• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Channels Cheney

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.


The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.
[Review & Outlook] AP

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.

In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."

That's about as pure an assertion of Presidential power as they come, and we're beginning to wonder if the White House has put David Addington, Mr. Cheney's chief legal aide, on retainer. The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous -- at least before taking office. Justice, by the way, is making the same state secrets argument in a separate lawsuit involving rendition and a Boeing subsidiary.

Hide the children, but we agree with Mr. Obama that the President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation hearings. It's reassuring to know the Administration is refusing to compromise core executive-branch prerogatives, especially on war powers.

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

From the WSJ.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent.

Moonbats have no shame..........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So Big Muddy- you're saying you think the Obama Administration should support opening up all Top Secret and confidential material developed by the intelligence sources to the public and the press :???:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So Big Muddy- you're saying you think the Obama Administration should support opening up all Top Secret and confidential material developed by the intelligence sources to the public and the press :???:

I said nothing, I posted an article showing that Obama's administration is no different then the one it replaced. Where's the change? :???:

You guys that support him should be out raged. :roll:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Ya you guys are treed. When Bush was in power he was hiding everything and you didn't like it. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it's all Huff and Puff "well you think the Obama Administration should support opening up all Top Secret and confidential material developed by the intelligence sources to the public and the press"

and"Of course BMR is a Canadian so it's no skin off his nose."

Ya Ya can't debate so you discredit. :roll:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sweetie, you need to read some books on intelligence. And I don't me intellect type of intelligence.

Explain this reader 007
From the above article"Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent."

It was the hypocrisy I was pointing out. Duh, dense or what. :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
reader (the Second) said:
Sweetie, you need to read some books on intelligence. And I don't me intellect type of intelligence.

Explain this reader 007
From the above article"Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent."

It was the hypocrisy I was pointing out. Duh, dense or what. :?

What Bush did to obtain the info was illegal-but thats done and overwith and can't be changed--- but releasing the info obtained now- if it endangers intelligence operations- or the lives of intelligence operatives- or weakens our security would also be a crime....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
reader (the Second) said:
Sweetie, you need to read some books on intelligence. And I don't me intellect type of intelligence.

Explain this reader 007
From the above article"Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent."

It was the hypocrisy I was pointing out. Duh, dense or what. :?

What Bush did to obtain the info was illegal-but thats done and overwith and can't be changed--- but releasing the info obtained now- if it endangers intelligence operations- or the lives of intelligence operatives- or weakens our security would also be a crime....


But Obama is doing the same thing so if it is justified for Obama then it must have been justified for Bush.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Explain this reader 007
From the above article"Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent."

It was the hypocrisy I was pointing out. Duh, dense or what. :?

What Bush did to obtain the info was illegal-but thats done and overwith and can't be changed--- but releasing the info obtained now- if it endangers intelligence operations- or the lives of intelligence operatives- or weakens our security would also be a crime....


But Obama is doing the same thing so if it is justified for Obama then it must have been justified for Bush.

Obama is not doing the illegal wiretaps...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
What Bush did to obtain the info was illegal-but thats done and overwith and can't be changed--- but releasing the info obtained now- if it endangers intelligence operations- or the lives of intelligence operatives- or weakens our security would also be a crime....


But Obama is doing the same thing so if it is justified for Obama then it must have been justified for Bush.

Obama is not doing the illegal wiretaps...

And you know this how?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
I wouldn't be surprised if there are taps on the home phones of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, et al.

They are probably even intercepting their cell calls.

AT and R Squared, you can't have it both ways. If Bush does it, it's a crime, but if Boo Rock does it it's saving American lives...???

Incredible..... :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Oldtimer said:
So Big Muddy- you're saying you think the Obama Administration should support opening up all Top Secret and confidential material developed by the intelligence sources to the public and the press :???:

And risk disclosing intelligence methods which endangers lives?

Of course BMR is a Canadian so it's no skin off his nose.


Gone, not forgotten: Dems after Bush
By PATRICK O'CONNOR | 1/17/09 6:50 AM EST
For the last eight years, Democrats have been counting the days until George W. Bush leaves the White House.

Now some of them can’t seem to let him go.

On Friday, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) distributed a video showing “how the policies of the Bush Administration have failed the nation and continue to affect our ability to confront the current economic crisis.”

Earlier in the week, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) released a 486-page report documenting a litany of alleged abuses by Bush and members of his administration.

And when House Democrats approved their biennial rules package last week, they included a provision allowing the Judiciary Committee to continue its pursuit of documents and testimony from Bush’s chief of staff and former White House counsel.

This right-up-to-the-end Bush-bashing is part reflex and part coordinated message.

With Bush in office, some Democrats have defined themselves by their opposition to a man they long viewed as a less-than-legitimate president.

And with Bush leaving – and a Democrat taking his place – Democrats want voters to remember that the nation’s economy crumbled when the Republicans held the White House.

“There’s nothing to gain from pointing fingers at past presidents,” Hoyer says in the video released Friday. "But there's a great deal to be gained at looking back honestly at the financial choices we’ve made in the past and their consequences."

In an op-ed that ran in Friday’s Washington Post, Conyers said he understands that “that many feel we should just move on. But in my view, it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are.”

“Bush is really not going away,” said one senior Democratic aide in the House.

Democrats will continue to emphasize the mounting debt and use phrases like “the challenges ahead” and “the crisis we face” to make the not-so-subtle case that Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill laid the legislative foundations for the current economic meltdown, the same aide said.

Beyond the messaging, Conyers plans after-the-fact oversight of the Bush administration.

The Judiciary chairman’s lawsuit against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for failing to comply with subpoenas continues its progress through the court system. Conyers also wants Congress to create a commission to review the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and its policies on the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists. Finally, he wants President-elect Barack Obama to initiate a criminal probe of the Bush administration to see if “any laws were broken.”

“The threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush,” Conyers wrote in the Post. “We cannot rebuild the appropriate balance between the branches of government without fully understanding how that relationship has been distorted.”

Now if the Democrat House Judiciary Chairman gets his way on the Congressional committee on those wiretapps and the criminal probe into the Bush Administration how many records will be leaked to destroy the Republican party's chances in 2012 and how many lives will be endangered READER and OLDTIMER ? :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There has been no evidence presented- or as far as I know, even allegation that Obama is doing illegal wiretaps...

Bush got caught doing them-because some in his administration still believed in the law/Constitution - and blew the whistle-- and then he had to admit to it...

Hopefully Congress keeps doing oversight- like the Dems restarted again after getting control (something that didn't exist in the rubberstamp years)- and not only bring out the past failings and illegal acts, to not only prosecute violators- but to get info to prevent it from happening again - and also so they can guarantee its not happening again...

BUT in no way should the Administration/Congress release confidential and secret info now or ever if it endangers intelligence operations- or the lives of intelligence operatives- or weakens our national security....
 
Top