Fireball1244 wrote:My appraisal of Obama's performance is based upon the hand of cards he was dealt by the outgoing Administration. In my opinion, he's done as well as could be expected
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Realistic expectations would be a better way to phrase it I think. You don't expect a new world record when it's snowing, the track is mud up to the knee and you start the runner a kilometer behind the starting line.
And you don't hire an inexperienced junior senator to lead the world just because he reads aloud gracefully.
That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term. He definitely fell below my moderate expectations for him.
Many who defend him will nevertheless vote elsewhom this November.
I don't see how Americans have much choice but to let Obama take another turn and hope he does better.
Watch and learn.
You hire an experienced junior senator when your other choice is an ancient with no vision who has no idea what he's for or against, given how many times he had flipflopped. Not to mention the very real possibility of him dying in office, leaving an empty shell (and empty head) of a VP in charge.
I did watch last time, hoping Americans would boot Bush to the curb. Actually, not hoping, expecting. Anticipating. It was then that I realized Americans are a strange breed. If it weren't for the economy stagnating, I would be 100% certain Obama would be around for another term. Now I'm only 90% sure, and that's based on the cavalcade of buffoonery the Republicans are fronting. If Americans pick one of those fools over Obama then the 4 years of Obama will seem like the golden age comparatively.
So yeah, I'm watching. It is definitely interesting.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:31 pm
by Arcanis
Fireball1244 wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term.
I disagree with this.
To paraphrase from above: He stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009, new jobs are being created, unemployment is at a 3-year low; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.
I disagree that he stopped the collapse, more so he delayed it. Saying unemployment is at the lowest in his term isn't really saying much over all about his term, though I don't lay the huge numbers entirely at his feet either. The healthcare reform bill is a piece of crap that had some good things in it, ultimately I think it will either be ruled unconstitutional or collapse under its own weight. For Iraq he just didn't screw up Bush's plan so giving him credit for someone else's work doesn't seem too fair. He must have done an about face on DOMA, because last I saw he wasn't going to do anything to stop it. I hadn't seen anything about his immigration repeal of anti-gay policies so that is new to me.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:36 pm
by GreenGoo
noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term.
I disagree with this.
To paraphrase from above: He stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009, new jobs are being created, unemployment is at a 3-year low; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.
While I don't disagree with your list, there's no way you'd give a Republican president with the same metrics (GDP growth, unemployment, Iraq, banking reforms) a passing grade.
Not to mention he's fallen down in a lot of areas with regard to homeland security and personal liberties. I won't bother touching on his iffy stances with regard to IP. And his health care reform is not up to snuff imo either.
It's not that he hasn't accomplished good things. It's that a lot of them are middle level good things, when the country needs high level good things. You could argue health care reform is a high level thing, but it's missing a lot of the teeth it needed to really work. And bringing home the troops is the LEAST I expected of him. If he had done anything else it would have been a HUGE black spot on his record, in my opinion. So while it is a big deal, it only gets a "meets expectations" on his report card.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:43 pm
by tripcrow
At this point in time Joe Biden is worth maybe a few hundred more votes. Hilary may be worth a million by exciting female voters. Especially those from a base that has grown disillusioned by this president and may not turn out otherwise. The only counter Mitt would have would be to name a female as his running mate. And all he has to really pick from are gals that could work as the editor for one of Alan Harper’s favorite rags, The Crazy Bitch Gazette. Maybe he can dig somebody up. Who’s the governor of Idaho?
GreenGoo wrote:That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term.
I disagree with this.
To paraphrase from above: He stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009, new jobs are being created, unemployment is at a 3-year low; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.
While I don't disagree with your list, there's no way you'd give a Republican president with the same metrics (GDP growth, unemployment, Iraq, banking reforms) a passing grade.
Of course not, because that GOP president would have done terrible things on the other key issues, particularly health care and gay rights.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:45 pm
by Fireball
GreenGoo wrote:Not to mention he's fallen down in a lot of areas with regard to homeland security and personal liberties.
I agree. Though I wonder if there might not be extenuating circumstances in some of these cases that we don't know about. Still, I am disappointed in this regard.
I won't bother touching on his iffy stances with regard to IP.
Let's see what happens to SOPA and PIPA. Hopefully they'll die in Congress.
And his health care reform is not up to snuff imo either.
I disagree. It's a good set of reforms. They don't go far enough, but this was the most expansive reform package that ever would have passed Congress. Already, millions of Americans are better off because of it. It's an important set of reforms. We need to build on top of them, not tear them down and return to our previous course, which will lead to ever-larger portions of the population being shut out of medical care.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:20 pm
by gbasden
I give President Obama credit for the things he has accomplished. I think he has done a number of good things and handled the financial crisis about as well as could be expected.
I am deeply disappointed in his record on civil liberties, however. I expected a lot better. He has essentially followed right in Bush's footsteps on ever increasing Executive power. The treatment of Bradley Manning was appalling, and the provisions in the Defense Appropriations Bill were even more so.
Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill.
I'm seriously at the point of not supporting Obama next year. The only thing that's a thorn in my side is the field of absolute lunatics the Republicans are running. I can probably deal with a President Romney, but Newt? I might even hold my nose and vote for Paul if only because he's the only one talking about the erosion of the Constitution.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:22 pm
by Arcanis
gbasden wrote:I give President Obama credit for the things he has accomplished. I think he has done a number of good things and handled the financial crisis about as well as could be expected.
I am deeply disappointed in his record on civil liberties, however. I expected a lot better. He has essentially followed right in Bush's footsteps on ever increasing Executive power. The treatment of Bradley Manning was appalling, and the provisions in the Defense Appropriations Bill were even more so.
Unnerving many conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, the legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. House Republican leaders had to tamp down a small revolt among some rank-and-file who sought to delay a vote on the bill.
I'm seriously at the point of not supporting Obama next year. The only thing that's a thorn in my side is the field of absolute lunatics the Republicans are running. I can probably deal with a President Romney, but Newt? I might even hold my nose and vote for Paul if only because he's the only one talking about the erosion of the Constitution.
I liked Paul until I started hearing him talk on foreign policy. He now scares me more than the others because as President that is something he has a lot of control over and will be dealing with (unlike most things that may come up or may not).
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:32 pm
by Zarathud
The downside to selling hope is the difficulty of meeting unrealistic expectations in a less than ideal economic environment. Obama did acknowledge he would face opposition, but everyone forgets those nuanced statements prefering to remember (or belittle) the oratory.
Any expectation that Obama would be a libertarian was unfounded. He could have accomplished more, but even getting what he has accomplished deserves at least some recognition.
As far as predictions of disaster, that just hasn't happened. The world hadn't ended, and Sen. McCain is in the unlikely position of chastizing his party leadership for their obstruction of President Obama's agenda.
It amuses me that OO makes any political person feel like an optimist. We are Blackbirds of Happiness at times.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:36 pm
by Fireball
gbasden wrote:I am deeply disappointed in his record on civil liberties, however. I expected a lot better. He has essentially followed right in Bush's footsteps on ever increasing Executive power.
Obama has not moved things away from the war-footing established by President Bush on civil liberties, and I'm not happy with that. However, in many way's he's also diminished Presidential power through legislative deference to the Congress, which has been both good and bad.
The treatment of Bradley Manning was appalling, and the provisions in the Defense Appropriations Bill were even more so.
Regarding the NDAA, there are problems with the bill, but they are overblown by the media and hysterical people on the left. But, politically, the President cannot veto the budget for the entire Department of Defense. And in any case, his veto would have been overridden. To prevent things like the NDAA, we need to elect better people to Congress.
I'm seriously at the point of not supporting Obama next year.
Consider the Supreme Court before you vote. Do you want more justices like Scalia or Thomas? President Obama has appointed solid justices to the SCOTUS, something that would not happen under President Romney, whose appointments would reflect ever-greater deference to corporations, and likely have incredibly backwards attitudes towards the environment, women and the rights of gay Americans.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:57 pm
by Holman
Fireball1244 wrote:
Consider the Supreme Court before you vote. Do you want more justices like Scalia or Thomas? President Obama has appointed solid justices to the SCOTUS, something that would not happen under President Romney, whose appointments would reflect ever-greater deference to corporations, and likely have incredibly backwards attitudes towards the environment, women and the rights of gay Americans.
See, there you go with the Special Interests again, assuming that the civil rights of Female Americans and Gay Americans are somehow more important than the political rights of Corporate Americans.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:00 pm
by noxiousdog
Fireball1244 wrote:
Consider the Supreme Court before you vote. Do you want more justices like Scalia or Thomas? President Obama has appointed solid justices to the SCOTUS, something that would not happen under President Romney, whose appointments would reflect ever-greater deference to corporations, and likely have incredibly backwards attitudes towards the environment, women and the rights of gay Americans.
Kelo has been the worst Supreme Court decision in recent memory. That wasn't the result of Scalia or Thomas.
The only other controversial one I've heard is Citizen's United, and I tend to support freedom of speech myself, but others may vary.
So, I don't know that supreme court rulings are a good way to judge.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:13 pm
by Pyperkub
I think Obama has probably been dealt the toughest set of cards as President since Gerald Ford. A tanking economy with two unpopular, unpaid for wars and the staunchest opposition party possible.
He has done a lot of what was necessary, but also too little. He needed to herd the cats known as the Democratic Congress and Senate into line (and his "60 vote supermajority" in the Senate was never that, as that count included Lieberman), and he didn't do so forcefully enough, which left us with weak measures on health care, stimulus and banking reform. Had he been more forceful, things might have been better (and the consequent legislation), but he also had the spectre of Jimmy Carter looming over him - and one of the reasons Carter's Presidency is regarded as the worst since Hoover is the way Carter alienated a Democratic Congress and failed to get anything done. Obama managed not to do that for the most part, but he also tried too hard to be bi-partisan and didn't recognize what he was going to be up against in the Republican Congress, who would argue against Obama if he said that water was wet.
As to executive power and the Security State - if you voted for Obama assuming he would tear it down, you were a fool. He had already signaled his stance when he voted for Telecom immunity prior to the election (and twisted arms to get it passed). However, of the 3 major candidates in 2008 (Obama, McCain and Clinton), he was the one most likely (IMHO) to try to limit that power, but it was a slim chance to begin with. I'm not sure what Clinton would have done, but my suspicion is that she would not have been substantively different from Obama. McCain would likely have expanded that power...
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:17 pm
by gbasden
Fireball1244 wrote:
Regarding the NDAA, there are problems with the bill, but they are overblown by the media and hysterical people on the left. But, politically, the President cannot veto the budget for the entire Department of Defense. And in any case, his veto would have been overridden. To prevent things like the NDAA, we need to elect better people to Congress.
How do you see it as overblown? This bill completely subverts the Constitution. It gives the President the ability to black hole someone indefinitely simply by calling them a terrorist with no trial and no recourse. That's beyond appalling.
So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror.
Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never.
Numerous national security experts and civil liberties advocates had argued that the indefinite detention measure enshrines recent, questionable investigative practices that are contrary to fundamental American rights.
Every one of these legislators took an oath to uphold the Constitution, as did President Obama. When freaking Rand Paul is the voice of reason, something is seriously wrong. While I agree we need better legislators, we also need a President that respects the rule of law, and that's not something I think I can legitimately claim of Obama any more.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:15 pm
by Fireball
noxiousdog wrote:The only other controversial one I've heard is Citizen's United, and I tend to support freedom of speech myself, but others may vary.
Citizens United undermines the foundations of our electoral process. I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more. We need public financing that gives candidates a more equal footing. These things would be bad for me professionally, but good for the nation.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:27 pm
by Fireball
gbasden wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Regarding the NDAA, there are problems with the bill, but they are overblown by the media and hysterical people on the left. But, politically, the President cannot veto the budget for the entire Department of Defense. And in any case, his veto would have been overridden. To prevent things like the NDAA, we need to elect better people to Congress.
How do you see it as overblown?
First, the President can't just say "he's a terrorist, off he goes" under the NDAA, despite the simplistic descriptions in news accounts. The process is more complicated than that.
Second, the President already has this authority under existing law dealing with individuals acting to overthrow or lead a violent action against the government of the United States and laws dealing with the Afghanistan War. Remember that aiding those with whom America is at war is an act of treason, and the President has always had broad powers related to arresting traitors during times of war. See Lincoln, Abraham and Roosevelt, Franklin.
Third, the provisions in the NDAA are specifically tied to declared hostilities authorized by the Afghanistan authorization to use military force, which will expire when our troops leave Afghanistan in 2014. It would take a new law to extend this power beyond the duration of the War in Afghanistan.
Finally, a bill cannot undo the Constitution. The Constitution is still supreme over this piece of legislation, and Federal Courts still have jurisdiction to strike down this or any other provision of the NDAA or any other bill, under their Article III powers. I trust our process and our courts to help us navigate a path between the needs of national security and the rights of individual Americans.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:32 pm
by Fireball
Pyperkub wrote:As to executive power and the Security State - if you voted for Obama assuming he would tear it down, you were a fool. He had already signaled his stance when he voted for Telecom immunity prior to the election (and twisted arms to get it passed). However, of the 3 major candidates in 2008 (Obama, McCain and Clinton), he was the one most likely (IMHO) to try to limit that power, but it was a slim chance to begin with. I'm not sure what Clinton would have done, but my suspicion is that she would not have been substantively different from Obama. McCain would likely have expanded that power...
I agree that Clinton would have governed similarly to Obama on security issues. I think Clinton was being more realistic than Obama during the campaign (which is why I would have voted for her, had it been mathematically plausible that she could have won the nomination). I think that Obama got to the Oval Office, had his first security briefing, and came away from it with far less motivation for massive changes to our security infrastructure. As evidence for this, I'd point out that Obama began talking a lot less about security excesses even during the campaign after mid-summer in 2008, around the time that he would have begun to receive high level national security briefings.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:42 pm
by Pyperkub
Fireball1244 wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:As to executive power and the Security State - if you voted for Obama assuming he would tear it down, you were a fool. He had already signaled his stance when he voted for Telecom immunity prior to the election (and twisted arms to get it passed). However, of the 3 major candidates in 2008 (Obama, McCain and Clinton), he was the one most likely (IMHO) to try to limit that power, but it was a slim chance to begin with. I'm not sure what Clinton would have done, but my suspicion is that she would not have been substantively different from Obama. McCain would likely have expanded that power...
I agree that Clinton would have governed similarly to Obama on security issues. I think Clinton was being more realistic than Obama during the campaign (which is why I would have voted for her, had it been mathematically plausible that she could have won the nomination). I think that Obama got to the Oval Office, had his first security briefing, and came away from it with far less motivation for massive changes to our security infrastructure. As evidence for this, I'd point out that Obama began talking a lot less about security excesses even during the campaign after mid-summer in 2008, around the time that he would have begun to receive high level national security briefings.
The biggest issues I have are with the lack of due process. At some point this really needs to be addressed somehow. Maybe it has been with some sort of shadow court, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. It may be that the situation is that bad, and disclosing it would be even worse, but at this point we're kind of relying on a benevolent dictatorship. The road to hell is paved with these kinds of good intentions.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:43 pm
by Pyperkub
Fireball1244 wrote:Finally, a bill cannot undo the Constitution without our allowing it to.
FTFY
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:06 pm
by Fireball
Pyperkub wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:As to executive power and the Security State - if you voted for Obama assuming he would tear it down, you were a fool. He had already signaled his stance when he voted for Telecom immunity prior to the election (and twisted arms to get it passed). However, of the 3 major candidates in 2008 (Obama, McCain and Clinton), he was the one most likely (IMHO) to try to limit that power, but it was a slim chance to begin with. I'm not sure what Clinton would have done, but my suspicion is that she would not have been substantively different from Obama. McCain would likely have expanded that power...
I agree that Clinton would have governed similarly to Obama on security issues. I think Clinton was being more realistic than Obama during the campaign (which is why I would have voted for her, had it been mathematically plausible that she could have won the nomination). I think that Obama got to the Oval Office, had his first security briefing, and came away from it with far less motivation for massive changes to our security infrastructure. As evidence for this, I'd point out that Obama began talking a lot less about security excesses even during the campaign after mid-summer in 2008, around the time that he would have begun to receive high level national security briefings.
The biggest issues I have are with the lack of due process. At some point this really needs to be addressed somehow. Maybe it has been with some sort of shadow court, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. It may be that the situation is that bad, and disclosing it would be even worse, but at this point we're kind of relying on a benevolent dictatorship. The road to hell is paved with these kinds of good intentions.
I agree. I don't particularly like it either. But, in truth, nothing towards that goal is going to be accomplished until we have our troops out of Afghanistan. Leaving there has got to be step one towards finally putting these wars behind us. I'm not sure we'll ever get Congress to vote to end the detentions in Guantanamo or to allow them to be brought to US soil for trial. That situation is a bad mess. I don't know if there's a way out of it.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:47 pm
by Kraken
Fireball1244 wrote:
As for a Biden-Hillary swap, the reasoning behind that would be to light a fire under the Democratic base.
And to give Hillary a solid leg up for a run at the #1 job in 2016. Seems advantageous for everyone if she's going to resign as Sec Def. If Biden has categorically ruled out a '16 bid, there's no advantage to the party in keeping him on. Dynasties and all that.
Pyperkub wrote: Carter's Presidency is regarded as the worst since Hoover
Is this still true after the Bush presidency? That one set a new low, IMO.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:04 am
by pr0ner
Kraken wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Carter's Presidency is regarded as the worst since Hoover
Is this still true after the Bush presidency? That one set a new low, IMO.
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:38 am
by Jaymann
pr0ner wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Carter's Presidency is regarded as the worst since Hoover
Is this still true after the Bush presidency? That one set a new low, IMO.
Yes.
And Bush's was the most corrupt since Reagan.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:08 pm
by noxiousdog
Fireball1244 wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:The only other controversial one I've heard is Citizen's United, and I tend to support freedom of speech myself, but others may vary.
Citizens United undermines the foundations of our electoral process. I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more. We need public financing that gives candidates a more equal footing. These things would be bad for me professionally, but good for the nation.
Then unions and related groups should also be prevented from political speech.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:07 pm
by Grundbegriff
Fireball1244 wrote:I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more.
Sounds kind of fascist.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm
by Kraken
Jaymann wrote:
pr0ner wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Carter's Presidency is regarded as the worst since Hoover
Is this still true after the Bush presidency? That one set a new low, IMO.
Yes.
And Bush's was the most corrupt since Reagan.
I'm not sure what pr0ner was saying "Yes" to -- Carter still being regarded as the worst or Bush setting a new low. Having lived through both presidencies, I certainly consider Bush much, much worse. But that's colored by a combination of the recency effect plus being a self-supporting adult in the 00s vs. a dependent teenager in the 70s.
Bush inherited a peaceful nation with a budget surplus and left office with a ruined economy, a bankrupt treasury, two wars, and a declining middle class. What did Carter do that tops that?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:30 pm
by GreenGoo
Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more.
Sounds kind of fascist.
I'm not sure you can be fascist towards "things" but, maybe, I guess?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:54 pm
by Fireball
noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:The only other controversial one I've heard is Citizen's United, and I tend to support freedom of speech myself, but others may vary.
Citizens United undermines the foundations of our electoral process. I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more. We need public financing that gives candidates a more equal footing. These things would be bad for me professionally, but good for the nation.
Then unions and related groups should also be prevented from political speech.
I agree with that. That was the status quo before Citizens United.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:55 pm
by Fireball
Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more.
Sounds kind of fascist.
It's fascist to not think money equals speech? It's fascist to think that corporate entities shouldn't be treated the same as human beings?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:08 pm
by Victoria Raverna
Fireball1244 wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more.
Sounds kind of fascist.
It's fascist to not think money equals speech? It's fascist to think that corporate entities shouldn't be treated the same as human beings?
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
So to call your view fascist, maybe Grund was using it as a swearwood.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:19 pm
by Grundbegriff
Fireball1244 wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:I support freedom of speech, but not political speech from non-human corporate persons nor the notion that money equals speech.
We need less money in our elections, not more.
Sounds kind of fascist.
It's fascist to not think money equals speech? It's fascist to think that corporate entities shouldn't be treated the same as human beings?
Why shouldn't people be able to express their political ideas, express them collectively, express them through legal unions such as corporate entities, and amplify them in whatever measure their individual or collective resources allow?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:24 pm
by Fireball
The mechanism to do that -- for people to come together collectively to raise and spend money for political purposes -- is a political action committee.
The Citizens United decision basically opens the door for large corporations to buy elections through millions of dollars of anonymous campaign spending. It also creates a very high risk of foreign money being used to influence American elections, and for foreign nationals to exert control over said money, undercutting American sovereignty.
Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation? Not all government regulation is bad, after all.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:17 am
by noxiousdog
Fireball1244 wrote:The mechanism to do that -- for people to come together collectively to raise and spend money for political purposes -- is a political action committee.
The Citizens United decision basically opens the door for large corporations to buy elections through millions of dollars of anonymous campaign spending. It also creates a very high risk of foreign money being used to influence American elections, and for foreign nationals to exert control over said money, undercutting American sovereignty.
Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation? Not all government regulation is bad, after all.
I don't particularly care how groups of individuals choose to express their opinion.
Why is a political action committee any less bothersome than a corporation or union?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:59 am
by Grundbegriff
Fireball1244 wrote:The mechanism to do that -- for people to come together collectively to raise and spend money for political purposes -- is a political action committee.
That's a mechanism; why should it be the only mechanism?
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:33 am
by Jaymann
noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:The mechanism to do that -- for people to come together collectively to raise and spend money for political purposes -- is a political action committee.
The Citizens United decision basically opens the door for large corporations to buy elections through millions of dollars of anonymous campaign spending. It also creates a very high risk of foreign money being used to influence American elections, and for foreign nationals to exert control over said money, undercutting American sovereignty.
Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation? Not all government regulation is bad, after all.
I don't particularly care how groups of individuals choose to express their opinion.
Why is a political action committee any less bothersome than a corporation or union?
They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:26 am
by GreenGoo
Grundbegriff wrote:
Why shouldn't people be able to express their political ideas, express them collectively, express them through legal unions such as corporate entities, and amplify them in whatever measure their individual or collective resources allow?
Seriously? I assume you're being rhetorical, since they can already do that, and things haven't been working out particularly well. Unless of course you think everything is fine, then...yeah, keep on keeping on.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:00 pm
by Fireball
Jaymann wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:The mechanism to do that -- for people to come together collectively to raise and spend money for political purposes -- is a political action committee.
The Citizens United decision basically opens the door for large corporations to buy elections through millions of dollars of anonymous campaign spending. It also creates a very high risk of foreign money being used to influence American elections, and for foreign nationals to exert control over said money, undercutting American sovereignty.
Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation? Not all government regulation is bad, after all.
I don't particularly care how groups of individuals choose to express their opinion.
Why is a political action committee any less bothersome than a corporation or union?
They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.
Also, PACs are funded solely by intentional donations made by American citizens, where corporate political activity can involve repurposing the income they receive from their customers. It is unreasonable to turn every shopping or purchasing decision a customer faces into a political question, and many consumers would have no choice but to purchase goods from corporations whose political actions run counter to their needs or values -- effectively forcing them to financially support political causes they may oppose.
Also, how do we ensure that none of the money being used for political purposes by multi-national corporations originated outside of America? How do we ensure that non-American board members, executives or stockholders aren't influencing the political donation decision process in these corporations?
With a PAC, you have legal requirements that protect against foreign influence, and you can be certain that the money the PAC has on hand was intended for political purposes by those who provided it to the PAC.
Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:24 pm
by Grundbegriff
Jaymann wrote:They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.
Movie of the Week stereotypes aside, corporations with political interests often come down on different-- even contrary-- sides of any given issue. There is no monolithic "corporate opinion". So why not tolerate diversity rather than pretend that there's a certain amount or distribution of free speech that's "the right amount"?
