President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.
McConnell is positively gushing with praise that “the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . ” Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank god every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.
Hayden, who is my neighbor in Virginia, has also opposed any prosecution for torture under the Bush Administration. Obama has pleased many in the Bush Administration by insisting that CIA personnel will never face prosecution for torture — despite our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Hayden’s surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Hayden’s program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review — and Obama ultimately stopped it.
I accept that people of good faith can disagree with civil libertarians on some of these programs — though even the Bush Administration came to reject the legal analysis of the torture programs. However, Hayden and Obama did not want to risk federal courts resolving this matter on issues like surveillance. Instead, they just circumvented the legal system. The pat on the back for a job well done by Hayden and McConnell should give someone in his Administration a moment of pause . . but I doubt it.
Source: SiFy
Jonathan Turley
I think it could be considered more unprincipled to turn our country over to Sarah Palin.
There is still one person, one vote in this nation. We do not have to bow to the candidates the oligarchy presents to us, nor should we. FFLEO makes a very good point on being a principled voter. Today, we get the announcement of indefinite detention by the Bush, oops, I mean, Obama administration. There has to be a point at which one simply will not vote for a candidate. When that candidate has violated basic human rights and taken for himself the right to indefinitely detain without trial or to kill without trial other human beings, then one if honest, must say this is a dictator and one is voting for a dictatorship. It is better to go down fighting to preserve our Constitution than to vote that very document into non-existence through loyalty to party over principle.
Bloomberg said that he is not running, Blouise. John Thune may be jumping in. He might be the ticket for the republicans. I am not as sure as you are about Obama being re-elected. His move to the “center” apparently has helped but without some job growth it might not happen. FFLEO, politics cannot be principled without campaign finance reform. The politicians are owned by their conributors. The “Citizens vs United” decision, which I think you supported, gives the corporations an even larger role to play. Karl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce will not concede the election to Obama unless Palin is the nominee.
J. Brian Harris,
You, and you alone, may call me Blouse
Eventually one of us should turn right so that we may run into each other. 8)
“How in good conscience could a principled voter, especially an intelligent person who understands and is a champion for the rule of law, cast a vote for Mr. Obama?” FFLEO
=====================================================
The principled voter can’t.
rafflaw,
Admittedly I tend to view politics with a cynical eye.
No, I don’t believe the republicans agreed not to run a strong candidate … I believe the republicans decided not to run a strong candidate because they don’t have one strong enough to attract the numbers necessary to beat Obama. Instead they are concentrating on the states and will continue to do so. Do I believe they have said as much to Obama’s people … certainly. They will happily wait till 2016 when there will be a race similar to Gore/Bush.
If Obama truly screws up and puts himself in jeopardy with the Latinos and Blacks who in return look like they might decide to stay home on election day then, yes … the republicans will run a strong candidate. But that ain’t gonna happen …
Obama kept the tax cuts ’cause he’s a chicken-shit and doesn’t really understand the art of negotiating. He’s like an over anxious salesman who is willing to give away the store in order to get that 1 order. He’s like Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton … Gingrich was eventually forbidden by his Party from seeing Clinton alone ’cause Clinton could talk Gingrich into anything and did. After a few disasters, Gingrich always had to take a handler with him when he met with Clinton.
I do believe the deal’s been struck but like any deal between thieves …
Bloomberg could wreak havoc … and that may be another deal still in the negotiating phase …
There’s a reason people like Rove are attracted to politics.
The following is what concerns me the most about the good, intelligent people here who will likely still cast an unprincipled vote for Mr. Obama in 2012, irrespective of his cover-ups of past war crimes and torture and his escalation of illegal tactics under the guise of the war on terror.
I am a strong advocate for the death penalty in murder cases where there is no doubt whatsoever that a person murdered another with “malice aforethought.” I have detailed my thoughts regarding this before and others herein roundly rebuffed me because my stance was cruel and unusual punishment and that many innocent people have and could die under the death penalty.
Enter President Obama with his self-proclaimed ‘right’ to assassinate U.S. citizens without any due process whatsoever. What kind of deranged mind—except for that of a sociopathic murderer—would order the murder of another citizen, or any other human being for that matter, without a fair trial? We grant convicted murderers in the USA appeals while Mr. Obama would not even grant a fair trial for another American citizen before ordering his murder via someone under his command as Commander-In-Chief.
Therefore, some of you have criticized me for supporting the death penalty via trials and appeals yet you will or still could cast a vote for Mr. Obama, a man who would murder someone and hide under the cloak of ‘State Secrets’.
How in good conscience could a principled voter, especially an intelligent person who understands and is a champion for the rule of law, cast a vote for Mr. Obama?
Blouise,
Just what is the deal that has been struck? Are you suggesting that the White House gave the Republicans their tax give aways to the rich in exchange for them agreeing to not run a strong candidate against Obama in 2012? It would not surprise me, but I just can’t believe that the Republicans would agree to that and how could the White House trust them at this point? To be honest, I have alwasys wondered if the Obama White House bought George W. Bush’s silence on the Obama White House, with an agreement to not prosecute the torturers??
first kill all the republicans ………….
Apologies to Mr. W. Shakespeare
See Corrections. The closest Corrections facility to where I live is in the Door County Justice Center.
Sometimes a mistake I did not make gets corrected. The spelling checker on my computer insists that the correct spelling of “Blouise” is “Blouse.”
It is interesting when, by mistake, I mistakenly overlook the correcting of a mistake I did not make, thereby making it.
Perhaps trickle-down really works. Perhaps I should drink a coffee enema. 100% Arabaca; “Death by Chocolate Raspberry Cake” flavored. Start at the top, wait for many hours, and (like truth?), it eventually will get out.
Blouse (an everyone),
I knew it wouldn’t be right for me to turn left, so when the left turned left and left me and the right turned right without righting me, I was left topsy-turvy right where I was left, which left me in a place not right, right? Neither did I get left right in the muddle of the middle. Sinister dexterity is not my forte-fortissimo.
Swarthmore mom
1, December 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Blouise: You are right as usual. Who knows that what reapportionment is going to bring other than that Texas is gaining 3 or 4 additional seats.
========================================================
Hopefully you’ll be able to make up the loss in 2012 … only to lose it again in 2014 … watch the legislature closely and sound the alarm loudly!
Blouise: You are right as usual. Who knows that what reapportionment is going to bring other than that Texas is gaining 3 or 4 additional seats.
Swarthmore mom
1, December 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Blouise: If the Rove candidate beats the “family values” candidate in the republican primaries, the outcome could be different.
===============================================================
I really don’t think so … Rove is busy positioning for 2016 when he knows they stand a chance. I believe he will continue to push hard for state legislatures and governors in 2012 and 2014 as ground work for 2016. That is where the real and immediate danger exists. Liberals need to forget about Obama for a bit and look to their individual states.
What am I doing on this blog (or blawg, for those who believe in the law {remember please, that I believe in non-believing the law if it is adversarial to my belief(s)})? (J. Brian Harris)
Because you are afflicted with hope springing eternal …
Blouise: If the Rove candidate beats the “family values” candidate in the republican primaries, the outcome could be different.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
1, December 27, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Why do I always find myself left out of what is right?
=========================================================
Because you turned left? 🙂
Why do I always find myself left out of what is right?
Elaine M.
1, December 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Blouise,
We blew it in 2000 and 2004 too. Oh wait…the Supreme Court blew it in 2000!
==========================================================
…. how right you are!! Now I’m going to get all mad again!
Blouise,
We blew it in 2000 and 2004 too. Oh wait…the Supreme Court blew it in 2000!