Obama - The beginning

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

What is wrong with family planning?

Nothing at all, but this is about saving our economy and putting people to work, not about social programs the Dems have been trying to pass for years and couldn't. This should not be a bill where special interest groups get to hop on the money train. I fully support family planning and free birth control for anyone who wants it. This does not create jobs as Obama and Pelosi promised.

So they want infastructure that is meaningful, impactful, and to get more jobs back? What was their plan for that? All I hear is whining over the democrats plan, no plan of their own.
To top it off, the democrat's plan has $550billion of the $800+billion dedicated to just that.

Great, then save us 250 billion on the deficit and take out the crap social programs, save it for another bill. Whining? Please. The bill was completely crafted by Pelosi and the Demoncrats behind closed doors. They own everything in it that it does or fails to do to save our economy and create jobs as promised.

I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base?

Yes, absolutely, because they completely control both houses and the executive branch. They own it. Everything that works and fails.

[TheMercenary]

CIA's counter-terrorism rendition program gets nod from Obama
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Greg Miller in Washington
February 2, 2009

UNDER executive orders issued by the US President, Barack Obama, last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as "renditions", or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that co-operate with the United States.

Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role because it was the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cia...423045649.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

CIA's counter-terrorism rendition program gets nod from Obama
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Greg Miller in Washington
February 2, 2009

UNDER executive orders issued by the US President, Barack Obama, last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as "renditions", or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that co-operate with the United States.

Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role because it was the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cia...423045649.html

Rendition is nothing new. Hopefully, the difference will be to do it legally, within acceptable international standards...like not sending a prisoner to a location where it is expected that he would be tortured or killed by the authorities of that country.

If Obama is going to close Gitmo...there will need to be some form of "rendition" of those prisoners...unless the plan is to hold them in US prisons or release them unconditionally, and neither option is under consideration.

The same Executive Order does specifically prohibit interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under our international treaty obligations.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Rendition is nothing new.

True. But it was never exercised before like it was under Bush. Clinton authorized it as well but the cases were few and far between.

If Obama is going to close Gitmo...there will need to be some form of "rendition" of those prisoners...unless the plan is to hold them in US prisons or release them unconditionally, and neither option is under consideration.

That is not what Obama has done in this act. That is a completely different subject. I do not believe that most of the inhabitants at Gitmo were placed there do to a rendition program under Bush.

The same Executive Order does specifically prohibit interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under our international treaty obligations.

Other executive orders have or will. The concept of "torture under our international treaty obligations" is a subject that has received much debate. Anyone claims to be able to define it is deluded.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The concept of "torture under our international treaty obligations" is a subject that has received much debate. Anyone claims to be able to define it is deluded.

If it is subject to debate, and I agree it is, it should be adjudicated by the judicial branch (even it it had to be in secret) and NOT determined by the DoJ attorneys who provided Bush with an interpretation that justified the actions.

Checks and balances!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

If it is subject to debate, and I agree it is, it should be adjudicated by the judicial branch (even it it had to be in secret) and NOT determined by the DoJ attorneys who provided Bush with an interpretation that justified the actions.

Checks and balances!

Why? You think that the DOJ under Obama is not going to do the same thing and have their own interpretations about things. Hell, take a look at Janet Reno. There is a long running history and precident set, and it wasn't by Bush.

What did Reno do that was potentially illegal?

Bush took unilateral determination of matters of constitutional law to a new level on several fronts....with his interpretation of an AUMF to authorize anything remotely associated with his "war on terror" as "legal" being the most egregious.

[TheMercenary]

Reno failed to name independent counsel to investigate campaign finance tactics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions.

She gave the orders to burn down a building with un-armed women and children in it in Texas. Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime.

She was a party to the murder of an unarmed woman holding a baby by the FBI. Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional.

Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.

Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths.

Janet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces.

The list goes on...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Reno failed to name independent counsel to investigate campaign finance tactics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions.

Reno authorized an FBI investigation that found no violations of law.

The call for a special prosecutor was purely political....much like the whole Whitewater fiasco and the Republican congressional investigation of the White House christmas card list, the firing of the WH travel office, and the Clinton's cat, socks.

She gave the orders to burn down a building with un-armed women and children in it in Texas. Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime.

She was a party to the murder of an unarmed woman holding a baby by the FBI. Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional.

There are two sides to these sad incidents.

Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.

All US attorneys are generally fired at the start of a new president's term.

In fact, Bush had every right to fire the US attorneys at any time....the issue was Gonzales lying to Congress about why they were fired...and the subsequent discovery that the Bush DoJ illegally used political "tests" for career (non-US attorney) appointments, particularly in the Civil Rights division.

Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths.

I dont know a thing about this one.

anet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces.

I believe there was precedent to seek an opinion that civil actions against a president can be deferred until such time as the president becomes a private citizen.

[TheMercenary]

Janet Reno fired William Sessions and replaced him with Louis Freeh on July 19, 1993, the day before the body of Vince Foster was found in Fort Marcy Park, Under Freeh, the FBI has entered the most incompetent, unaccountable period in its history as shown by these facts: - Louis Freeh promoted his close friend Larry Potts despite the assistant FBI director's responsibility for both the disastrous Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges - Freeh's FBI illegally gave Clinton Administration personnel over 900 files, including those on political adversaries.

I simply refuse to engage in any conspiracy discussion about Vince Foster.

[TheMercenary]

I don't consider the facts surrounding the appointments as conspiracy theory. I don't support the notion that there was something else there other than obstruction.

[classicman]

MTP - I agree that much of the money being spent in this plan is for "worthy causes", but this is a STIMULUS BILL. The overwhelming intent, if not the entirety of this bill, as promised repeatedly, is to generate jobs and jumpstart the economy. At another time and under different circumstances, a bill like this would be wonderful. This is not a stimulus bill - thats the point we are debating here. Call it something else and the reaction would be very, very different. I'd be very interested to see the reaction if this bill was brought to the house under any other name.

I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base? If a person is frustrating, pigheaded and outright hostile to work with, are you going to work with them? No. I'm not saying that the republicans are all like this, but I can't help but think that dems are not the only ones with character flaws.
Maybe the republican voters should take another look at their republican representatives.

Try looking at that statement without the labels Dem & Rep. I think that is a little more accurate. This has been going on for a long time and the party with a majority has always done this. The difference this time is that there is such an overwhelming disparity in the numbers of representatives from each party. The D's have virtually all the power right now and do not need the R's to pass anything. They have the power to do it all without them.

Regarding the last line - think of it this way. Isn't that the reason why the R's are in the minority? The voters did exactly that.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

I simply refuse to engage in any conspiracy discussion about Vince Foster.

Of all the conspiracy theories about Clinton, that one is the dumbest.

And the most optimistic.

[sugarpop]

Hello! People! Spending IS stimulus! Why don't you get that?