As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Executive Order-A-Palooza!

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited January 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Yes, I know we've been discussing the major EOs in the 100 Days thread, but with the orders coming down fast and furious, it's worth having a thread to just discuss the executive orders that have come out and their impact.

So far, the list:
  • The biggie, of course, is the EO that orders the closure of Gitmo within a year, as well as the CIA's network of extraterritorial prisons.
  • Connected to the above is an EO that establishes the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation throughout the government, including the CIA. While there are some loopholes in the AFM, this is a dramatically better situation.
  • The pay of the WH staff making over $100k is frozen.
  • Executive branch employees are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
  • All HR decisions in the executive branch are to be made based on qualifications, not politics.
  • A set of orders meant to end the "revolving door" - new employees may not work in any area where they my deal with their previous employer for two years, and leaving employees may not lobby for 2 years or until the end of the Obama Administration, whichever comes last.
  • Only the President may assert executive privilege, and he may only do so after a Constitutional review by the Attorney General and the WH Chief Counsel.
  • A reaffirmation of support of the Freedom of Information Act throughout the executive branch.
  • Repeal of the Global Gag Rule, a.ka. the Mexico City Rule. He held off till today to do so because yesterday was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

The ones I want to see:
  • Removal of the seal on the presidential records of the Reagan Administration.
  • Ending the stem cell research ban.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is DADT repealable by EO? I've heard conflicting info on that. If it is, that's one I'd love to see right away, but it's more likely going to be a year or so before it's written up.

    I'd also like to see some action on the "memos" that H&HS were using during this last year to screw with the availability of birth control and hospital/clinic hiring practices.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    That's a pretty sexy list so far. So far... and it's only been 48 hours.

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.

    Dunadan019 on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Is DADT repealable by EO? I've heard conflicting info on that. If it is, that's one I'd love to see right away, but it's more likely going to be a year or so before it's written up.

    I'd also like to see some action on the "memos" that H&HS were using during this last year to screw with the availability of birth control and hospital/clinic hiring practices.

    Considering that DADT is an EO in of itself, yes, it can be. The HHS BS is a bit harder because those were regulatory changes that went into effect on Jan 19, making them a LOT harder to remove.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Article making an excellent point about Gitmo. The EO's a good start, but Gitmo needs to be shut down permanently.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yes, I know we've been discussing the major EOs in the 100 Days thread, but with the orders coming down fast and furious, it's worth having a thread to just discuss the executive orders that have come out and their impact.

    So far, the list:
    • The biggie, of course, is the EO that orders the closure of Gitmo within a year, as well as the CIA's network of extraterritorial prisons.
    • Connected to the above is an EO that establishes the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation throughout the government, including the CIA. While there are some loopholes in the AFM, this is a dramatically better situation.
    • The pay of the WH staff making over $100k is frozen.
    • Executive branch employees are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
    • All HR decisions in the executive branch are to be made based on qualifications, not politics.
    • A set of orders meant to end the "revolving door" - new employees may not work in any area where they my deal with their previous employer for two years, and leaving employees may not lobby for 2 years or until the end of the Obama Administration, whichever comes last.
    • Only the President may assert executive privilege, and he may only do so after a Constitutional review by the Attorney General and the WH Chief Counsel.
    • A reaffirmation of support fo the Freedom of Information Act throughout the executive branch.

    The ones I want to see:
    • Removal of the seal on the presidential records of the Reagan Administration.
    • Removal of the Global Gag Rule.
    • Ending the stem cell research ban.

    I've heard the last two are being drafted, but no hard reporting on them yet.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Connected to the above is an EO that establishes the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation throughout the government, including the CIA. While there are some loopholes in the AFM, this is a dramatically better situation.

    This is the kind of thing I like to see. We really didn't need all that crap about waterboarding and such.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Well, so far I am pretty happy with Obama's executive Orders. Especially since it's not just Gitmo he's going to close, but the other extraterritorial. Shows the dude actually means business.

    KetBra on
    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    • The pay of the WH staff making over $100k is frozen.
    • All HR decisions in the executive branch are to be made based on qualifications, not politics.
    • Only the President may assert executive privilege, and he may only do so after a Constitutional review by the Attorney General and the WH Chief Counsel.
    • A reaffirmation of support fo the Freedom of Information Act throughout the executive branch.
    These are pure fluff. I mean, really, White House staff pay is a drop in the fucking federal budget, and personally, I want people working in high-up government positions to be making good money; it makes them less susceptible to bribes and corruption. The second one is nice, don't get me wrong, but really, anyone can say that, or write it into law, or whatever; the follow through is what really matters, and an executive order isn't really going to do anything for it one way or another. Again, on the third, the sentiment is very nice, but given that he could sign one piece of paper and repeal it, or simply do the same thing by telling his people not to do it as it comes up makes it a purely symbolic move. The fourth is obvious symbolism, too. Again, don't get me wrong, symbolism is important, but I'm reserving judgment until I see actual action.
    • Executive branch employees are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
    • A set of orders meant to end the "revolving door" - new employees may not work in any area where they my deal with their previous employer for two years, and leaving employees may not lobby for 2 years or until the end of the Obama Administration, whichever comes last.
    Personally, I think these are the biggest deal. We need a fundamental change in the way our government does its thing, and things like this are the way we get it done. I'd like to see a law passed (instead of just a Congressional rule) that bars Congressmen from lobbying for 2-4 years after they get out of Congress.
    • The biggie, of course, is the EO that orders the closure of Gitmo within a year, as well as the CIA's network of extraterritorial prisons.
    • Connected to the above is an EO that establishes the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation throughout the government, including the CIA. While there are some loopholes in the AFM, this is a dramatically better situation.
    A good start.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I definitely want to see the Reagan records unsealed in his first term (and aren't we coming up on Bush I pretty soon?) but not right away. I think a lot of dirt on a fair number of still-important republicans (either because they are still in government or are highly regarded) is going to come out of those records.

    I do not want to see them overshadow more important things in the short term (because it's been 20 years, another 2 won't hurt) but I also don't want all the news coming out of Obama's first X days to overshadow the records.

    RiemannLives on
    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.
    How would it?

    I mean, are you making above 100K?

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    wunderbarwunderbar What Have I Done? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.
    How would it?

    I mean, are you making above 100K?

    I'm sure he's thinking that "hmm, what if they lower that to $80k, then $60k, etc."

    wunderbar on
    XBL: thewunderbar PSN: thewunderbar NNID: thewunderbar Steam: wunderbar87 Twitter: wunderbar
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Even if that were the case I doubt it would expand beyond the West Wing and EEOB.

    moniker on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.
    How would it?

    I mean, are you making above 100K?

    I'm sure he's thinking that "hmm, what if they lower that to $80k, then $60k, etc."

    Eh, I suppose that makes sense. Either way, like Than said it's a gesture.

    What I'm hoping is that the FOI Act stuff gets challenged immediately and is met with actual receptivity on the administration's part.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    i can't help but see this thread title and imagine it being said in a thick italian accent.

    That is all.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Options
    GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    GrimReaper on
    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    He has not, we have no idea what the hell he's going to do along those lines. It's something a lot of people (50% of Americans judging by a Washington Post poll I linked in the 100 days thread) want to see him do. There have been decidedly mixed messages:

    Obama: We have to look forward, I don't want it to look like I'm engaged in a partisan witch hunt.
    Holder: We have to look forward, waterboarding is torture.
    Pelosi: I kinda want prosecutions.
    Levin: We need an accounting for torture in this country.
    Reid: ...

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    I know he said he'd review every EO Bush had ever signed to decide which ones should be killed with fire, which is what he seems to be remedying thus far. I recall him waffling on prosecuting the Bush administration, and don't recall if he said one way or the other.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.
    How would it?

    I mean, are you making above 100K?

    I'm sure he's thinking that "hmm, what if they lower that to $80k, then $60k, etc."

    Eh, I suppose that makes sense. Either way, like Than said it's a gesture.

    What I'm hoping is that the FOI Act stuff gets challenged immediately and is met with actual receptivity on the administration's part.

    National Wage/Price freezes or control policies did occur in a bunch of places in the 1970s/early 1980s. While I haven't heard anyone seriously mention this as an option at all so far (anywhere) you never know where this recession will end up, given it is still rather fresh. Given how many weird things have happened so far in the last 6 months on that score I'm not ruling anything out, even previously discredited options

    A book on the topic!

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    • The pay of the WH staff making over $100k is frozen.
    • All HR decisions in the executive branch are to be made based on qualifications, not politics.
    • Only the President may assert executive privilege, and he may only do so after a Constitutional review by the Attorney General and the WH Chief Counsel.
    • A reaffirmation of support fo the Freedom of Information Act throughout the executive branch.
    These are pure fluff. I mean, really, White House staff pay is a drop in the fucking federal budget, and personally, I want people working in high-up government positions to be making good money; it makes them less susceptible to bribes and corruption. The second one is nice, don't get me wrong, but really, anyone can say that, or write it into law, or whatever; the follow through is what really matters, and an executive order isn't really going to do anything for it one way or another. Again, on the third, the sentiment is very nice, but given that he could sign one piece of paper and repeal it, or simply do the same thing by telling his people not to do it as it comes up makes it a purely symbolic move. The fourth is obvious symbolism, too. Again, don't get me wrong, symbolism is important, but I'm reserving judgment until I see actual action.

    While these EO have less of an immediate impact than some of the others, I think it's a mistake to write them off as merely symbolism.

    The first one isn't so much a gesture as leading by example. Obama is making it clear that we're all in for tough times ahead and that we're all in this together. It's a classy political move that re-enforces his ability to lead, and since it's limited to WH staff who aren't under any kind of financial hardship and never again in their lives will be there aren't the kind of downsides a broader version of this might have.

    With the other three, while I'll agree the impact on governance is in sticking to them rather than saying it, there is a lot of good that's done just by ticking off the major areas where power has been abused and laws arguably broken and from the very beginning of the administration taking a public stand on the right side of the issues.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    I know he said he'd review every EO Bush had ever signed to decide which ones should be killed with fire, which is what he seems to be remedying thus far. I recall him waffling on prosecuting the Bush administration, and don't recall if he said one way or the other.

    I'm holding out hope for this one. Holder wouldn't say whether he'd pursue cases against torturers, but the fact that he's not answering seems a good start.

    One thing I really, really want Obama to do is put to rest this idea that the President's actions are legal just because he says they are. That needs to be killed with fire from all three branches of government.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    I know he said he'd review every EO Bush had ever signed to decide which ones should be killed with fire, which is what he seems to be remedying thus far. I recall him waffling on prosecuting the Bush administration, and don't recall if he said one way or the other.

    I'm holding out hope for this one. Holder wouldn't say whether he'd pursue cases against torturers, but the fact that he's not answering seems a good start.

    One thing I really, really want Obama to do is put to rest this idea that the President's actions are legal just because he says they are. That needs to be killed with fire from all three branches of government.

    Are you advocating burning the former President at the stake?

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Those are pretty impressive for the first few days, is my memory out of whack or did Obama say at some point before he was elected prez that he'd set-up an independent review of the Bush regime to identify if the law was broken etc?

    I'm pretty sure he said something along those lines.

    I know he said he'd review every EO Bush had ever signed to decide which ones should be killed with fire, which is what he seems to be remedying thus far. I recall him waffling on prosecuting the Bush administration, and don't recall if he said one way or the other.

    I'm holding out hope for this one. Holder wouldn't say whether he'd pursue cases against torturers, but the fact that he's not answering seems a good start.

    One thing I really, really want Obama to do is put to rest this idea that the President's actions are legal just because he says they are. That needs to be killed with fire from all three branches of government.

    I'm more than half convinced the entire Holder thing is a proxy fight to test the waters on just what Obama can do about the Bush administration's abuses and how the public and major players will react. The Obama transition was too canny to not have thought this angle through and Holder wouldn't have just have randomly veered into this territory.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    How about an official end to warrant-less wiretapping or a repeal of the Patriot Act (although I think that would take an act of Congress, but the Obama administration/Justice Department could simply refuse to use it)?

    Dalboz on
  • Options
    ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dalboz wrote: »
    How about an official end to warrant-less wiretapping or a repeal of the Patriot Act (although I think that would take an act of Congress, but the Obama administration/Justice Department could simply refuse to use it)?

    Didn't Obama vote in favor of both extending the USA PATRIOT Act and letting AT&T off the hook for wiretapping?

    Clipse on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Dalboz wrote: »
    How about an official end to warrant-less wiretapping or a repeal of the Patriot Act (although I think that would take an act of Congress, but the Obama administration/Justice Department could simply refuse to use it)?

    Didn't Obama vote in favor of both extending the USA PATRIOT Act and letting AT&T off the hook for wiretapping?

    The Patriot Act won't ever be repealed, the wiretapping thing as I recall was a slightly more complex compromise than "letting them off the hook". But I do think that with it's focus on transparency, the Obama administration should also be made to understand that civilian privacy issues are extremely important.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The compromise involved officially ending the practice while letting the telecoms off the hook on those civil lawsuits. There were some other things thrown in too, my memory is a bit foggy.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wunderbar wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    im worried about that 100k thing, well worried because i don't want something like that to trickle down to me.
    How would it?

    I mean, are you making above 100K?

    I'm sure he's thinking that "hmm, what if they lower that to $80k, then $60k, etc."

    pay freezes have happened before because 'government workers are the role model for how to get through a recession'

    and the thing about pay freezes is that they stop promotions as well.... well you can have the responsibility but just not the extra pay.

    cmon, you would want to keep your job too.

    Dunadan019 on
  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Dalboz wrote: »
    How about an official end to warrant-less wiretapping or a repeal of the Patriot Act (although I think that would take an act of Congress, but the Obama administration/Justice Department could simply refuse to use it)?

    Didn't Obama vote in favor of both extending the USA PATRIOT Act and letting AT&T off the hook for wiretapping?

    He voted for every amendment (i believe there were 4) to strip telco immunity from that bill but it never got passed.

    wazilla on
    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    GlaealGlaeal Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Clipse wrote: »
    Didn't Obama vote in favor of both extending the USA PATRIOT Act

    Obama voted for HR 3199, which did extend some of the USA PATRIOT act, but modified a lot of the provisions to require much more congressional oversight. It also contained a bunch of Methamphetamine legislation that could have been politically dangerous to oppose.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03199:@@@D&summ2=m&
    Clipse wrote: »
    and letting AT&T off the hook for wiretapping?

    Again, kinda. He voted for HR 6304, which gave telecom companies immunity from federal prosecution if the actions they took are certified by the Attorney General as lawful. If the actions are found to be unlawful, they can still be prosecuted.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06304:@@@D&summ2=m&

    Glaeal on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So the news is running a story that Obama is going to issue an executive order allowing funding to go to organizations that provide abortions over seas.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yeah, that was on the table on day 1. The Mexico City rule, they call it, which Clinton overturned when he was elected and GWB reinstated. The great thing, though, is that Obama is reversing the Bush policy on embryonic stem cells.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Glaeal wrote: »
    [...] HR 6304, which gave telecom companies immunity from federal prosecution if the actions they took are certified by the Attorney General as lawful. If the actions are found to be unlawful, they can still be prosecuted.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06304:@@@D&summ2=m&

    I skimmed the URL because your description above confuses me in that it seems to say nothing. Paraphrasing as I understand it: "If what they did wasn't illegal (because the AG said it wasn't), we won't prosecute." I would hope that if something wasn't illegal there wouldn't be criminal prosecutions. I'm of the opinion that I'm understanding this incorrectly, and was hoping you might be willing to explain this a bit more? Also, quoting the relevant parts of that URL might help.

    edit: nm, I found the relevant piece
    Title II: Protections for Electronic Communication Service Providers - (Sec. 201) Prohibits any federal or civil action against any person (including an electronic communication service provider or a landlord or custodian) providing surveillance assistance to an IC element if the AG certifies that such assistance was: (1) provided pursuant to an order or directive under FISA; (2) in connection with an intelligence activity authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007, and designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the United States; (3) the subject of a written request from the AG or IC element head to the provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful; or (4) not provided. Allows for the judicial review of such certifications. Limits certification disclosure for national security purposes. Prohibits state law preemption of the protections afforded assistance providers under this section. Requires semiannual reports from the AG to the intelligence and judiciary committees on the implementation of this title.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    OP updated to add his removal of the Global Gag Rule from "orders he needs to issue" to "orders he's issuing".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I have to say I really like where Obama is going with regards to lobbyists. That shit never sat well with me, to have such a glaring conflict of interest be so integrated into your form of government. Good job Obama.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I have to say I really like where Obama is going with regards to lobbyists. That shit never sat well with me, to have such a glaring conflict of interest be so integrated into your form of government. Good job Obama.

    Yeah, speaking of lobbyists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html
    Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

    "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

    Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Gibbs actually answered that question yesterday. Kinda shadily, I must admit, but it involved the words "revolving door" and "small number of exceptions."

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    GlaealGlaeal Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Glaeal wrote: »
    [...] HR 6304, which gave telecom companies immunity from federal prosecution if the actions they took are certified by the Attorney General as lawful. If the actions are found to be unlawful, they can still be prosecuted.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06304:@@@D&summ2=m&

    I skimmed the URL because your description above confuses me in that it seems to say nothing. Paraphrasing as I understand it: "If what they did wasn't illegal (because the AG said it wasn't), we won't prosecute." I would hope that if something wasn't illegal there wouldn't be criminal prosecutions. I'm of the opinion that I'm understanding this incorrectly, and was hoping you might be willing to explain this a bit more? Also, quoting the relevant parts of that URL might help.

    edit: nm, I found the relevant piece
    Title II: Protections for Electronic Communication Service Providers - (Sec. 201) Prohibits any federal or civil action against any person (including an electronic communication service provider or a landlord or custodian) providing surveillance assistance to an IC element if the AG certifies that such assistance was: (1) provided pursuant to an order or directive under FISA; (2) in connection with an intelligence activity authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007, and designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the United States; (3) the subject of a written request from the AG or IC element head to the provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful; or (4) not provided. Allows for the judicial review of such certifications. Limits certification disclosure for national security purposes. Prohibits state law preemption of the protections afforded assistance providers under this section. Requires semiannual reports from the AG to the intelligence and judiciary committees on the implementation of this title.

    The only way a company is provided immunity under that law is if the Attorney General certifies that what the company was doing was both directed by the government and directly involved with the prevention of a terrorist attack. If the telecoms were providing free access to all information they had without limits, which they apparently were, then they are no longer immune to prosecution. Also, if the government was using the information for any purpose other than fighting terrorism, which guys like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#28781200 say they were, they are again no longer immune to prosecution.

    Glaeal on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Mr. Hillbilly Heroin loses it over Obama's reaffirmation of the FOIA.

    Yes, he literally called allowing the public to see what their government is doing "banana republic stuff".

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    EndomaticEndomatic Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Mr. Hillbilly Heroin loses it over Obama's reaffirmation of the FOIA.

    Yes, he literally called allowing the public to see what their government is doing "banana republic stuff".

    How can anyone honestly think about what he said and think that it makes sense?
    wisegeek wrote:
    As a term of critique, a banana republic describes a country whose government is primarily concerned with economics benefiting a colonial or corporate power, rather than values of democracy and social welfare. Specifically, "bananaland," or "banana republic" was coined to refer to Central and South American dictatorships set up for the purpose of foreign exploitation of natural resources such as agricultural crops.

    the link
    I just did a google search

    Isn't this sorta what Bush did? Wasn't HE involved in "Banana Republic stuff"?

    Endomatic on
Sign In or Register to comment.