Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
Didn't he put a stop to torture?
Hmm... I can't find a definite source one way or the other. I may be thinking of the continued indefinite detention.
I know I'm angry about something in that general moral spectrum, at the very least.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
Didn't he put a stop to torture?
Hmm... I can't find a definite source one way or the other. I may be thinking of the continued indefinite detention.
I know I'm angry about something in that general moral spectrum, at the very least.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
If you trust Obama with these kinds of Presidential powers but you don't trust Romney (or whoever), then you should be against the Presidential power. It's one of many good reasons!
The others, notably:
What if we're wrong?
When we're inevitably wrong, or miss, is that so counterproductive it removes any benefit from when we do hit legitimate targets? (I say yes)
What does it mean for how America is viewed abroad? Is that counterproductive as well? (Ditto)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Enemy Combatants are a kind of difficult legal boondoggle to begin with. Our entire concept of war has shifted over the past decade from troops in uniform versus troops in uniform to troops in uniform versus POTENTIALLY EVERYONE. You'd think we would have learned a lesson from Vietnam about engaging ideological factions who aren't necessarily readily identifiable and who use guerrilla-warfare tactics , but we're only just now catching up to the idea that Vietnam was the beginning of a shift in the winds of how we fight war. Until Afghanistan, our top brass regarded it as a fluke that the Viet Cong employed unconventional means to fight American GIs.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Supporting drones and new presidential powers for Obama is hypocritical, but no one is actually doing that - people are merely refusing to withhold their votes from Obama and democrats just to make a stand on these issues.
No one is going "Well, if it's a democrat let's have indefinite rendition and incarceration by all means!". It's more like "Wish he wouldn't, but I have the choice between voting democrat or not and this is not the issue that's going to make me stay home in November."
Besides, nearly all republican politicians have worse morals and are worse people than their democratic counterparts, so saying Obama can be entrusted with predator drones doesn't mean you entrust a beast like Romney with them. But that is a weak qualifier - precedent is what it is, so it is certainly a cynical and sad state of affairs.
Right, in fact I would say the majority of us think its bullshit
We do not, however, think that any of the Republican candidates would be better in that or really any area of executive overreach
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It's just as hard to surrender to a sniper, yet the police and military have been using them for at least a century.
Not only false equivalence, but really bad false equivalence.
I've always loved it when people say that something being different makes it totally incomparable. Are you going to show a functional difference, or are you just going to assert that oranges follow a different set of physical laws from apples?
How about the fact that police sharpshooters (they are not snipers, damnit) sit well back from the professional negotiators and (theoretically) only pull the trigger in the instant before the target does something immanently threatening to the life and health of someone in proximity of the event. Compare this to drone strikes where there is no one standing outside the target's house with a megaphone asking the people inside to please come out in a non-threatening manner and hug it out downtown.
Goose.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
No, but they can use it to turn off the liberal base from the Democrats by using it as a wedge issue. It also can be a viable tactic by the libertarians to use it to convince liberals how both parties are identical.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
They kind of get off on it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
No, but they can use it to turn off the liberal base from the Democrats by using it as a wedge issue. It also can be a viable tactic by the libertarians to use it to convince liberals how both parties are identical.
I don't really think it has the power you think it does. Yes it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but it's not egregious enough to make me stay home on election day. Especially if Santorum ends up being the GOP nominee. For as unhappy as I am that Obama's continued some of Bush's rather unsavory programs, I'm far, far, far more trusting of his intentions than anyone the GOP is offering in opposition to him.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
No, but they can use it to turn off the liberal base from the Democrats by using it as a wedge issue. It also can be a viable tactic by the libertarians to use it to convince liberals how both parties are identical.
The democrats believe that we shouldn't torture. t won't work as a wedge issue just because they arn't trying to actively punish people who tortured. It's still a debate between people who do torture and people who don't.
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Enemy Combatants are a kind of difficult legal boondoggle to begin with. Our entire concept of war has shifted over the past decade from troops in uniform versus troops in uniform to troops in uniform versus POTENTIALLY EVERYONE. You'd think we would have learned a lesson from Vietnam about engaging ideological factions who aren't necessarily readily identifiable and who use guerrilla-warfare tactics , but we're only just now catching up to the idea that Vietnam was the beginning of a shift in the winds of how we fight war. Until Afghanistan, our top brass regarded it as a fluke that the Viet Cong employed unconventional means to fight American GIs.
The concept of war didn't change much. All the Republicans did was repackage it to make it seem like they shouldn't feel guilty for the government torturing prisoners of war. The problem is the Republicans want it both ways, they want a war but don't want any consequences for their immoral actions when they actually have prisoners. Making a "war" against al Quaeda also legitimizes them politically. Gives them the credibility on the world stage and helps them to recruit. America never declared war on any home grown terrorist group after the Oklahoma City Bombing IIRC.
It sure is refreshing to come into this thread every day and be accused by proxy of being a schmuck who is only capable of holding a political conversation with other people that think just like me. I do however like the additional adjectives that get tacked on as time goes by.
Today's dismissive descriptor is "tribal."
Brought to you by smug, and the letter H. With additional funding from the Institute for are we seriously going to do this every single day?
Civilisation, by contrast, is accepting that the law needs to apply without prejudice to everyone.
Which part of killing an enemy combatant was unlawful?
I find it hard to believe that you really think that nations states should be able to arbitrarily designate anyone as Non-combatant Combatants, then legally assassinate them while those persons are living in foreign countries.
I think you mean non-uniformed combatants? That's not an arbitrary designation.
Why does the location of an enemy combatant matter? Are they somehow less of an enemy if they're hiding out in one country instead of another?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iran? Enemy Combatant. Anywhere else? POINT OF CONTENTION.
Enemy Combatants are complete bullshit. It was Dubya covering his ass politically to have Prisoners of War without having to worry about treating them with rights. It was barbaric then and it's barbaric now.
Do you think it would help at all if these decisions were made with transparency, and the evidence made public?
Maybe. But the prisoners need to keep their rights in the process. There needs to be some transparency, even if its a government agency or commission overlooking the cases. That said, Enemy Combatants should have never existed in America. It's a national disgrace to the country. Just like torture was*.
* and letting every off by Obama
Agreed on the torture thing. That definitely falls on the list of things Obama's done or continued that piss me off. Along with prosecutorial immunity for certain companies.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
They kind of get off on it.
When John McCain came out in favor of torture, I tend to think the Republic died a little bit.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And we can disagree on that, because I personally don't think we would have gotten a single conviction and the cost would have been ever getting anything else done.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
And we can disagree on that, because I personally don't think we would have gotten a single conviction and the cost would have been ever getting anything else done.
That's better than letting torturers off without a fight. That only emboldens the bastards and there will be a next time.
edit: This is especially galling since his whole theme while campaigning was "change".
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I also think having health insurance under my dad's plan is pretty nifty! I just think that having the politically powerful be subject to the same laws as the rest of us is more important as a country.
I mean, ideally we could have both.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
I honestly think I agree with you.
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
Without criminal prosecution of Wall Street, or reform of SEC , and a massive bailout of Wall Street there's no incentive for Wall Street to change practices, and every peice of evidence suggests that they haven't.
Without criminal prosecution of war crimes, an end to Guantanamo,, or any other Bush Era War on Terror initiative, there's no reason to think any of that insanity is going to get any better.
Without reform of health care prices (consumers pay for everyone including the uninsured, insurance companies get to negotiate sweet heart deals with providers and then bill for the consumer rate) there are still enormous looming problems in the health sector.
What health care insurance reform there was doesn't protect the very poor, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism for those who say "I don't want to," but may provide small immediate one time savings and lets people who can pay for health insurance, pay for it. It doesn't even address the free rider problem totally, it doesn't address long term expenditure problems.
I do not understand the calculus of those who support giving up going after all of the other issues, so we could concentrate on fixing 59% of one small part of the health care crisis.
EDIT the ACA is the republican boogey man, not because it is a super effective way to deal with a national problem, but because Obama pushed it.
Super Double Edit. I really didn't understand.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
And we can disagree on that, because I personally don't think we would have gotten a single conviction and the cost would have been ever getting anything else done.
That's better than letting torturers off without a fight. That only emboldens the bastards and there will be a next time.
edit: This is especially galling since his whole theme while campaigning was "change".
Change is ending Torture and doing his best to get the people out of there, which to a very limited degree he succeeded to. Anyone who must be tried is still in there because of congress but anyone easily proven to have no evidence whatsoever was released in '09.
I'd have liked to have persecuted these people but realistically, considering how crazy the Right has gotten and remembering how big a chunk of America supports torture do you think that would have ended well?
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
See, I tend to think that we had one real shot at getting any kind of healthcare reform through, and we took it. It's not the Healthcare Reform I wanted, but it was something and it can be expanded as the years go by to eventually produce a system we can be proud of.
For the Wall Street guys and the Telecom guys and all the other douchebags who are above the law I don't think we would've gotten anywhere with all the insanity from the R/D split. The Republicans would've screamed about a witch hunt on private citizens and the magnates themselves would've hired every lawyer in the country to defend them leading to an end result of... nothing.
Besides, it's not like they aren't going to break the law again. We'll get them next time. Hopefully.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
I don't understand your calculus.
Without criminal prosecution of Wall Street, or reform of SEC , and a massive bailout of Wall Street there's no incentive for Wall Street to change practices, and every peice of evidence suggests that they haven't.
Without criminal prosecution of war crimes, an end to Guantanamo,, or any other Bush Era War on Terror initiative, there's no reason to think any of that insanity is going to get any better.
Without reform of health care prices (consumers pay for everyone including the uninsured, insurance companies get to negotiate sweet heart deals with providers and then bill for the consumer rate) there are still enormous looming problems in the health sector.
What health care insurance reform there was doesn't protect the very poor, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism for those who say "I don't want to," but may provide small immediate one time savings and lets people who can pay for health insurance, pay for it. It doesn't even address the free rider problem totally, it doesn't address long term expenditure problems.
I do not understand the calculus of those who support giving up going after all of the other issues, so we could concentrate on fixing 59% of one small part of the health care crisis.
EDIT the ACA is the republican boogey man, not because it is a super effective way to deal with a national problem, but because Obama pushed it.
I can't imagine the defense winning this kind of case would do any favors to the anti-torture agenda.
And he absolutely should have prosecuted those responsible for torture as well as the other powerful people who are immune from the law in this country (hi Wall Street!). And yes this might have cost us ACA and I understand how other people might have different priorities, but... I think that's the most important one.
But this is not exactly new.
See, I tend to think that we had one real shot at getting any kind of healthcare reform through, and we took it. It's not the Healthcare Reform I wanted, but it was something and it can be expanded as the years go by to eventually produce a system we can be proud of.
For the Wall Street guys and the Telecom guys and all the other douchebags who are above the law I don't think we would've gotten anywhere with all the insanity from the R/D split. The Republicans would've screamed about a witch hunt on private citizens and the magnates themselves would've hired every lawyer in the country to defend them leading to an end result of... nothing.
Besides, it's not like they aren't going to break the law again. We'll get them next time. Hopefully.
It's a fair point, except the last bit.
This has been an ongoing problem since Ford pardoned Nixon, somehow I don't see my side winning anytime soon.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
And we can disagree on that, because I personally don't think we would have gotten a single conviction and the cost would have been ever getting anything else done.
That's better than letting torturers off without a fight. That only emboldens the bastards and there will be a next time.
edit: This is especially galling since his whole theme while campaigning was "change".
Change is ending Torture and doing his best to get the people out of there, which to a very limited degree he succeeded to. Anyone who must be tried is still in there because of congress but anyone easily proven to have no evidence whatsoever was released in '09.
Nowhere near enough change for my liking. He's only delayed it, not ended the prospect that war criminals* won't be prosecuted. He did the least, which is not a good example for a leader who believes in the law or being moral. The prisoners being released was a good start but many prisoners died. Where's their justice? So what if no evidence was released in '09. He should have formed a task force that investigated the incident with a fine toothyed comb. He's got the Department of Justice on his speed dial.
I'd have liked to have persecuted these people but realistically, considering how crazy the Right has gotten and remembering how big a chunk of America supports torture do you think that would have ended well?
It would be the Democratic party's job to change their minds. They're not powerless against Republicans. The right need to be fought back, especially on important issues like this otherwise they win. At least it would have ended. All he's done is let them continue with a low profile under the next torture happy president gets elected then we'll be right where we started.
* Lyndy England's little group was too little, too late. They got off easily, as well. Had they done that a few decades ago they'd have been hanged IIRC
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Yeah, breaking the law, even if it's for "the right reasons" still has the chance of biting you in the ass. MLK, Thoreau, etc.
The percentage of Texans with health insurance will increase to 91 percent - up from 74 percent today - after the national health care law takes effect in 2014, the state's Medicaid director told lawmakers Monday.
He hasn't lifted a finger to help Bradley Manning IIRC. So while he may have stopped officially torturing prisoners, he's looking the other way when he feels like it.
Why would he? Bradley Manning (allegedly) committed a pretty serious crime. The idea that the President of the United States would "help out" a guy who violated his oath and decided to steal and then broadcast gigabytes of current classified information including both diplomatic, military and security information to the world is kind of crazy.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
Forgot the NDAA existed. Which is NOT something he could end with the stroke of his pen. I'm really hoping it somehow makes it to the supreme court before someone else gets in office.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
See Bradley Manning.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Posts
If Henry is referring to not pursuing charges against people that approved the use of torture, I wish it could have happened, but it's politics. I doubt we'd have the ACA if Obama really went after them.
It's the indefinite detention bit.
I'm fairly certain that was one of the flurry of things he did the first day.
I'm not happy about the indefinite detention but I just don't feel he's responsible for that.
The others, notably:
What if we're wrong?
When we're inevitably wrong, or miss, is that so counterproductive it removes any benefit from when we do hit legitimate targets? (I say yes)
What does it mean for how America is viewed abroad? Is that counterproductive as well? (Ditto)
Enemy Combatants are a kind of difficult legal boondoggle to begin with. Our entire concept of war has shifted over the past decade from troops in uniform versus troops in uniform to troops in uniform versus POTENTIALLY EVERYONE. You'd think we would have learned a lesson from Vietnam about engaging ideological factions who aren't necessarily readily identifiable and who use guerrilla-warfare tactics , but we're only just now catching up to the idea that Vietnam was the beginning of a shift in the winds of how we fight war. Until Afghanistan, our top brass regarded it as a fluke that the Viet Cong employed unconventional means to fight American GIs.
So what's stopping him going after it at a later date? This is an issue that should be ended otherwise it'll be an anchor around his presidency IMO. It's also ammunition for Republicans against the Democratic party.
Republicans don't really care if we torture people.
Visibly, anyways.
Right, in fact I would say the majority of us think its bullshit
We do not, however, think that any of the Republican candidates would be better in that or really any area of executive overreach
How about the fact that police sharpshooters (they are not snipers, damnit) sit well back from the professional negotiators and (theoretically) only pull the trigger in the instant before the target does something immanently threatening to the life and health of someone in proximity of the event. Compare this to drone strikes where there is no one standing outside the target's house with a megaphone asking the people inside to please come out in a non-threatening manner and hug it out downtown.
Goose.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
No, but they can use it to turn off the liberal base from the Democrats by using it as a wedge issue. It also can be a viable tactic by the libertarians to use it to convince liberals how both parties are identical.
They kind of get off on it.
I don't really think it has the power you think it does. Yes it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but it's not egregious enough to make me stay home on election day. Especially if Santorum ends up being the GOP nominee. For as unhappy as I am that Obama's continued some of Bush's rather unsavory programs, I'm far, far, far more trusting of his intentions than anyone the GOP is offering in opposition to him.
The democrats believe that we shouldn't torture. t won't work as a wedge issue just because they arn't trying to actively punish people who tortured. It's still a debate between people who do torture and people who don't.
The concept of war didn't change much. All the Republicans did was repackage it to make it seem like they shouldn't feel guilty for the government torturing prisoners of war. The problem is the Republicans want it both ways, they want a war but don't want any consequences for their immoral actions when they actually have prisoners. Making a "war" against al Quaeda also legitimizes them politically. Gives them the credibility on the world stage and helps them to recruit. America never declared war on any home grown terrorist group after the Oklahoma City Bombing IIRC.
Today's dismissive descriptor is "tribal."
Brought to you by smug, and the letter H. With additional funding from the Institute for are we seriously going to do this every single day?
When John McCain came out in favor of torture, I tend to think the Republic died a little bit.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Obama has the power to end indefinite detention with the stroke of a pen, as an executive order.
For that reason I feel he's responsible.
He could even make it a super top secret order, or clarify to mean "unless approved by the DOJ" and order them to never approve it if he needed political cover.
The ACA does not address rising health care prices.
Unless Obama can magic up more political capital to go after health care costs the ACA is a pointless mess that in the short term is a massive give away to the insurance sector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effect_on_national_spending
Rising health care prices is the health care crisis. A huge amount of political capital was expended to deal with the crisis for no good end.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
But this is not exactly new.
ACA > blood in the water.
That's better than letting torturers off without a fight. That only emboldens the bastards and there will be a next time.
edit: This is especially galling since his whole theme while campaigning was "change".
See, my formulation is more equal justice under the law > ACA
But I've been waging that battle unsuccessfully on this forum since it became obvious Obama was going to win.
See, I think me getting medical coverage under my dad's insurance program and thus not dying last year is more important than some guy potentially getting tortured at Gitmo.
No he doesn't. Haven't we already talked about this? I'm pretty sure we already talked about this.
I also think having health insurance under my dad's plan is pretty nifty! I just think that having the politically powerful be subject to the same laws as the rest of us is more important as a country.
I mean, ideally we could have both.
I honestly think I agree with you.
Without criminal prosecution of Wall Street, or reform of SEC , and a massive bailout of Wall Street there's no incentive for Wall Street to change practices, and every peice of evidence suggests that they haven't.
Without criminal prosecution of war crimes, an end to Guantanamo,, or any other Bush Era War on Terror initiative, there's no reason to think any of that insanity is going to get any better.
Without reform of health care prices (consumers pay for everyone including the uninsured, insurance companies get to negotiate sweet heart deals with providers and then bill for the consumer rate) there are still enormous looming problems in the health sector.
What health care insurance reform there was doesn't protect the very poor, doesn't have an enforcement mechanism for those who say "I don't want to," but may provide small immediate one time savings and lets people who can pay for health insurance, pay for it. It doesn't even address the free rider problem totally, it doesn't address long term expenditure problems.
I do not understand the calculus of those who support giving up going after all of the other issues, so we could concentrate on fixing 59% of one small part of the health care crisis.
EDIT the ACA is the republican boogey man, not because it is a super effective way to deal with a national problem, but because Obama pushed it.
Super Double Edit. I really didn't understand.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Change is ending Torture and doing his best to get the people out of there, which to a very limited degree he succeeded to. Anyone who must be tried is still in there because of congress but anyone easily proven to have no evidence whatsoever was released in '09.
I'd have liked to have persecuted these people but realistically, considering how crazy the Right has gotten and remembering how big a chunk of America supports torture do you think that would have ended well?
See, I tend to think that we had one real shot at getting any kind of healthcare reform through, and we took it. It's not the Healthcare Reform I wanted, but it was something and it can be expanded as the years go by to eventually produce a system we can be proud of.
For the Wall Street guys and the Telecom guys and all the other douchebags who are above the law I don't think we would've gotten anywhere with all the insanity from the R/D split. The Republicans would've screamed about a witch hunt on private citizens and the magnates themselves would've hired every lawyer in the country to defend them leading to an end result of... nothing.
Besides, it's not like they aren't going to break the law again. We'll get them next time. Hopefully.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I don't agree but I understand. Were I in your position I'd feel the same way.
I can't imagine the defense winning this kind of case would do any favors to the anti-torture agenda.
It's a fair point, except the last bit.
This has been an ongoing problem since Ford pardoned Nixon, somehow I don't see my side winning anytime soon.
The policy of indefinite detention can be ended by the DOJ and the Military Tomorrow. With a presidential order. That is not arguable.
The question of where would you send the Gitmo prisoners is arguable.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Oh your talking about about indefinite detention as in future captures. I'm pretty sure that also ended on his first day.
Nowhere near enough change for my liking. He's only delayed it, not ended the prospect that war criminals* won't be prosecuted. He did the least, which is not a good example for a leader who believes in the law or being moral. The prisoners being released was a good start but many prisoners died. Where's their justice? So what if no evidence was released in '09. He should have formed a task force that investigated the incident with a fine toothyed comb. He's got the Department of Justice on his speed dial.
It would be the Democratic party's job to change their minds. They're not powerless against Republicans. The right need to be fought back, especially on important issues like this otherwise they win. At least it would have ended. All he's done is let them continue with a low profile under the next torture happy president gets elected then we'll be right where we started.
* Lyndy England's little group was too little, too late. They got off easily, as well. Had they done that a few decades ago they'd have been hanged IIRC
Yeah, breaking the law, even if it's for "the right reasons" still has the chance of biting you in the ass. MLK, Thoreau, etc.
Theoretically could have ordered the end to his total solitary confinement and generally sped up the process towards getting him court martialed. Which is an insanely micro-managerial thing to do. I think he was treated shittily, but I tend to think that was not a Presidential order and he had more important things to do.
Forgot the NDAA existed. Which is NOT something he could end with the stroke of his pen. I'm really hoping it somehow makes it to the supreme court before someone else gets in office.
See Bradley Manning.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes