Obama Changes… Once Again
April 9, 2009
Once more, President Obama changes his path and goes against his campaign pledges. Many of his supporters see this one as significant: his administration is now trying to make the federal government entirely immune from legal challenges to wire-tapping.
The list of unacceptable changes keeps growing…
- Sudan
- Armenia
- Wire-tapping
Advertisement
16 Comments
Comments are closed.
In so far as these “secrets” relate to torture, there is plenty of evidence in the possession of the British government, in particular, which, under our laws here, can be accessed by human rights lawyers, if with difficulty.
Under the laws of the European Union, if human rights violations stand no chance of being prosecuted in the criminals’ own countries, then the courts of Europe, including the International Commission on War Crimes in the Hague, MUST act.
By refusing to clean up its own house, the United States Government is setting itself up, inevitably, for the same kind of confrontation with European courts that the government of Chile suffered in the case of Pinochet.
I am surprised no one has brought the following up here on Vox Nova. I have cut a lot out of the article, so don’t take what is below as the complete story. Still, it looks like possible illegalities are involved.
Administration Seeks an Out On Bailout Rules for Firms
Officials Worry Constraints Set by Congress Deter Participation
The Patriot Act has a sunset provision that will force its reconsideration towards the end of the year. At that time, the Act will be substantially modified.
I think it is a little early to make a judgment on these matters.
Gerald
From what I understand, this transcends the Patriot Act, and imo, goes to a dangerous level of precedent. I’m not going to whitewash where I disagree with President Obama, because I think it is possible that respectable criticism might cause reconsideration. And I am trying to keep him honest to his promises, not expectations beyond them.
4. Iraq.
5. Guantanamo
I read somewhere, a blog I think it was, that Obama was lying in his campaign promises in order to pander to his base, and would not actually implement the measures he was promising to support, and that therefore, it was OK for those who opposed these promised measures to vote for Obama.
Although, as I recall, the issues under discussion at the time were abortion, embryo-destructive stem cell research, euthanasia, and other so-called “life” issues, rather than these issues related to war on terror.
Still, it puzzled me at the time how Obama supporters could be so sure he was lying, and also so sure they knew on which topics he would keep his promises and on which he would not.
Thank you S.B. Don’t forget those, Henry. Gitmo isn’t closed, and the illegal “transfer” of prisoners to hidden bases in Europe to endure more waterboarding and other forms of torture.
The evils of Bush + limitless abortion + striking down of conscience protection + opening the floodgates for federal funding of ESCR = Obama (which is really more a reflection of his puppeteers, whom he seems very loyal to).
I would be curious as to what he has changed in regards to Iraq. But I would say the issue of torture/prisons/etc could be #4.
And Paul, which people said that? Really. Don’t misrepresent the arguments people gave. I don’t remember anyone saying that about Obama, but I do know many have said similar about various justices before….
I do know many have said similar about various justices before….
Not the case.
He is a politician from Illinois. What did people really expect?
Henry,
When Congress takes up the Patriot Act later this fall, the question of warrantless wiretaps, the State secret’s clause, the right to sue the government for invasion of privacy, etc. will most likely be considered.
Nancy Pelosi is a strong advocate of personal liberties and I sense she will correct many of the things that are so troubling now through the passage of appropriate legislation.
Personally, I’d rather have changes made in the law than just leave it up to the administration to change its behavior. I think the Congress AND the Executive will work this out in a way that is satisfactory.
But, this is no reason to stop criticizing Obama. Criticism can serve to strengthen his hand. My comments are intended only to point to a strategy as I see it.
When Congress takes up the Patriot Act later this fall, the question of warrantless wiretaps, the State secret’s clause, the right to sue the government for invasion of privacy, etc. will most likely be considered.
That may be an accurate prediction, although it won’t be because any of the random topics you listed are actually part of the Patriot Act (with the exception being that Section 223 of the Patriot Act already does allow the right to sue the government for invasion of privacy).
S.B.
I agree. My point was merely to say that from a strategic perspective such thorny issues would most likely be given a thorough hearing once the amendments to Patriot Act comes up for review and after the reports of the Inspector’s General of the intelligence agencies have been finally submitted. Right now, my understanding is that the Bush administration’s interpretation of the Patriot Act provides for “sovereign immunity” and that if I’m illegally spied upon I can’t sue the government. So, it’s not the Patriot Act itself, but the interpretation that seems to be in question. Maybe you can clarify this.
Warrantless wiretaps were part of the “terrorist surveillance program” instituted by Bush, and somewhat ratified by Congress in the “Protect America” act. The “state secrets” privilege — as asserted by the Bush and now Obama administrations — isn’t part of the Patriot Act (as far as I can tell), but is a legal doctrine that has been applied by US courts at least since the 1950s.
S.B.,
Thanks.
Yeah, and that “Honest Abe” Lincoln started out saying he didn’t want to abolish slavery, either!
I’m afraid we have to make some allowances for how the political game is played–which has maybe more to do with the nature of the electorate (the deciders) than the inherent dishonesty of particular politicians.
Let’s wait beyond a few weeks to see how Obama’s pgame plays out–although I must say I am personally quite disappointed that Obama has yet to singlehandedly solve this worldwide economic problem thingy.