5 ms·

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

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
- anamax 16y ago
  > Directly above that President Obama said: It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. What matters is what he says via executive orders, policy, and executive branch action. > President Obama is a Constitutional scholar, and acknowledges our bindings to it. Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > Compare that with Bush who was rumored to say it's "just a piece of paper". By someone who had an axe to grind. What has that person said about Obama's continuation and expansion of the same policies? (To be fair, some folks who criticized Bush for doing certain things have criticized Obama for continuing and expanding, but they're a marginalized minority. The "good people" have largely fallen into line.) Of course, if you want to play "was rumored to say", there are some doozies attributed to Obama. Double-standard much?
  - jeromec 16y ago
    It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or a president like John F. Kennedy. What matters is what he says via executive orders, policy, and executive branch action. I agree. Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) Of course, if you want to play "was rumored to say", there are some doozies attributed to Obama. I will retract the rumor text. I almost didn't put it in, but I wanted to give some context for G. W. Bush's apparent disregard for Constitutional law. But I don't need to. Just watch the 6 minute YouTube video with a noted Constitutional law professor I included. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE
    - anamax 16y ago
      >> Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall... http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. I'll ask again - if Obama is a constitutional law scholar, where is his scholarly output?

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

anamax 16y ago
> Directly above that President Obama said: It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. What matters is what he says via executive orders, policy, and executive branch action. > President Obama is a Constitutional scholar, and acknowledges our bindings to it. Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > Compare that with Bush who was rumored to say it's "just a piece of paper". By someone who had an axe to grind. What has that person said about Obama's continuation and expansion of the same policies? (To be fair, some folks who criticized Bush for doing certain things have criticized Obama for continuing and expanding, but they're a marginalized minority. The "good people" have largely fallen into line.) Of course, if you want to play "was rumored to say", there are some doozies attributed to Obama. Double-standard much?
- jeromec 16y ago
  It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or a president like John F. Kennedy. What matters is what he says via executive orders, policy, and executive branch action. I agree. Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) Of course, if you want to play "was rumored to say", there are some doozies attributed to Obama. I will retract the rumor text. I almost didn't put it in, but I wanted to give some context for G. W. Bush's apparent disregard for Constitutional law. But I don't need to. Just watch the 6 minute YouTube video with a noted Constitutional law professor I included. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE
  - anamax 16y ago
    >> Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall... http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. I'll ask again - if Obama is a constitutional law scholar, where is his scholarly output?