He's the fucking president!
As soon as he can work out how to get an outside line, we're in business.
Change
- Thread starter polystyle
- Start date
As soon as he can work out how to get an outside line, we're in business.
This is big.
46 years ago Martin Luther King made his speech.
Now the 47 year old Obama is President.
J and Kanye rewrote lyrics for the occasion ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/arts/music/22conc.html
Re: That Stock market drop the other day. Yes, it happened on inaug day ,
pundits mentioned it for some hours - but it's been dropping like every other day as it is.
Possibly something to do with every large company laying off 5,000 workers and posting multi billion $ losses ...
The feeling in the city , across the country - everybody so happy and relieved.
A scene on the subway with kids on the train with attitude being told by a Grannie
' Stop fooling around, ... it's time to be Presidential' - and seeing them straighten right up.
Oh yeah, also his inclusion of 'nonbelievers' in his speech -
the 'non's' don't get alot of mention in inaug speeches or anywhere in high politico circles ...
On the 'Remake'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22kristof.html?hp
Like Erykah said in The Healer We're not dead yet ,we've been living on the internet' ...
'All the people say Reboot , Refresh, Restart ...'
No shit ...
46 years ago Martin Luther King made his speech.
Now the 47 year old Obama is President.
J and Kanye rewrote lyrics for the occasion ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/arts/music/22conc.html
Re: That Stock market drop the other day. Yes, it happened on inaug day ,
pundits mentioned it for some hours - but it's been dropping like every other day as it is.
Possibly something to do with every large company laying off 5,000 workers and posting multi billion $ losses ...
The feeling in the city , across the country - everybody so happy and relieved.
A scene on the subway with kids on the train with attitude being told by a Grannie
' Stop fooling around, ... it's time to be Presidential' - and seeing them straighten right up.
Oh yeah, also his inclusion of 'nonbelievers' in his speech -
the 'non's' don't get alot of mention in inaug speeches or anywhere in high politico circles ...
On the 'Remake'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22kristof.html?hp
Like Erykah said in The Healer We're not dead yet ,we've been living on the internet' ...
'All the people say Reboot , Refresh, Restart ...'
No shit ...
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Guantanamo to close!
Obama said in a speech a couple of years ago he'd close Guantanamo, and today he's signed executive orders to that effect!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_close_guantanamo_within.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm
But the Guardian has reservations about the proposed new court for trying national security cases:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/11/barack-obama-guantanamo-bay
Still, shutting that awful place down has to be a good thing in itself.
Obama said in a speech a couple of years ago he'd close Guantanamo, and today he's signed executive orders to that effect!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_close_guantanamo_within.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm
But the Guardian has reservations about the proposed new court for trying national security cases:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/11/barack-obama-guantanamo-bay
Still, shutting that awful place down has to be a good thing in itself.
Agent
dgaf ngaf cgaf
Obama said in a speech a couple of years ago he'd close Guantanamo, and today he's signed executive orders to that effect!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_close_guantanamo_within.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm
the executive orders also re-instituted the writ of habeas corpus. He wants to roll back all the Bush policies that violated constitutional law. These are all fundamental rights of personal autonomy/private property that are recognized by most countries. Guatanamo violated almost every human right on record (murder, rape, torture)
the economy won't turn around overnight, or even within six months. this isn't what the Obama campaign promised. new jobs are being created. that's all you can ask for at this point. some are forecasting at least 2-3 more years of recession.
crackerjack
Well-known member
D
droid
Guest
The more things change...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I imagine Major Flip-flop to be the most laid-back military officer in history. Right up there with Colonel Kiss-me-quick-hat and Wing Commander Bumbag, anyway.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
heh-heh
Droid:
as regards rendition, i was grateful to normblog, pointing us in the direction of
the piece by Hilzoy is here and there are some things that give me heart such as
it's worth noting there are some valuable comments in both the Hilzoy piece and the piece Vim links to about HRW, in the cases of both articles both supporting and critically engaging with both authors.
i was glad to read - in the related HRW piece - there may finally be some good news for Saleh al-Marri, who has been treated appallingly inhumanely for the last six years
that HRW press release from the 22nd January is here. Pleasingly, eight days later, they joined with the ACLU, Amnesty USA and Human Rights First in valuable Gitmo advocacy work.
we'll have to roll this thread to keep an eye on stuff.
Last edited:
D
droid
Guest
As I'm sure you know. Renditon is effectively the practise of kidnapping 'suspected terrorists' and transferring them to other countries to be tortured and imprisoned..
Whilst we don't know for sure if the practise will continue, the fact that it has not been explicitly curtailed would imply that this is the case. Also, according to the LA times:
Of course, renditions and targeted assassinations are of (at best) dubious legality under IL and American law and are only legitimate if you accept the fact that the US is has the right to attack anywhere it sees fit, or kidnap, detain and torture citizens of any country.
On the other hand:
Seeing as this is the entire point of renditions, it begs the question - if you want to prevent "the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," simply stop renditions.
D
droid
Guest
Fascinating use of language there actually... that old passive 'actionless' voice. 7 'terrorists' were 'killed', but 3 children 'lost their lives'...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016703.php
that hilzoy piece is very important,i was shocked/disgusted when i saw that la times piece but it seems to have been very misleading to say the least.
good analysis of the la times piece at the end of the hilzoy article
"
So what accounts for the LA Times' story? The Times cites "Current and former U.S. intelligence officials" in support of its thesis. I don't take the statements of former administration officials as evidence of anything in this regard, since they would not be privy to the Obama administration's thinking. Moreover, there have been a whole lot of "former administration officials" wandering around saying that once Obama got into office and saw how tough things really were, he would be forced to adopt their policies, only to discover that -- surprise, surprise! -- he doesn't. I don't see much reason to take their opinions as probative this time.
Obama officials, of course, are a different story: they would know, and they have no vested interest in believing that the previous administration's policies are somehow inevitable. The Times quotes only one official, who says: "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. (...) if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice." It's important, here, to note that extraordinary rendition is not the same as rendition proper. Rendition is just moving people from one jurisdiction (in the cases at hand, one country) to another; includes all sorts of perfectly normal things, like extradition, which are not problematic legally. Extraordinary rendition is rendition outside these established legal processes: e.g., kidnapping someone abroad so that s/he can be brought to the US to stand trial, or delivering someone to another country to be tortured.
The author of the Times article, however, defines "rendition" as "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States." It's not clear whether he knows that rendition includes perfectly normal things like extradition. It's also not clear that he knows that extraordinary rendition includes not just cases in which we transfer a detainee to another country, but cases in which we capture someone abroad and take them to this country to be tried.
What is clear, however, is that Obama's executive order prohibits sending people off to other countries where there are substantial grounds to think that they will be tortured, and commits his administration not just to hoping that this will not happen, but to trying to figure out how to keep it from happening. I will continue to watch what the Obama administration does. If they backtrack on their commitment not to engage in extraordinary rendition, I will call them on it. But I don't think that this article provides evidence that they will."
that hilzoy piece is very important,i was shocked/disgusted when i saw that la times piece but it seems to have been very misleading to say the least.
good analysis of the la times piece at the end of the hilzoy article
"
So what accounts for the LA Times' story? The Times cites "Current and former U.S. intelligence officials" in support of its thesis. I don't take the statements of former administration officials as evidence of anything in this regard, since they would not be privy to the Obama administration's thinking. Moreover, there have been a whole lot of "former administration officials" wandering around saying that once Obama got into office and saw how tough things really were, he would be forced to adopt their policies, only to discover that -- surprise, surprise! -- he doesn't. I don't see much reason to take their opinions as probative this time.
Obama officials, of course, are a different story: they would know, and they have no vested interest in believing that the previous administration's policies are somehow inevitable. The Times quotes only one official, who says: "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. (...) if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice." It's important, here, to note that extraordinary rendition is not the same as rendition proper. Rendition is just moving people from one jurisdiction (in the cases at hand, one country) to another; includes all sorts of perfectly normal things, like extradition, which are not problematic legally. Extraordinary rendition is rendition outside these established legal processes: e.g., kidnapping someone abroad so that s/he can be brought to the US to stand trial, or delivering someone to another country to be tortured.
The author of the Times article, however, defines "rendition" as "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States." It's not clear whether he knows that rendition includes perfectly normal things like extradition. It's also not clear that he knows that extraordinary rendition includes not just cases in which we transfer a detainee to another country, but cases in which we capture someone abroad and take them to this country to be tried.
What is clear, however, is that Obama's executive order prohibits sending people off to other countries where there are substantial grounds to think that they will be tortured, and commits his administration not just to hoping that this will not happen, but to trying to figure out how to keep it from happening. I will continue to watch what the Obama administration does. If they backtrack on their commitment not to engage in extraordinary rendition, I will call them on it. But I don't think that this article provides evidence that they will."
scottdisco
rip this joint please
i'm also grateful to Vim for that link he posts as there is a follow up piece at same blog that deals with some issues brought up in conversation in a wide-ranging article, such as a notable European Parliament ruling from 2007.
it is a step in the right direction (sorry to quote a breakfast cereal ad ) purely in terms of the most egregious abuses associated with extraordinary rendition look set to cease, but still very problematic in terms of other abuses seem set to continue, namely oversights not being followed (if i am following everything correctly, and i agree with the DISSENTING JUSTICE writer on this).
in the final analysis, the final paragraph of the updated DISSENTING JUSTICE piece (available here) concludes in a clear-eyed fashion, and is very worthwhile, again, including some of the comments he attracts.
the writer of same blog also links to this Brookings piece, provocatively entitled Rendition: Reject the Abuses, Retain the Tactic.
Hilzoy has a few more questions up in a blog comment here, and is responded to below her comment.
it is a step in the right direction (sorry to quote a breakfast cereal ad
) purely in terms of the most egregious abuses associated with extraordinary rendition look set to cease, but still very problematic in terms of other abuses seem set to continue, namely oversights not being followed (if i am following everything correctly, and i agree with the DISSENTING JUSTICE writer on this). in the final analysis, the final paragraph of the updated DISSENTING JUSTICE piece (available here) concludes in a clear-eyed fashion, and is very worthwhile, again, including some of the comments he attracts.
the writer of same blog also links to this Brookings piece, provocatively entitled Rendition: Reject the Abuses, Retain the Tactic.
Hilzoy has a few more questions up in a blog comment here, and is responded to below her comment.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
vimothy
yurp
droid -- what I meant is, are the CIA going to continue (withold the ability) to practice "rendition", but not to send suspects to foreign states to be tortured? So, is rendition as it will be practiced under Obama going to be qualitatively different to rendition under Clinton and Bush (i.e. no outsourcing of torture)? Apologies if this has already been dealt with.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
it looks that way. as i say, a step in the right direction.
if you've not already Vim, really do read that Brookings piece. it's useful. it has some valuable points about extradition as it is (theoretically) available in certain states that do not have, perhaps, the most robust judiciaries.
i note the DISSENTING JUSTICE writer links to it without any overt editorialising, which i'm inferring to mean (given he's gloriously opinionated in other areas
) that he doesn't have too many problems with them.there's every possibility i may be entirely wrong on that call, as i may be on everything
Last edited: