I'm interested in Cali's spin on this little item

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't really know why he is doing this. I don't think anyone really does. I would guess the answer falls close to one of my two guesses below:

First: Obama has already said he will end the practice of extraordinary rendition. One of the cases where he has asserted state secrets privilege involves extraordinary rendition. It may be that he has decided that certain individuals captured by the prior administration would go free if the state secrets doctrine wasn't invoked, and, therefore, has decided to assert the state secrets doctrine to ensure they aren't freed, but will follow proper protocols on a going-forward basis.

Second: Obama may be concerned that the trust of certain foreign states will be compromised if Obama allows them to be thrown to the wolves of the American judicial system. Certainly some states worked with Bush in implementing his policies (such as through extraordinary rendition), and removing the state secrets doctrine would then subject those states to ridicule and potential liability. To ensure cooperation on a going-forward basis, Obama may protect information regarding their involvement now, but use better practices in the future.

Conservatives want the response to be that Obama just lied to get into office and never really cared about this issue in the first place. I don't buy it. I also don't buy that it is "practical realism," as Indy puts it.

Keep the shill going, you may have them fooled but not me. You believe in nothing just like the rest of us.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't really know why he is doing this. I don't think anyone really does. I would guess the answer falls close to one of my two guesses below:

First: Obama has already said he will end the practice of extraordinary rendition. One of the cases where he has asserted state secrets privilege involves extraordinary rendition. It may be that he has decided that certain individuals captured by the prior administration would go free if the state secrets doctrine wasn't invoked, and, therefore, has decided to assert the state secrets doctrine to ensure they aren't freed, but will follow proper protocols on a going-forward basis.

Second: Obama may be concerned that the trust of certain foreign states will be compromised if Obama allows them to be thrown to the wolves of the American judicial system. Certainly some states worked with Bush in implementing his policies (such as through extraordinary rendition), and removing the state secrets doctrine would then subject those states to ridicule and potential liability. To ensure cooperation on a going-forward basis, Obama may protect information regarding their involvement now, but use better practices in the future.

Conservatives want the response to be that Obama just lied to get into office and never really cared about this issue in the first place. I don't buy it. I also don't buy that it is "practical realism," as Indy puts it.

I can see why it took 48 hours to cough up that strained, convoluted logical hairball.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I can see why it took 48 hours to cough up that strained, convoluted logical hairball.

It takes a while after fellating Obama so much, you know.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I can see why it took 48 hours to cough up that strained, convoluted logical hairball.

Strained, convoluted, and logical? You should take 48 hours next time.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't really know why he is doing this. I don't think anyone really does. I would guess the answer falls close to one of my two guesses below:

First: Obama has already said he will end the practice of extraordinary rendition. One of the cases where he has asserted state secrets privilege involves extraordinary rendition. It may be that he has decided that certain individuals captured by the prior administration would go free if the state secrets doctrine wasn't invoked, and, therefore, has decided to assert the state secrets doctrine to ensure they aren't freed, but will follow proper protocols on a going-forward basis.

Second: Obama may be concerned that the trust of certain foreign states will be compromised if Obama allows them to be thrown to the wolves of the American judicial system. Certainly some states worked with Bush in implementing his policies (such as through extraordinary rendition), and removing the state secrets doctrine would then subject those states to ridicule and potential liability. To ensure cooperation on a going-forward basis, Obama may protect information regarding their involvement now, but use better practices in the future.

Conservatives want the response to be that Obama just lied to get into office and never really cared about this issue in the first place. I don't buy it. I also don't buy that it is "practical realism," as Indy puts it.

In other words, Obama is your political messiah and you will never question him.

[Tex]

Found this old thread applicable to the latest debt-ceiling-related news out of the Obama administration.

The White House and Congressional Republicans agree in principle that the debt ceiling needs to be raised, but they are at an impasse on how to constrain the deficit’s rapid growth. Meanwhile, some people have theorized that there’s a way to get around the debt limit.

Several law professors and senators, and even Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, have suggested that section 4 of the 14th Amendment, known as the public debt clause, might provide a silver bullet. This provision states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” They argue that the public debt clause is sufficient to nullify the ceiling — or can be used to permit the president to borrow money without regard to the ceiling.

Heh. Obama don't need no stinkin' debt ceiling vote.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Found this old thread applicable to the latest debt-ceiling-related news out of the Obama administration.



Heh. Obama don't need no stinkin' debt ceiling vote.

Finally. Something you originalists can agree with. Right? Right?

By the way, are we just picking threads at random for replies?