it right in front of them.
I didn't get that, either. I saw it as a way for Obama to address the issue on his terms and in a way in which he doesn't and won't give anything up.
Read some of the comments of his advisors - they're as firm as Obama is about his decision. For example, from Ben Rhodes: "I understand your disappointment. As Barack said, he would not have written the bill this way. But as for the civil libertarians, I think we all believe that the balance between security and liberty was badly skewed under this Administration. This bill continues a restoration of that balance...."
When someone says to me, "I understand your disappointment..." I know they're not giving in. At least my mother never did ;-)
I guess I'm more skeptical of Obama's motives - it will take a while to rid myself of that after 7+ years of Bush and the rest. I think his new statement meant to be a salve of sorts, but fact-wise, it isn't substantially different from his original statement and most of both statements is wrong.
----
Thanks, Glenn, for taking the time to put your analysis together. Hopefully, I (we?) didn't sound ungrateful.
In your analysis of the new statement, I think you meant to link to this: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/03/i-dont-think-accountability-means-what-obama-thinks-it-does/
And thanks for the (real) compromise :-)
Glenn wrote: "Recruiting and promoting and building up and even naming real, credible primary challengers now -- for 2010 -- in a very public way, could be the best way to make them scared and responsive."
I think it's a great idea. Especially if a replicable strategy were created that built a small number of "super-challengers" who had a solid chance for success. That that model could be held up to and used against all the others...
"We said we were coming, we proved we can do it, and you're next."
I've often wondered how exactly we could get better Democrats. After all these years, I don't mind waiting a few more for vengeance.
Thank you for the reminder about DCLaw1's blog! I have it bookmarked now.
From: Twelve Steps to Restore Checks and Balances
Brennan Center for Justice
http://brennan.3cdn.net/543341179e6a856b9b_9um6batcl.pdf
For the Executive Branch and Presidential Candidates:I. Renounce the Theory of the Monarchical Presidency
II. Renounce the Use of Signing Statements to Circumvent the Law
III. Disclose Past Legal Opinions That Influence the Use of National Security PowersFor Congress:
IV. Make It Clear: No More Torture, No More “Torture Lite”
V. Restore Habeas Corpus and Bring America’s Detention System under the Rule of Law
VI. Legislate To Reduce Excessive Secrecy and Classification
VII. Enact a Law That Regulates the Invocation of Executive Privilege
VIII. Legislate To Limit the State Secrets Privilege
IX. Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Activities
X. Strengthen the Inspector General System and Other Internal Checks and Balances
XI. Reform the Office of Legal Counsel
XII. Create a New “Church Committee” To Conduct a Thorough Accounting of National Security Policy and its Systemic Flaws
I ran across this while looking for materials for a Constitution Day learning unit. It might also be a good idea to run an ad on September 17.
So, how were the questions asked in those imaginary polls you mentioned?
Nice. I had completely forgotten about the telecoms pulling the plug on the FBI for non-payment.
"1. The telecoms relied on the opinion of the Sen Intelligence Comm that complying with the President's request was lawful."
This is not correct. The telecoms did not rely on the opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The committee did not see the authorizations until October of 2007. The Committee did not deem them lawful; the committee said that the president or the attorney general deemed them to be lawful. See: http://intelligence.senate.gov/071025/report.pdf
Also, what Gordon said.
Said RMP. And the passage of this legislation won't be the end of it. Congress and some future president need to fix the damage. That will be a long, hard row to hoe.
That was coming?
The NY Times article doesn't tell the whole story.
Qwest was approached by the NSA in the Fall of 2001, after the September 11 attacks, and was asked to participate in said program but refused in the absence of either warrants issued by a court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§1801, et seq., or an opinion of the Attorney General holding that such program was lawful.
From the pdf court document found at this page: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
