3 ms·

I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. The degree to which any perceived infringement o

by jeromec 16y ago

I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. The degree to which any perceived infringement occurs is what is significant. Bush pushed for and succeeded in suspending habeas corpus, a Constitutional protection by which people can challenge their imprisonment. This was only done twice in history, once by Bush and once by Lincoln at the start of the Civil War. By contrast, President Obama opposed the suspension of habeas corpus since he was a senator.

Yzupnick 16y ago
And yet is continued by the current administration: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.h... And Obama authorized the assassination of a US citizen; something even Bush never did: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.h...
- chc 16y ago
  If possible, it's generally better to link to someplace other than the You Must Be A Registered Member Times. A signup form is not very informative.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    Interesting I'm not a member and get full access. Are you outside the US?
    - chc 16y ago
      Nope, I'm in California. IIRC, the first N views are free, then they throw up a registration form for the next week or so.
- GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
  The speech you point to does not support your point. My reading is that he is trying to cleaning up the toxic legal spill that the previous administration left behind (while trying not to give his Republic critics ammunition). Re. the assassination of a US citizen, that hardly seems notable given that the guy is very actively involved in putting together terrorist attacks. Surely any president would make the same decision.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    It seems the origigonal post was deleted I guess... Now it seems I'm like I'm talking to myself. 1) Among all his rhetoric about not continuing the policy he slips in "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States...must be prevented from attacking us again " His policy stays the same, he is just better at hiding it from the public. 2) Thats the same rhetoric people used to defend Bush. Innocent till proven guilty in a court of Law I say.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      You should have listed more of that quote. Directly above that President Obama said: Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. The ease/danger of a transition from a democracy to a totalitarian regime was something of which the Founders were aware. Our freedoms are protected precisely by a Constitutional framework which provides safeguards, like habeas corpus. President Obama is a Constitutional scholar, and acknowledges our bindings to it. Compare that with Bush who was rumored to say it's "just a piece of paper". There may be case by case issues which are difficult as well as debatable for any president to decide, but altering the legal framework in ways which diminish civil liberties and protections is dangerous, and can too easily lead a public that is not paying attention to a place they realize too late they don't want to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE

by jeromec 16y ago

Yzupnick 16y ago

And yet is continued by the current administration: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.h... And Obama authorized the assassination of a US citizen; something even Bush never did: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.h...

chc 16y ago
If possible, it's generally better to link to someplace other than the You Must Be A Registered Member Times. A signup form is not very informative.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  Interesting I'm not a member and get full access. Are you outside the US?
  - chc 16y ago
    Nope, I'm in California. IIRC, the first N views are free, then they throw up a registration form for the next week or so.
GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
The speech you point to does not support your point. My reading is that he is trying to cleaning up the toxic legal spill that the previous administration left behind (while trying not to give his Republic critics ammunition). Re. the assassination of a US citizen, that hardly seems notable given that the guy is very actively involved in putting together terrorist attacks. Surely any president would make the same decision.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  It seems the origigonal post was deleted I guess... Now it seems I'm like I'm talking to myself. 1) Among all his rhetoric about not continuing the policy he slips in "there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States...must be prevented from attacking us again " His policy stays the same, he is just better at hiding it from the public. 2) Thats the same rhetoric people used to defend Bush. Innocent till proven guilty in a court of Law I say.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    You should have listed more of that quote. Directly above that President Obama said: Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. The ease/danger of a transition from a democracy to a totalitarian regime was something of which the Founders were aware. Our freedoms are protected precisely by a Constitutional framework which provides safeguards, like habeas corpus. President Obama is a Constitutional scholar, and acknowledges our bindings to it. Compare that with Bush who was rumored to say it's "just a piece of paper". There may be case by case issues which are difficult as well as debatable for any president to decide, but altering the legal framework in ways which diminish civil liberties and protections is dangerous, and can too easily lead a public that is not paying attention to a place they realize too late they don't want to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE