[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 12 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Quote

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

Before the SC can rule cases must get to them. At this point in time, precedent for the president being able to treat enemy combatants differenty than other criminals has been established only by the 4th circuit court of appeals - and the challenge may well not get to the SC in our lifetimes.

Edit: Maybe need to explain that this precedent was the Padilla case and IMO one of the more important cases in our history - as precedent right this moment allows the president to chose either military commissions of federal court as the avenue of law for the same crime, and that moves us from a nation of laws to a nation of monarchial power - it allows personal choice to circumvent statute.

[Winstonm]

My real cynacism is held out for my personal belief that there is no longer a two-party system of politics in the U.S. - it doesn't really matter who gets elected and who doesn't at the highest seats at the national level as the lobbyists and special interest groups pick and chose who they will allow to run (via financial support). I think it impossible for a true grassroots candidate to ever gain a higher national seat than the odd seat now and again in the House of Representatives.

Perhaps I am simply journaling documentation to support my view and using this avenue as electronic filing.

Or maybe I can account for my reasons from within my worldview, and if you want to do the same you have to use my worldview.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 02:03 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 12 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

Quote

[/b] This “trust us we’re the government” approach to civil liberties was precisely what Madison and other framers rejected.

We probably have more such civil liberties oversight now than then. We have exactly the first sort of protection they didn't "reject," but specifically provided for - relatively short, temporary terms subjecting them to political unemployment if their constituents disapproved. We also have further oversight in the post-Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court power-grab: strong judicial review of laws for constitutionality.

Before the SC can rule cases must get to them. At this point in time, precedent for the president being able to treat enemy combatants differenty than other criminals has been established only by the 4th circuit court of appeals - and the challenge may well not get to the SC in our lifetimes.

I was primarily referring to the pseudo-historical appeal to "what Madison and other framers rejected." You certainly weren't going to get help from the Supreme Court in the late 18th century. Your protection was the power of the vote. Now, it's the power of the vote + whatever limitations the Supreme Court puts on various laws. But that addendum came a few decades after the founding of the country, courtesy of John Marshall.

[Lobowolf]

The Padilla case is extremely complicated. Unlawful enemy combatant status has a history (and Supreme Court review) going back to World War 2, at least.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 12 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

The Padilla case is extremely complicated.  Unlawful enemy combatant status has a history (and Supreme Court review) going back to World War 2, at least.

It isn't accurate IMO to compare the military tribunals created by the Cheney/Maybe Bush regime to historical uses of enemy combatants.

To my knowledge, the Cheney/Bush version has had various parts ruled on only twice by the SC, and both times Cheney/Bush lost. They made sure they could not lose the Padilla case by removing Padilla from military control and trying him in federal court, making mute his appeal to the SC, leaving only the 4th circuit court of appeals ruling as precedent.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Jimmy,

This specifically is a huge disappointment and a direct 180 degree change from what Obama had on his website during the presidential race.

Quote

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security.  That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama). 

And before anyone scans this a makes an absurd strawman claim about how state secrets are necessary - no one is claiming they are not. It is the Bush version of state secrets - having entire lawsuits tossed out without being heard, even when it the the government wrongdoing that is in question - that alters the very foundation of the checks and balances of our constitutional form of government.

It is this Bush version that the Obama DoJ is supporting.

i don't disagree with you, winston... for those who want change, a good start would be repealing the patriot act... i'll take the over on it being strengthened

[Winstonm]

Hey, Josh,

Here's some more change for ya.

Quote

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

Yes, indeed, we changed administrations - unfortunately, we did nothing to change the agenda of the power behind the throne.

Now I don't know who is the bigger hypocrite, Obama or Bush. At least Bush was an ignorant asshole and acted like an ignorant asshole. Unfortunately, Obama acts like a lawyer who knows who understands who signs his paycheck and it sure as hell ain't We the People.

[jdonn]

Gee, all for me? Thanks. You must think I'm incapable of finding my own paranoid bloggers!

I'll make a few points:

- Please at least do us a favor and don't reference misleading quotes.

Quote

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference.

Winston's found-quote du jour

Quote

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.

Los Angeles Times

I trust you will agree that "pursuit of weapons capability" is, how do you say, not quite "development of a nuclear weapon"?

- It's kind of pointless to degenerate into a war of googling, it will lead us nowhere.

Quote

Iran has long maintained that it aims to generate electricity, not build bombs, with nuclear power. But Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts increasingly view those claims as implausible.

U.S. officials said that although no new evidence had surfaced to undercut the findings of the 2007 estimate, there was growing consensus that it provided a misleading picture and that the country was poised to reach crucial bomb-making milestones this year.

Quote

Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.

See?

- I don't know why you bring up who is the bigger hypocrite, it doesn't have much to do with anything that I can see. Anyway the answer is clearly Obama because Bush is not a hypocrite at all imo. He is much too dumb to be able to pull off that quality. So I'll gladly admit we agree about that, although perhaps not about the degree.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

Hey, Josh,

Here's some more change for ya.

Quote

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

Yes, indeed, we changed administrations - unfortunately, we did nothing to change the agenda of the power behind the throne.

Now I don't know who is the bigger hypocrite, Obama or Bush. At least Bush was an ignorant asshole and acted like an ignorant asshole. Unfortunately, Obama acts like a lawyer who knows who understands who signs his paycheck and it sure as hell ain't We the People.

Just so I can understand your position better, is it that you would rather have:

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons
2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons
3) something else

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Feb 13 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons
2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons
3) something else

I think in Winston's case it's
4) A president who bases all his decisions on findings of the Bush intelligence team

[Winstonm]

I had hoped early on in the Presidential race that Obama would truly be different. As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right. I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

As I said before, I believe that Obama had the support for a radical departure from the norm - and business as usual politics will make him a huge disappointment to his supporters.

Quote

Just so I can understand your position better, is it that you would rather have:

1) a President who doesn't think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons
2) a President who doesn't care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons

3) a President who can admit it is not known and cannot be proven. And then if he acts, he admits he is acting of his presumptions and not facts.

Quote

4) A president who bases all his decisions on findings of the Bush intelligence team

So far that's all we are seeing is Cheney-Bush revisited with different actors in the leading roles - Obama-Biden. Some of us had dared hope that change meant actual policy change, not simply name changes.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right.  I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

Aha, now I see what you want in a president. You are upset that he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office. You want a president who lies about his positions just to get elected, then changes course as soon as he wins! Oh wait, we have had that already...

[Winstonm]

Quote

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

No, I don't believe these are the same words - but they imply a similar intention.
Do you claim that "pursuit of nuclear weapons capability" doesn't imply a future development of weapons would occur?

How is it that the President (either Bush or Obama) - who have never set foot inside Iran - know the intentions of Iran?

I am saying they don't know and can't know. I would like to see them quit spouting opinion as fact.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 13 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

As the race went on, though, he backed away from earlier positions and moved to the center-right.  I allowed myself to believe that this was simply rhetoric for election purposes and once elected he would move more center-left.

Turns out he is moving even more right that his rhetoric would lead one to believe.

Aha, now I see what you want in a president. You are upset that he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office. You want a president who lies about his positions just to get elected, then changes course as soon as he wins! Oh wait, we have had that already...

Quote

he moved to center-right while he was campaigning and then didn't move back left once in office

.

Oh, wow. A politician who has no core convictions but alters his position to gain votes based on which way the wind blows.

I know it is early - but so far the promise of change has turned out to be totally empty rhetoric IMO. I had hoped for better, but have only had my cynacism reinforced.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

No, I don't believe these are the same words - but they imply a similar intention.

Now who is stating opinion as fact?

Quote

Do you claim that "pursuit of nuclear weapons capability" doesn't imply a future development of weapons would occur?

Funny how you use quotation marks even though you stuck the word "nuclear" into that quote all by yourself. Anyway it implies such development could occur. Don't you agree that is worrisome?

Quote

How is it that the President (either Bush or Obama) - who have never set foot inside Iran - know the intentions of Iran?

Please show me where you have shown Obama claiming to know anyone's intentions.

Quote

I am saying they don't know and can't know.  I would like to see them quit spouting opinion as fact.

So in the last few posts you have:
- Said you believe Obama is a hypocrite
- Assumed what he is saying about Iran's intentions and stated it as fact
- Said you would like to see Obama stop spouting opinion as fact
Just clarifying what has happened here.

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

Oh, wow.  A politician who has no core convictions but alters his position to gain votes based on which way the wind blows.

I assume that is merely a sarcastic way to say "a politician who fights for what people actually want, instead of what his ideology convinces him is right." I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm a bit sad you don't feel the same way, although it certainly explains your cynacism.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Now who is stating opinion as fact?

This is getting un nowhere. I feel as though I am talking to Jimmy about morality and every word is scutinized and savaged. When the man said "development of nuclear weapons" and then corrected himself to "pursuit of weapons" to argue that the missing word "nuclear" was not the topic is as disingenuous as any literal wool-pulling ever done in the WC.

This is what I mean. You ask this:

Quote

Please show me where you have shown Obama claiming to know anyone's intentions

After providing your own answer with this:

Quote

In his news conference this week, President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability

President Obama saying Iran's pursuit of (nuclear) weapons clearly shows he believes he knows Iran's intentions.

Quote

I view that as a positive rather than a negative. I'm a bit sad you don't feel the same way, although it certainly explains your cynacism.

Truth is, Josh, I am considerably sadder than you I would think. I allowed myself to hope Obama might really bring change. Now I am simply chiding myself for falling for more political BS, repackaged.

You probably don't remember, but in another thread some time back I wrote that I hoped Obama would turn out to be who he proclaimed himself to be early on in the election process, but I was worried because I had seen him move progressively away from those early positions. I was especially concerned when he kept Gates and appointed Clinton. I held out a lot of hope for Eric Holder.

So much for that - first thing out of the box the Justice Department delivers the exact same Bush argument that state secrects prevent any litigation from even occuring.

So much for change.

[Lobowolf]

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Feb 13 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 13 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

The optimal amount

Winston's Feb. '09 Obfuscation calls are well in the money.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 13 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

How sure would you want a president to be about the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by a hostile nation before acting on the best available information?

You have to define nuclear capabilities - that can be a power station.
You have to dedine hostile nation - Iran has not directly threatened the U.S.
Israel, however, has nuclear weapons and has acted with aggression toward many neighboring countries. Is Israel a hostile nation?

We have signed treaty - The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that was signed by Iran and the U.S. That treaty grants Iran the right to produce nuclear power.

The better question to me is why sign a treaty if we don't follow it? When the IAEA and our own intelligence says that Iran is not actively engaged in nuclear arms production as far as they can tell, I would like to know how and from whom any opposing information was obtained that would cause the president to act.