Obama Watch

S. Fourteen · Jan 27, 2009

Purely symbolic.

_carmi · Jan 27, 2009

Nah I feel it's going to happen, unless there are some legal issues to straighten that are going to take more time than expected. They consider suing the Bush administration. Obama said it himself. He doesn't follow through, he's gonna have a hard time being re-elected. Because Americans have very high expectations about him.

S. Fourteen · Jan 28, 2009

Closing it is not going to stop wars or embassy bombings and, certainly, it won't prevent further detention of suspected terrorists. It's just an image of doing the right thing.

Another image of doing the right thing is telling Israel to back the fuckk off in front of the world, but that's not likely to happen. Right?

Shadows · Jan 29, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama signed an equal pay bill into law Thursday, declaring that it's a family issue, not just a women's issue.

Obama touts equal-pay bill at signing ceremony - White House- msnbc.com

Elmira · Jan 29, 2009

My immediate concern was with the rumored cost of the campaign and inaugaration ceremonies together. Was it so necessary to spend nearly $150 million on the event? To have Beyonce there, really? Why does everything have to be such a circus with these people? I can't imagine any other country doing the same, there is no tact to this, no consideration to the state of the economy.

And the private donors who for the most part contributed that money, is there no better cause they could think of to give the money to?

All that there just rubbed me the wrong way from the start.

Shadows · Jan 29, 2009

^I think you got it spot on, but what I DO like is that he has started to do what he said he was going to do right away. Not much Presidents even do half the shit they say they will do.

Jokerman · Jan 30, 2009

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Duke · Jan 30, 2009

^ Interesting read. Also well written, not as dry as most political opinions put to script.

Jokerman · Jan 31, 2009

^And that's one of the main problems I see with Obama. Appointments have been made that do not represent real change, just more of the political inside-the-beltway politics as usual. I don’t know why Obama feels he has to surround himself with the political elite, who were mostly Clinton’s political elite. As his Secretary of Education, he chose Arne Duncan. Duncan is a lawyer playing educator who was picked to head the disastrous Chicago school system. Obama knows him from Harvard where he was captain of the basketball team. He also lived in Obama’s neighborhood and they played basketball together. But he’s not an educator and what he did to Chicago’s school system shows it. It’s all about test taking with him, rote learning. He fired every teacher in schools where students scored lowest in tests, i.e., ghetto schools. Then he fired the next batch of teachers when they failed to raise scores. You think maybe the methods used need to be changed? Obama wouldn’t even send his own children to Arne’s schools; he sent them somewhere else. Meanwhile, on Obama’s education transition team, he had one of the best educators in the country, Professor Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University. So why didn’t he ask her to be Secretary of Education? Could it be because she’s progressive and the Republicans don’t like her or progress? I won’t even go into his economic appointments here.

Obama should be picking someone who knows something about kids, cares about education, and doesn’t think it’s just another business that they have to come in and raise the stock value of, the test scores. My concern is that we have just gone through 20 years of Administrations where we saw massive cronyism, we saw the dangers of people with elite backgrounds, coming from Ivy League schools with a lot of friendships and a lot of loyalty, and not once during those 20 years have we seen the environment improve and we have not seen a major reform in campaign contributions at all.

Obama had to raise $800 million dollars to run for President. It’s no different than Bloomberg spending $65 million out of his own pocket to buy the mayorship of New York. It’s a vanity job. These are all vanity jobs. And the trouble is, the type of humility, the type of humanistic and spiritual values that people who are in responsible positions should have, are so often missing from so many of the people who desperately need to get that position. And in our society, you don’t get it on your own. You get these positions by agreeing to work with groups of people who then become your extended campaign. And the Wall Street banking firms, the credit card industries, the pharmaceutical industries, the insurance industries are the people who give the largest amount of money. And then we wonder how we ended up giving $340 billion to the farming lobby, the people who don’t really grow anything we need, and yet the small farmers we don’t give a nickel to. We wonder why we’re throwing $700 billion or $1.2 trillion into a black hole of a banking industry.

So we don’t see real changes, a shift of real reform and real progress to fix the problems that need to be fixed. Obama might have the best of intentions, but the people who surround him, who financially supported him and are in his circle are the ones who voices will be the ones heard, and we’ll just have another highly charismatic John F. Kennedy, who was actually a complete failure as President.

So we have to look at every one of these appointees and ask whose interests are they going to represent? Are they going to represent the average person or the people who are in power? Thus far, of over 70 appointees and all the people they bring with them, they are part of the permanent functioning group in Washington. The Bush holdovers, the Clinton acolytes, the special interest groups. There are thousands of truly gifted and progressive minds in this country who would be so much better, and they are beholden to no special interest group. But it looks like Obama just wants to stay somewhere in the middle.

Duke · Jan 31, 2009

Jokerman said:

You hit home ground. That's exactly what many intellectuals in Europe have always thought wrong with the current American political system. It is on the governmental side so interwoven with commerce that it's very hard, if not impossible, to see where one stops and becomes the other. The lobbying, the immense campaign spendings to gain popularity, where that money comes from (back to the lobbyists), etc.

And again exactly as you point out, Obama himself, the man personally, sure he might be very interested in Change (with a capital C), but are the people around him equally interested? Can you interest the system? I think they aren't and he can't change it. And that's the big worry.

It's very easy for the USA and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world, to mount the ramparts and wave the flag of Change in welcome to a new order in the White House, a new way of doing things, but unless there's a clear way of defining and obtaining the Changes you want made, it's a big balloon of hot air, much the same as any campaign-lie told throughout the decades.

Now, again, this doesn't say that Obama himself has been dangling a carrot in front of our noses and is now laughing it up at Penn. Ave, I think his intentions are good, but as ironic as it may seem, I don't think even a determined president can make as many changes as he might want.

Then again, I hope he proves me wrong.

Shadows · Feb 6, 2009

Obama ridicules Republican's 'losing formula'

Obama names advisers to help right economy - White House- msnbc.com

Jokerman · Apr 10, 2009

Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia. They're playing it off as he just bent down to shake his hand, but he clearly bowed. I understand that he did it to show respect and follow the custom in that country, but I think it was wrong. It's not like this guy is a respectable person, even among other Muslim countries. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from our “staunch ally," Saudi Arabia. No US President has ever bowed to a king and Obama shouldn't have done it.

[youtube]9WlqW6UCeaY[/youtube]

S O F I · Apr 10, 2009

^Agreed. Not to forget that the king, and the country for that matter, isn't really known for respecting women's rights. I wouldn't bow to a person like that. I think it was a big mistake on Obama's part.

Shadows · Apr 10, 2009

I guess he sees it as he needs to bow to a jack ass like that to get a point across.

Flipmo · Apr 10, 2009

Jokerman said:

Even if he isn't a respectable person, he holds a position of power, and you greet someone with respect despite their allegiance or policies.
It doesn't even look like a bow, he held his hand and lowered his head (him being tall doesn't help), just like many Arabs do around here. You're all making it sound like he's bowing down dominatrix style.

At least that's my opinion, maybe cause I'm just used to be around Maghrebs and Arabs of the Middle-East. lol

S O F I · Apr 16, 2009

Report Card on Civil Liberties

Obama pledged to reject the Bush administration's fast-and-loose adherence to constitutional rights. How is he doing?

Adam Serwer | April 15, 2009 | web only

Report Card on Civil Liberties

(AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

During his inauguration speech, President Barack Obama declared, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." These were words many Americans who voted for Obama longed to hear -- an acknowledgement that American security could not be purchased by shredding the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

In these first few months, the Obama administration has taken a number of positions on issues relating to civil liberties and the fight against terrorism. Below, we look at how the administration has handled its commitment to reversing the policies of the previous administration.

Interrogation
On Jan. 22, 2009, two days after having taken office, Obama issued an executive order instructing all agents of the U.S. government to follow interrogation procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual, which bans the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The executive order states plainly that individuals in U.S. custody shall "in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)."

This is a marked change from the Bush administration's guidelines, which held that the "executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack" trumped all legal and treaty obligations governing how detainees should be treated. The Bush administration's definition of torture "was so narrow as to allow almost anything," according to Ken Gude, an expert on human rights and international law at the Center for American Progress.

"This is the one area where I think we've seen the most change. There will be no gray areas; we've got a pretty clear standard," Gude says. By instructing adherence to the Field Manual, the administration has signaled "there will be no attempt to redefine language to allow things that people would generally consider torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Verdict: Change we can believe in.

Rendition
The same executive order that banned "enhanced interrogation" techniques also ordered the CIA to close the infamous "black sites" where detainees were interrogated and held without trial. It also prohibited the transfer of individuals to other countries to face torture, or transfers with the "purpose or effect" of undermining the United States' obligation to "ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

On April 9, CIA Director Leon Panetta issued a memo to Congress confirming that the black sites had in fact been closed but that the CIA retains the authority to detain individuals solely "on a short-term transitory basis." Gude explains that there is a difference between "extraordinary rendition," the process by which detainees were rendered to CIA "black sites" or to other third countries where they would likely be tortured, and "rendition," which is the transfer of detainees outside the normal extradition process. The purpose of extraordinary rendition, Gude says, is to keep suspects outside of the justice system, while the purpose of rendition is to transfer them into a country where they can be tried for their alleged crimes.

"The Obama administration has ceased the process of extraordinary rendition, but rendition exists as an option," Gude says, adding that it is not necessarily a bad thing. "There are times when it's not feasible for governments to follow the traditional extradition process, simply because cooperation between the United States and another government is not always possible."

On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union's Jonathan Hafetz who has acted as counsel in several cases involving terrorism detainees, cautions that even the CIA's limited detention authority may still lead to problems. "The suggestion that the CIA has authority to conduct extrajudicial handovers to foreign governments is ambiguous and troubling, as is the statement that the CIA can still conduct 'transitory' detentions."

Verdict: Change for the better, but questions remain.

Enemy Combatants/Detention Authority
The Bush administration took the term "enemy combatant" from a 1942 Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the military's authority to try several German saboteurs under military commissions during World War II. The Bush administration employed the designation to prevent detainees from seeking rights that they would be entitled to either as criminal suspects or prisoners of war.

In March, the Obama administration abandoned the use of the designation "enemy combatant" without relinquishing the authority to indefinitely detain individuals captured anywhere in the world without trial or charges. The only difference is that the Obama administration asserts that said authority comes from Congress' 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, rather than the president's "inherent" authority as commander in chief. The administration wrote that it would only detain those who were "part of" or had provided "substantial support" to terrorist groups, but it did not clearly define what constitutes "substantial support."

Last Friday, the Obama administration doubled down on this claim of authority when it appealed a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John Bates that held detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan who were captured in a third country are entitled to challenge their detention in civilian courts. "The courts are there as a check on the expansive claims of executive authority by any administration," says Sahr Muhammedally, a senior associate at Human Rights First. Muhammedally also cautions that detaining prisoners indefinitely without access to courts "is not the way to win the hearts and minds and cooperation of local Afghans."

"The Obama administration's abandonment of the term 'enemy combatants' for detainees at Guantánamo is largely window dressing. The administration thus far has continued to assert the legal authority to detain individuals indefinitely without charges based on the idea of a global 'war on terrorism,'" Hafetz says. "It has not abandoned the military paradigm that helped lead to the widespread abuses of power during the prior administration."

Verdict: More of the same.

Military Commissions
In the executive orders issued just after he took office, President Obama ordered a halt to the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The commissions were widely criticized by civil libertarians, legal experts, and even military lawyers.

Lt. Col. Darrel J. Vandeveld was a prosecutor assigned to the Mohamed Jawad case before a Guantánamo military commission. Jawad was accused of throwing a grenade at an American convoy in Afghanistan. Vandeveld resigned in September 2008 after he felt the government had suppressed exculpatory evidence. Vandeveld concluded in a statement that "the chaotic state of the evidence, overly broad and unnecessary restrictions imposed under the guise of national security, and the absence of any systematic, reliable method of preserving and cataloguing evidence … make it impossible for anyone involved (the prosecutors) or caught up (the detainees) in the Commissions to harbor even the remotest hope that justice is an achievable goal."

"The administration needs to make a clear break with the past and make clear that treating terrorist suspects through the civilian criminal-justice system is not simply an option but a requirement under our laws and Constitution," the ACLU's Hafetz says.

Eugene Fidell, a military-law expert who teaches at Yale, told the Prospect in February that the military commissions "don't engender public confidence here, much less abroad, and it's time to finish them off."

The Obama administration is currently reviewing the status of all Guantánamo detainees, but it has not come to a conclusion as to how it will deal with those it believes are guilty of crimes. However, the administration's decision to appeal Judge Bates' ruling doesn't bode well for the future.

Verdict: Inconclusive.

State Secrets
During the election, Obama criticized the secrecy of the Bush administration, noting that it had invoked the "state secrets" privilege to dismiss entire lawsuits relating to warrantless surveillance, torture, and extraordinary rendition. In a written response to questions from Sen. Russ Feingold, Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to "ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations."

Since taking office, the Obama administration has invoked the state-secrets privilege in three cases: Jewel v. NSA and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, both involving the constitutionality of the government's warrantless surveillance program; and Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., in which five men who were subject to extraordinary rendition are suing a Boeing subsidiary that they allege participated in their transfer to countries where they were tortured.

"The Obama administration campaigned hard on getting rid of the excessive secrecy of the Bush administration, so it's very disappointing to see them take the same line on state secrets," says Cindy Cohen of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "I think a lot of people voted for Obama on the hopes that he would take a different position."

Two members of the administration, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, signed on to a bill in 2008 that would regulate the use of the privilege by giving judges authority on what constitutes a state secret. The bill was reintroduced in February by Feingold and Sens. Patrick Leahy, Arlen Specter, and Ted Kennedy. There is no word yet as to whether Obama will sign the bill if passed.

Verdict: More of the same.

Surveillance
Separate from the Obama administration's continued abuse of the state-secrets privilege is the "sovereign immunity" the administration asserted in documents filed in the Jewel v. NSA case. Sovereign immunity is the idea that the state cannot be sued unless it consents to the suit. The Bush administration had previously invoked "sovereign immunity" arguments to block judicial scrutiny of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cases, but the Obama administration went further, arguing that the government is essentially immune from lawsuits involving wiretapping under any circumstances. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the administration writes, "Congress expressly preserved sovereign immunity against claims for damages and equitable relief, permitting such claims against only a 'person or entity, other than the United States.'"

This argument is "extremely troubling," Cohen says. "It means that even in a regular lawsuit, not involving terror but involving the government tapping you illegally, you would not be able to sue them."

"The Obama administration is arguing instead that you can only sue the government when they disclose a wiretap that was supposed to remain secret," Cohen continues. "The only protection the American people have is when the government decides it's done something wrong." What's the likelihood of that?

Verdict: Cheney on Red Bull.

General Disclosure
In March, Attorney General Holder issued new guidelines for Freedom of Information Act requests, directing the Department of Justice to err on the side of disclosure. The department would defend a refusal to disclose only if the disclosure could cause foreseeable harm to national security or law-enforcement interests or if disclosing the information is illegal. By contrast, the Justice Department under Bush erred on the side of not disclosing documents whenever legally possible. In early March, Holder released nine previously secret Bush-era memos from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in response to FOIA litigation from the ACLU and other organizations. Among the memos was one written by John Yoo, which concluded that the president could ignore constitutional protections when fighting terrorism, even when it comes to American citizens.

Despite Holder's positive moves on FOIA requests, the administration has nevertheless invoked the state-secrets doctrine several times to avoid judicial scrutiny of government behavior. A huge test of the Obama administration's commitment to transparency comes today, the deadline for the administration to disclose another set of three memos written by Steven G. Bradbury, former head of the OLC. The deadline has been extended several times -- the administration agreed to disclose a fourth memo authored by former OLC lawyer Jay Bybee in exchange for the latest extension. Michael Isikoff reported in Newsweek that former Bush administration officials, as well as CIA Chief Leon Panetta and Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, have been fighting disclosure. Scott Horton also reported for The Daily Beast that congressional Republicans were attempting to prevent disclosure of the memos by filibustering Obama's legal appointments.

Whether the administration meets this deadline is a key signal for civil-liberties groups, says Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU. "The Obama administration is going to have to decide whether they're going to live up to their commitment on transparency or whether they're going to cover up the Bush administration's crimes."

Verdict: Inconclusive.

Report Card on Civil Liberties | The American Prospect

Flipmo · May 28, 2009

I didn't want to make a thread for it, but what are everyones opinions on North Korea, and how do you think Obama will react...?

Glockmatic · May 30, 2009

North Korea is basically the kid that was picked on in middle school but now is roided up and raging. Nothing can really be done to North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq and bogging down NATO and the US while South Korea and Japan have too much to lose in a war with NK if they fight alone.

Obama will do like what other leaders will do. Put more sanctions on NK which won't really do much and wait for Kim Jong Ill to die, maybe that will allow some less extreme leader take over.

S O F I · May 30, 2009

Basically what glockmatic said.

I'm just interested to see what will happen when US and South Korean ships intercept North Korea's ships.

Jokerman · May 30, 2009

Obama & Co. will do what they do with every problem: print more money and give N. Korea a bailout package.

Obama Watch

Well-Known Member

me, myself & us

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

VIP Member

Administrator

VIP Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Donate