CharlieDigital
Banned
gcubed said:
If you can be so easily convinced to perform these types of acts, then perhaps you should go to jail.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
If you can be so easily convinced to perform these types of acts, then perhaps you should go to jail.
The only way for it to be legal would be to allow them to challenge their detention. And it's actually contradictory to another part of Obama's argument, which is that our justice system is strong enough to deal with these issues. If he's creating new frameworks and rules just to deal with these people, then it undermines that argument.mckmas8808 said:
Also, another very good reversal from Bush policy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104016.html
Obama Curtails Bush's Policy of 'Preemption'
President Obama continued to reverse his predecessor's policies this week by undoing a controversial Bush administration rule known as "preemption" that used federal regulations to override state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.
Obama, in a memorandum to federal agency heads issued late Wednesday, said his administration should undertake regulations preempting state laws in rare instances and "only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption."
The president ordered department heads to review all regulations issued in the past 10 years that are designed to preempt state law and determine whether they are justified under the new policy. If they cannot be justified, Obama said, his administration should consider amending the regulations.
Bush administration officials inserted preemptive language into dozens of federal regulations, in many cases shielding corporations from restrictive state laws. For instance, federal preemption provisions stopped California from enforcing a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
"It's environmental law, it's drug law, it's mortgage law, it's a whole host of areas where the Bush administration was really aggressive about using regulatory action to clear state and local laws that businesses and corporations didn't like," said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that Obama's move could wreak havoc on businesses that would have to deal with different state laws, causing a flood of lawsuits.
"Removing federal preemption forces employers to navigate a confusing, often contradictory patchwork quilt of 50 sets of laws and regulations," said Lisa Rickard, president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform.
The White House described the move as another step toward rescinding Bush administration policies and protecting the constitutional rights of states.
"This memorandum brings clarity and orderliness back to this rule-making process and also ensures that preemption will be done only in cases where it's legally justifiable," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's memo comes nearly three months after the Supreme Court called into question Bush's preemption policy while issuing a major setback to pharmaceutical companies. In Wyeth v. Levine, the court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of a woman who had her arm amputated after an improper injection of an anti-nausea medication. The court said drugmakers could not rely on federal regulation to shield them from lawsuits brought under state consumer-protection laws.
The American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, cheered Obama's move, saying his memo "makes clear that the rule of law will once again prevail over the rule of politics."
Kendall, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Obama "clearly understands the important role that state and local governments play in our constitutional system and has displayed a very different vision of our Constitution than President Bush displayed in his eight years."
President Obama continued to reverse his predecessor's policies this week by undoing a controversial Bush administration rule known as "preemption" that used federal regulations to override state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.
Obama, in a memorandum to federal agency heads issued late Wednesday, said his administration should undertake regulations preempting state laws in rare instances and "only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption."
The president ordered department heads to review all regulations issued in the past 10 years that are designed to preempt state law and determine whether they are justified under the new policy. If they cannot be justified, Obama said, his administration should consider amending the regulations.
Bush administration officials inserted preemptive language into dozens of federal regulations, in many cases shielding corporations from restrictive state laws. For instance, federal preemption provisions stopped California from enforcing a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
"It's environmental law, it's drug law, it's mortgage law, it's a whole host of areas where the Bush administration was really aggressive about using regulatory action to clear state and local laws that businesses and corporations didn't like," said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that Obama's move could wreak havoc on businesses that would have to deal with different state laws, causing a flood of lawsuits.
"Removing federal preemption forces employers to navigate a confusing, often contradictory patchwork quilt of 50 sets of laws and regulations," said Lisa Rickard, president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform.
The White House described the move as another step toward rescinding Bush administration policies and protecting the constitutional rights of states.
"This memorandum brings clarity and orderliness back to this rule-making process and also ensures that preemption will be done only in cases where it's legally justifiable," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Obama's memo comes nearly three months after the Supreme Court called into question Bush's preemption policy while issuing a major setback to pharmaceutical companies. In Wyeth v. Levine, the court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of a woman who had her arm amputated after an improper injection of an anti-nausea medication. The court said drugmakers could not rely on federal regulation to shield them from lawsuits brought under state consumer-protection laws.
The American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, cheered Obama's move, saying his memo "makes clear that the rule of law will once again prevail over the rule of politics."
Kendall, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Obama "clearly understands the important role that state and local governments play in our constitutional system and has displayed a very different vision of our Constitution than President Bush displayed in his eight years."
Well it does seem like it will be different legally because from what I understand is Obama's looking to make it completely legal to keep them. Hey, if it passes through the House and Congress and the President signs it, it would be legal.Karma Kramer said:
Now, whether that makes it morally correct on the other hand is a totally different story as the law isn't always on the side of morality. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if we can't charge them we release them damn the consequences.
Shit, to be honest, I fear the legal ramifications of there being a true legal way of imprisoning someone indefinitely without evidence far more than I fear a terrorist attack.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
gcubed said:
So what do you do then? Wait until they kill people?
CharlieDigital
Banned
Tamanon said:
Those "gullible folks" basically already have some motivation and are mentally/psychologically prepared to kill tens/hundreds/thousands of people. If the party doing the convincing is doing it as a guise to ferret out these types of people, I see nothing wrong with that.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Lucky Forward said:
Steelers getting preferential treatment? Unbelievable!
Karma Kramer
Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Exactly... its basically saying the Government can claim you are a threat and keep you in prison, without any evidence or a fair trial. Its fucking bullshit and no one here is giving a shit because they don't want to admit that this is definitely a reversal of Obama's policies for closing Gitmo.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
mAcOdIn said:
EXACTLY! Karma this is the point. And this is what Obama and Gibbs were saying yesterday.
Karma Kramer
Banned
MSNBC is talking about this thing right now... calling Obama and Cheney "Really Eye to Eye?"
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
Who's to say that the guy encouraged (aka basically talked them into doing something that they didn't want to do) them to want to kill thousands of people?
Karma Kramer
Banned
:lolmckmas8808 said:
Its still against the constitution dude... just because the Government makes laws to make it okay, doesn't mean its fucking right.
"Hey everybody! Government passed a law that says they get to lock up anyone they want without a trial! That makes it a-okay with me!"
The fuck? There are people on those sides, both shamelessly excusing him and those who agree (at least in part) with your side of the issue (*waves*). You keep referring to Obama supporters as some kind of monolithic block, when there's a fair amount (though not enough) criticism among his supporters here.Karma Kramer said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
You and one other person here has commented on this... everyone else is either defending this or ignoring it.
I just find it hypocritical to want Bush to close Gitmo, but then to not give a shit when Obama says he is going to basically make Gitmo... legal?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
CharlieDigital
Banned
gcubed said:
Are the 9/11 hijackers somehow less criminal because they were merely recruited to carry out the plan? Were they simply just gullible innocents?
Karma Kramer
Banned
PantherLotus said:
Lawrence is fucking amazing. Love that guy :lol
CharlieDigital said:
no, i'm not saying they are less criminal, i'm basing this on the information given, which to me sounds like these guys were targeted due to various factors by a member or representative of a law enforcement agency, coerced (may be a strong word) into it, given all the plans and materials after plans were drawn out by said representative of the law enforcement agency, and then arrested by said law enforcement agency.
Again as Tamanon and I have stated, this is going on unknown facts, but entrapment is part of the law for a reason.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Maybe Liz Cheney should volunteer to be waterboarded.Then we'll see how if she believes it's torture or not.
Speaking of which.PantherLotus said:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018303.php
NEPOTISM REIGNS.... Mid-day yesterday, I noticed that Mark Halperin had a headline that read, "Round 2: Liz Cheney vs Axe." Round 1, apparently, was President Obama and former Vice President Cheney, and Round 2's "Axe" refers to David Axelrod, Senior White House Advisor to the president.
Halperin added, "The two surrogates weigh in on the Cheney vs. Obama debate shortly after their speeches in MSNBC interviews. Must-see video...."
Notice the problem? Liz Cheney was brought on to offer analysis of her own father's speech, and parrot her dad's criticism of the president. (What a surprise -- she found her dad's argument very persuasive.)
What's more, as part of a full-throated defense of her dad's torture policies, Liz Cheney has been all over the television news. I asked my friends at Media Matters to check on just how many interviews Cheney has done lately. They came up with this list that spans the last 10 days (and today isn't over yet):
* On the May 22 edition of ABC's "Good Morning America"
* On the May 22 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
* On the May 22 edition of CNN's "American Morning"
* On the May 21 edition of CNN's "AC360"
* On the May 21 edition of Fox News' "Hannity"
* On the May 21 edition of "MSNBC News Live"
* On the May 20 edition of Fox News' "Your World"
* On the May 17 edition of ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
* On the May 16 edition of Fox News' "Fox & Friends Saturday"
* On the May 15 edition of Fox News' "On the Record"
* On the May 12 edition of Fox News' "Live Desk"
* On the May 12 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
That's 12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks. (On today's "Morning Joe," Liz Cheney was on for an entire hour -- effectively becoming a co-host of the program.) And this is just television, and doesn't include Liz Cheney's interviews on radio or with print media.
There's no modern precedent for such a ridiculous arrangement. Dick Cheney launches a crusade against the White House, and major outlets look for analysis from Cheney's daughter? Who everyone already realizes agrees with everything he says about torture?
This is just crazy.
Halperin added, "The two surrogates weigh in on the Cheney vs. Obama debate shortly after their speeches in MSNBC interviews. Must-see video...."
Notice the problem? Liz Cheney was brought on to offer analysis of her own father's speech, and parrot her dad's criticism of the president. (What a surprise -- she found her dad's argument very persuasive.)
What's more, as part of a full-throated defense of her dad's torture policies, Liz Cheney has been all over the television news. I asked my friends at Media Matters to check on just how many interviews Cheney has done lately. They came up with this list that spans the last 10 days (and today isn't over yet):
* On the May 22 edition of ABC's "Good Morning America"
* On the May 22 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
* On the May 22 edition of CNN's "American Morning"
* On the May 21 edition of CNN's "AC360"
* On the May 21 edition of Fox News' "Hannity"
* On the May 21 edition of "MSNBC News Live"
* On the May 20 edition of Fox News' "Your World"
* On the May 17 edition of ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
* On the May 16 edition of Fox News' "Fox & Friends Saturday"
* On the May 15 edition of Fox News' "On the Record"
* On the May 12 edition of Fox News' "Live Desk"
* On the May 12 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
That's 12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks. (On today's "Morning Joe," Liz Cheney was on for an entire hour -- effectively becoming a co-host of the program.) And this is just television, and doesn't include Liz Cheney's interviews on radio or with print media.
There's no modern precedent for such a ridiculous arrangement. Dick Cheney launches a crusade against the White House, and major outlets look for analysis from Cheney's daughter? Who everyone already realizes agrees with everything he says about torture?
This is just crazy.
Karma Kramer
Banned
The Cheney family is just scared shitless about Dick being prosecuted. I will be very upset if he gets off without a scratch. I want to see both of them water-boarded, along with Hannity.
BobTheFork
Member
See, that's kind of the point. First, there's no need to be that overly derisive (evil FBI pstt).APF said:
Second, it was apparently the mole's idea to kill the jews. Really, not trying to defend these guys; like I said, if they agree to an idea like that that isn't theirs then they are criminals. Anyone willing to actually go through with a plan like that should be taken down, the willingness to commit that act is the difference.
But FFS don't act like this issue is so black and white and no one can have a difference of opinion. What if the anger at this incident fuels another terrorist attack? Again, arguing maybe's is pointless.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Macam said:
How many usb ports?
My take is this will be the worst thing he does, I think it's fucking huge and I'm also surprised it's not getting a bigger challenge.GhaleonEB said:
Frankly, I honestly think this concept is getting dangerously close to validating the necessity of the 2nd amendment, seriously. Man do I hope this changes.
platypotamus
Member
quadriplegicjon said:
I'm glad I was able to help (with my vote) this poor woman end her suffering.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
GhaleonEB said:
I noticed this too. But the idea that she's related makes her unqualified is irrelevant; her arguments and logic are twisted beyond imagination.
Karma Kramer
Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Yeah, I don't mean to be such an ass to people here, but hearing Obama say those things yesterday really really shocked me. I am just surprised more people here aren't upset, with some even defending this move!
speculawyer
Member
Macam said:
I live the wall around Austin. :lol We'll need to do the 'Austin air-lift'.
platypotamus
Member
JayDubya said:
Do you guys need help paying for it? Maybe a wall isn't enough, and you should take some tips from John Oliver and add a moat? In fact, let's call Bugs Bunny up with that saw of his...
speculawyer
Member
Karma Kramer said:
But does this help prevent that? I guess they goal is to make it a political circus so that any prosecution would be viewed as purely political and not legal. (Of course a lie under oath about a blow job was such a real import legal matter and not a political circus. )
And they are also polluting the entire possible jury pool.
speculawyer
Member
Hey, I'm all for it too.JayDubya said:Man, that picture's going to be gracing the doors and walls of several College Station dorms.
And in 20 years, the majority in the Nation of Texas will be voting to rejoin Mexico. :lol
Karma Kramer
Banned
Tamanon said:
How is this not black and white...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuW...=45674&st=75&start=75&feature=player_embedded
Its pretty clear what he is going to do in my opinion.
PantherLotus said:
Liz Cheney's relation to Dick is the only qualification she has. It's really strange. I wonder if no other GOP politician wanted to go to bat for him, because she's probably the least qualified to talk about terror policies just based on her not being involved in anything other than a fluff State job to funnel money to Middle Eastern groups.
- Status