Barack Obama Turns His Back On Change And Embraces Bush

Remember Barack Obama during the campaign — full of hope, change, and promises to make a clean break from the disastrous policies of George Bush? 6 months into his Presidency, not only has he failed to live up to the most basic of his promises, but he has embraced many of Bush’s most asinine and destructive positions.

Days before his inauguration, Obama made it clear he would close Guantanamo Bay, begin the process of moving current detainees through US or international legal systems, and stop torture from being committed by Americans. In fact, he blankly stated [via MSNBC]:

“I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture,” Obama said… “We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.”

And now? [via Wall Street Journal]

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission…

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Yes, you read that right folks! Barack Obama’s administration is using the same legal justification as George Bush’s to detain ’suspected war criminals’, even if they are found innocent by a military tribunal or American court.

Oh, and remember how he was opposed to Bush’s consolidation of powers in the executive branch and the NSA wiretapping program:

This is in late 2007, but Obama’s message is clear: Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program is illegal, against the principle and spirit of the Constitution, and completely unjustifiable, even with ‘terrorist threats’.

Welp, 6 months into his administration, guess what! Obama now wants to protect the warrantless wiretap program [via the Electronic Frontier Foundation]:

The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration’s position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets.” These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF’s lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

Oh, and not to mention that he is now encouraging failed banks and companies receiving government bailouts to hand out large bonuses to their executives, staffed his entire Treasury Department with Goldman Sachs alumni, has refused to prosecute Americans who committed torture, and held private meetings with coal executives and continued to push for mythical ‘clean coal’.

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/news-t...embraces-bush/

The DC party never loses a presidential election.

Obama is serving Bush's 3rd term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Obama is serving Bush's 3rd term.

---

No, I'd say Carter's second term...

Well, to be a bit more fair, I would say the article actually omits a couple of relevant things:
1) Obama did vote in favor of the TARP
2) Obama did vote in favor of amnesty to telecoms on the wiretap case

And he did both things before he won the presidential elections.
I actually called him out on these things back then, since I didn't like either of them.

Also, the common citizen has no earthly clue, or can even fathom many of the secrets and truths that the President of the United States is made aware of once in office...

I would say that those secrets likely change a man's perspective because knowledge of that nature would have to be life changing... campaign stances be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Also, the common citizen has no earthly clue, or can even fathom many of the secrets and truths that the President of the United States is made aware of once in office...

I would say that those secrets likely change a man's perspective because knowledge of that nature would have to be life changing... campaign stances be damned.

---

Eh, I still think his stances on civil liberties are crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lngrrrr

eh, i still think his stances on civil liberties are crap.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Eh, I still think his stances on civil liberties are crap.

---

Perhaps...

What I'm saying, is that who know what we would do in his position... given the same knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Perhaps...

What I'm saying, is that who know what we would do in his position... given the same knowledge.

---

Of course. But I'd like to think that I wouldn't go back on certain standards I had.

It's like the whole, "Would you push a person in front of a train to save 3 other people?" question. No one knows what they'd do, for sure, unless put in that situation.

Obama said whatever he needed to in order to get elected - including demonizing Bush. Well - now that Obama is the one getting the daily security briefings, I think he's finding it wasn't so black and white (pardon the pun) and that it was a much harder job keeping this country and its citizens safe. I think he's finding that Bush was using all tactics necessary to keep this country safe - and he can't stop them or he risks another 9/11.

And if that happens, not only will it cost innocent lives, it will spell the end of the democrats power for a long time.

Quote:

---

And if that happens, not only will it cost innocent lives, it will spell the end of the democrats power for a long time.

---

It could go the other way too. In times of trouble people rally around the flag and high government officials. They did eight years ago anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Also, the common citizen has no earthly clue, or can even fathom many of the secrets and truths that the President of the United States is made aware of once in office...

I would say that those secrets likely change a man's perspective because knowledge of that nature would have to be life changing... campaign stances be damned.

---

That's rather conspiratorially minded. Was that your intent?

The notion that there is some great truth which must be held from the masses for their own good is an affront to anyone who'd rather not live in artificial fear and darkness.

Anyways, here's the great secret: the federal government and our society in general are organized on the basis of precepts which originated with Rousseau and were honed in Germany in the 19th century. The powers that be in late 19th/early 20th century US wholeheartedly embraced these in the face of exploding immigration and an industrialized, consolidated economy. There's a reason children in public schools say the pledge every morning and it has nothing to do with their cursory historical studies. The state and large business interests both had a stake in ensuring that the large, ever more foreign masses be made manageable and not allowed to actually exercise that power which was granted to them through the Constitution. The surest way to do that was to shape their knowledge and understanding of the world from a young age...and impose on them a love of country, instead of allowing that to develop naturally and with cause.

The truth is vastly more boring and far more insidious than the fiction dreamed up by the likes of Galileo and his ilk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

That's rather conspiratorially minded. Was that your intent?

The notion that there is some great truth which must be held from the masses for their own good is an affront to anyone who'd rather not live in artificial fear and darkness.

Anyways, here's the great secret: the federal government and our society in general are organized on the basis of precepts which originated with Rousseau and were honed in Germany in the 19th century. The powers that be in late 19th/early 20th century US wholeheartedly embraced these in the face of exploding immigration and an industrialized, consolidated economy. There's a reason children in public schools say the pledge every morning and it has nothing to do with their cursory historical studies.

---

No... I was referring mostly to the daily barrage of security briefings that Crookshanks later touched upon...

I mean does anyone honestly expect our government to divulge any intel received from such detainees without affecting the effectiveness of our own campaigns against terrorism? It would make no sense whatsoever to keep them detained, unless they were actually being useful in our counterterrorism initiatives. Unfortunately, the connections cannot be divulged without risking their future usefulness... and all to appease the public's misinformed opinion on the subject.

Quote:

---

I mean does anyone honestly expect our government to divulge any intel received from such detainees without affecting the effectiveness of our own campaigns against terrorism? It would make no sense whatsoever to keep them detained, unless they were actually being useful in our counterterrorism initiatives. Unfortunately, the connections cannot be divulged without risking their future usefulness... and all to appease the public's misinformed appeals on behalf of the detained.

---

The continuing necessity of military tribunals and administrative detention is not so clear as the continuing need for secrecy.

it's not if you win or lose, but how you look doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

No... I was referring mostly to the daily barrage of security briefings that Crookshanks later touched upon...

I mean does anyone honestly expect our government to divulge any intel received from such detainees without affecting the effectiveness of our own campaigns against terrorism? It would make no sense whatsoever to keep them detained, unless they were actually being useful in our counterterrorism initiatives. Unfortunately, the connections cannot be divulged without risking their future usefulness... and all to appease the public's misinformed opinion on the subject.

---

Ahhh.. but logic or the rule of law need not apply when the subjects are 'enemy combatants'.

Further, the purpose of the great secret was to impose a class based society on a nation whose preeminent principle was that all were created equal and endowed with certain inherent rights as individuals. Lest the masses get any ideas, their betters took over and deployed certain methods to ensure that the lower classes know their role in the new industrial age. In cynical exchange, the betters pushed to give the masses free items to mollify and shape them into good, loyal "Americans."

Yet again today do we see some claiming as "rights" yet more methods to control the masses and usurp their real fundamental rights.

Hey... I'm not saying I support their methods on incoherent grounds... I'm simply saying we don't have all the details...

As for the original, um, article, it does make you wonder what all of the fuss was about last year. "More of the same!" is not the most appealing political slogan, I guess. Of course, one then has to examine the hyperbole from the opposition which had the current occupant of the White House installing a direct line to his buddy UBL in the Oval Office on the day he was inaugurated. The 'socialist' work of his predecessor is all but ignored. Our politics are perfectly American. A grand spectacle of morons yelling at each other while proclaiming the second resurrection should their side win, or the end of civilization should defeat result, with no fundamental changes once the electoral circle jerk ends. One could be cynical and wonder what the real game is, but that would require diverting one's attention away from The Bachelor V: This Time, He's A She or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

No... I was referring mostly to the daily barrage of security briefings that Crookshanks later touched upon...

I mean does anyone honestly expect our government to divulge any intel received from such detainees without affecting the effectiveness of our own campaigns against terrorism? It would make no sense whatsoever to keep them detained, unless they were actually being useful in our counterterrorism initiatives. Unfortunately, the connections cannot be divulged without risking their future usefulness... and all to appease the public's misinformed opinion on the subject.

---

Right... because keeping them locked up couldn't possibly A) save them face or B) help out your buddies who pay to make the prisons or C) help get you reelected by looking tough on terrorism or D) any number of other reasons...

The point is, even if there was a good reason for keeping people locked up, indefinitely, it doesn't make it RIGHT. It makes us tyrants, and this country was formed in the first place to get away from those.

Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution and for good reason. Our Constitution and the ideals espoused within are not just special laws for US citizens. They are a guide, a framework for what our Founding Fathers thought are the most FAIR and MORAL way to run a country. I am loathe to give them up for an illusory security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Right... because keeping them locked up couldn't possibly A) save them face or B) help out your buddies who pay to make the prisons or C) help get you reelected by looking tough on terrorism or D) any number of other reasons...

The point is, even if there was a good reason for keeping people locked up, indefinitely, it doesn't make it RIGHT. It makes us tyrants, and this country was formed in the first place to get away from those.

Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution and for good reason. Our Constitution and the ideals espoused within are not just special laws for US citizens. They are a guide, a framework for what our Founding Fathers thought are the most FAIR and MORAL way to run a country. I am loathe to give them up for an illusory security.

---

But them's terrersts and not good red blooded hard workin' muricans. Why kaint yew know that our guvmint woodn't dew anyting like dat to us muricans?

Ironically, these are criticisms of the FAR LEFT against the Obama administration, not wing-nuts or the M$M...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

But them's terrersts and not good red blooded hard workin' muricans. Why kaint yew know that our guvmint woodn't dew anyting like dat to us muricans?

---

Silly me! Of course, being declared a terrorist already makes one such.

For certainly, the executive knows no wrong, and never would a person accidentally get caught up in GTMO unless they were the 'worst of the worst'! For our military is infallible, and much like the Mounties, they always get their man, and it is always the right man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Silly me! Of course, being declared a terrorist already makes one such.

For certainly, the executive knows no wrong, and never would a person accidentally get caught up in GTMO unless they were the 'worst of the worst'! For our military is infallible, and much like the Mounties, they always get their man, and it is always the right man.

---

Right, but those so suspicious of the state domestically are ever so willing to bend over for the state so long as that enables it to prove our national manhood to those dirty swarthy ferriners. I've never understood how one can be so suspicious of the state internally, and yet so sycophantic when it comes to its 'external' activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Right... because keeping them locked up couldn't possibly A) save them face or B) help out your buddies who pay to make the prisons or C) help get you reelected by looking tough on terrorism or D) any number of other reasons...

The point is, even if there was a good reason for keeping people locked up, indefinitely, it doesn't make it RIGHT. It makes us tyrants, and this country was formed in the first place to get away from those.

Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution and for good reason. Our Constitution and the ideals espoused within are not just special laws for US citizens. They are a guide, a framework for what our Founding Fathers thought are the most FAIR and MORAL way to run a country. I am loathe to give them up for an illusory security.

---

You're barking up the wrong tree buddy... like I said, I don't support the methods, or the suspension of habeas corpus at all, whatsoever... I'm simply trying to rationalize the reasons that the government may have for continuing the practices... Particularly in light of the fact that the man 'we' placed in power, one who said would abolish the interrogation methods, detentions, etc... has chosen not to do so. I don't know the context behind his decision to 'embrace the same old crap,' but I imagine it must be valid. Afterall, isn't that the benefit of the doubt that we're supposed to extend the President during his first year in office??? (At least that's what I'm led to believe by FOX News).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

But them's terrersts and not good red blooded hard workin' muricans. Why kaint yew know that our guvmint woodn't dew anyting like dat to us muricans?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

You're barking up the wrong tree buddy... like I said, I don't support the methods, or the suspension of habeas corpus at all, whatsoever... I'm simply trying to rationalize the reasons that the government may have for continuing the practices... Particularly in light of the fact that the man 'we' placed in power, one who said would abolish the interrogation methods, detentions, etc... has chosen not to do so. I don't know the context behind his decision to 'embrace the same old crap,' but I imagine it must be valid. Afterall, isn't that the benefit of the doubt that we're supposed to extend the President during his first year in office??? (At least that's what I'm led to believe by FOX News).

---

Pfft I don't place the benefit of the doubt in those that would choose to entrench greater power for themselves.

One can rationalize all they wish. I could rationalize stealing for my family, and I could rationalize lying to the police about it afterwards. That wouldn't make my actions correct though, and those actions would almost certainly be immoral.