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

[Indy Coug]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

[il Padrino Ute]

My guess would be that it doesn't matter if the messiah adopts the same policy. Bush started it.

[BarbaraGordon]

Was it Archaea that predicted this? Somebody suggested that regardless of who would win the presidency, no executive is ever going to voluntarily abdicate a measure of his privilege. The only question was to what end the expanded executive powers would be used.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Was it Archaea that predicted this? Somebody suggested that regardless of who would win the presidency, no executive is ever going to voluntarily abdicate a measure of his privilege. The only question was to what end the expanded executive powers would be used.

Those seeking power don't voluntarily abdicate it, or at least very rarely, it's not in theird DNA.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Was it Archaea that predicted this? Somebody suggested that regardless of who would win the presidency, no executive is ever going to voluntarily abdicate a measure of his privilege. The only question was to what end the expanded executive powers would be used.

Bush used it to go after terrorists, Obama will use it to go after conservatives.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Bush used it to go after terrorists, Obama will use it to go after conservatives.

Now that's funny.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

Cali will avoid this post and then after a few days will post something about Bush, or Reagan, or Nixon or ...

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Those seeking power don't voluntarily abdicate it, or at least very rarely, it's not in theird DNA.

Maybe it's about power, or maybe it's an informed decision made after the fluffy white clouds of idealism burn off and reality slaps the new president in the face.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe it's about power, or maybe it's an informed decision made after the fluffy white clouds of idealism burn off and reality slaps the new president in the face.

It's about power, don't be so idealistic to think it's about practical realism.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

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.