Flip flops and governance: Obama not as advertised

[Predicto]

The gymnastics that Obama supporters are going through in this thread are starting to make me laugh.

Really?

To me, I am seeing Republicans say: "Obama is breaking explicit campaign pledges. Well, not actual explicit pledges, but violating general principles that he expressed on the campaign trail. Well, not really the general principles, but my own personal interpretation of the exact actions he must what he must have been planning to do in the future as President at the time he expressed those general concerns on the campaign trail.

That's it! Obama isn't doing exactly what I expected him to do. What a hypocrite."

[BigMike619]

i didnt vote obama (duh!) but I can say I think he is digging too much in to too many things without having the proper experience to know what he is doing. I think he has 10000% good intentions but he hasnt been around the block long enough and hasnt done this nearly enough to spread himself so thin so quick.

but going in I knew he wouldnt be able to follow thru on all of the things he promised.

[PeterMP]

Really?

To me, I am seeing Republicans say: "Obama is breaking explicit campaign pledges. Well, not actual explicit pledges, but violating general principles that he expressed on the campaign trail. Well, not really the general principles, but my own personal interpretation of the exact actions he must what he must have been planning to do in the future as President at the time he expressed those general concerns on the campaign trail.

That's it! Obama isn't doing exactly what I expected him to do. What a hypocrite."

Well, only if you completely ignore the past.

I remember the pre-election threads about Military tribunuals. I don't remember a single Obama supporter coming into the thread and saying, 'Hey, they aren't so bad.'

I remember the talk about Congress caving to Bush and giving him everything he wanted in the Military Commission.

I don't remember a single person ever coming in and saying, 'Oh by the way, Obama might use them too.'

[PeterMP]

I read that. You can interpret that as an Absolute Pledge to close ALL military tribunals if you want, but the words are not there.

According to the OP, Obama is moving most of the trials to federal court, and in the few that are remaining in military tribunals, he is changing the rules to comport better with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Which also comports with what he said in your quotation.

You want to show me anywhere somebody has said he is changing the rules to better comport with Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Oh, and I'll take better; not absolutely.

[Midnight Judges]

I voted for him hoping for moderation. And so far, am getting what I expected.

Me six. And it seems the Republicans can't decide whether he is a radical liberal or too centrist, or turning us into a socialist country vs. changing nothing.

I love it.

[Prosperity]

Well, only if you completely ignore the past.

I remember the pre-election threads about Military tribunuals. I don't remember a single Obama supporter coming into the thread and saying, 'Hey, they aren't so bad.'

I remember the talk about Congress caving to Bush and giving him everything he wanted in the Military Commission.

I don't remember a single person ever coming in and saying, 'Oh by the way, Obama might use them too.'

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=254639&highlight=military+tribunals

here's a thread from August 2008 (pre-election), seems like the liberals aren't pissed off at the idea, seems like people thought it was good that these people got due process.

[Predicto]

You want to show me anywhere somebody has said he is changing the rules to better comport with Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Oh, and I'll take better; not absolutely.

Fine. Since Prosperity answered your other query, I will answer this one.

"I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time," [Obama] said in his statement Friday. "Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years."

The president announced five changes to the rules governing the commissions that he said "will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."

"First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial," he said. "Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts."

The military trials will remain frozen for another four months as the administration adjusts the legal system that is expected to try fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees currently at the U.S. naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thirteen detainees - including five charged with helping orchestrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - are already in the tribunal system.

Mr. Obama said the White House will seek more time to reform the military commission process.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/14/politics/main5015090.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_5015090

So, reforming the tribunals to provide greater due process... check.

Trying fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees under military tribunals rather than regular courts.... check.

Obviously exactly the same as Bush.

[PeterMP]

Fine. Since Prosperity answered your other query, I will answer this one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/14/politics/main5015090.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_5015090

So, reforming the tribunals to provide greater due process... check.

Trying fewer than 20 of the 241 detainees under military tribunals rather than regular courts.... check.

Obviously exactly the same as Bush.

Well, first you'd have to find somewhere I said he was exactly the same as Bush or even this policy was the same for this post to be at all relevant.

I will point out that your post doesn't even mention the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Do you want to try again?

[Burgold]

but the argument of this thread is that so far Obama = Bush. If you are agreeing that he doesn't than the whole thread falls apart.

[PeterMP]

but the argument of this thread is that so far Obama = Bush. If you are agreeing that he doesn't than the whole thread falls apart.

Well, if you read my post and can follow a discussion it should be clear that I'm not and never did make that argument.

Heck, in this thread I've had a discussion with Henry with respect to the historical evidence/importance of voting against a party in power when things go badly, which clearly has nothing to do with Obama = Bush.

This is at least partly on topic. The question was asked if this actually represents a broken campaign promise during the course of the discussion.

Specifically, Predicto states this brings the policy better in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is noticably absent any of the White House statements I've read on this subject.

[PeterMP]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=254639&highlight=military+tribunals

here's a thread from August 2008 (pre-election), seems like the liberals aren't pissed off at the idea, seems like people thought it was good that these people got due process.

I missed that thread

**EDIT**

Should have actually read the page. You posted 6 pages of JMS essentially unilaterally bashing the process w/o any serious disagreement from anybody else that doesn't mention Obama.

Predicto did show up to say it looked good, but then again later to say that JMS was making some good points.

[Burgold]

Well, if you read my post and can follow a discussion it should be clear that I'm not and never did make that argument.

Heck, in this thread I've had a discussion with Henry with respect to the historical evidence/importance of voting against a party in power when things go badly, which clearly has nothing to do with Obama = Bush.

This is at least partly on topic. The question was asked if this actually represents a broken campaign promise during the course of the discussion.

Ah, haven't followed all its tangents. I remember its beginnings and have checked in occassionally. The original thought was Obama and all his supporters are hypocrites and that Obama has become Bush's doppleganger.

I think Obama has done a better job than average so far in keeping his campaign pledges. I think that in this specific instance a couple things are happening. Bush, via public pressure and mostly the courts was being forced to move more towards the Democratic position. Thus, if Obama is only slightly modifying the very last moments of the Bush policy it is not seen as a big change, however, if you compare it to the Bush/Cheney doctrine than it is a huge ideological shift.

[PeterMP]

Ah, haven't followed all its tangents. I remember its beginnings and have checked in occassionally. The original thought was Obama and all his supporters are hypocrites and that Obama has become Bush's doppleganger.

I think Obama has done a better job than average so far in keeping his campaign pledges. I think that in this specific instance a couple things are happening. Bush, via public pressure and mostly the courts was being forced to move more towards the Democratic position. Thus, if Obama is only slightly modifying the very last moments of the Bush policy it is not seen as a big change, however, if you compare it to the Bush/Cheney doctrine than it is a huge ideological shift.

Well, I think Predicto has done a good job of pointing out the differences in the pure/unalted Bush policy and this.

I still don't like it. I don't trust the military (long term) or Congress or the courts to actually keep an eye on things.

There should be a civilian side system that involves civilians in real roles. If that means setting up a FISA like court to handel these cases, then fine.

I guess generally the things that I though he'd do (not that he necessarily promised to do) are the things that are falling vs. things I like less/am less sure are good ideas are being pursued.

[Burgold]

I actually very much agree with you. I am a big "checks" guy which is why I had difficulty with the warrantless wiretaping and the lack of due process at Gitmo. I don't think that what Obama is suggesting has gone far enough, though incrementally it is better. At least there is some process now to determine whether we got the right guys or not. A military court is better than none at all and if there are issues of national security secrets endangered may even be the better of multiple evils, but for those who we have wrongly imprisoned it is still very sour fruit.

[Prosperity]

I missed that thread

**EDIT**

Should have actually read the page. You posted 6 pages of JMS essentially unilaterally bashing the process w/o any serious disagreement from anybody else that doesn't mention Obama.

Predicto did show up to say it looked good, but then again later to say that JMS was making some good points.

well yeah JMS is one guy

Predicto, Larry, and Tulane Skins Fan defended the process

All these people would be considered part of the "left" of ES, and their tacit approval before the election on a specific case pretty much shows you were working on a false premise

I posted in the thread as well and I wasn't at all outraged at the process, I said something like 'it's not surprising to find out that Osama's driver was involved in some shady stuff'

[AAARedskin]

If Obama were an NFL coach, he'd be coaching the Lions, and already he's 0-4. 3 and 1/2 years and counting................

[Burgold]

You're calling the United State the Detroit Lions... that's pretty outrageous. I think you owe an apology to America.

[PeterMP]

well yeah JMS is one guy

Predicto, Larry, and Tulane Skins Fan defended the process

All these people would be considered part of the "left" of ES, and their tacit approval before the election on a specific case pretty much shows you were working on a false premise

I posted in the thread as well and I wasn't at all outraged at the process, I said something like 'it's not surprising to find out that Osama's driver was involved in some shady stuff'

Predicto has two posts in the thread. Part of the second one includes that JMS is making some good points (I actually know from Predicto in this thread that he doesn't like these so I'm not at all surprised that he didn't disagree with JMS, and I don't think he gives his approval, tacit or otherwise.

I am not defending the military tribunal approach at all. I do not like the military tribunal appruach and I doubt that Obama (or anyone) can provide adequate due process in such a proceeding.

(from this thread)).

TSF was the OP and other than his oringinal comments (which can be read as being better than permanent detainment with no trials as the Bush administration was doing) never directly supports them either.

Larry is all over the map on this issue in even in that thread, but here's one example of his ringing endorsement of them:

Uh, I'd suggest that if you have a problem with these proceedings (and I don't think it's too tough to have a problem with these proceedings) that you not base your "case" on the assertion that any body who's in the US military is morally unfit to be a fair juror.

He has issues with them. His issue with the JMS is post is that JMS assumes that everybody in the US military can't be a fair juror.

This is almost irrelevant though because I think most people left in this thread don't like them. The larger point was that this was a Republican-Democrat divide issue and the natural assumption was that Obama wouldn't use Bush-like (not exactly Bush, but something the executive branch single handedly made up) military tribunals to try the people there, and I'll question the intellectual honesty of anybody that claims they thought Obama would do something like this prior to the election.

(I'm not saying that he'd done them all through civil court, but to have an actual process in place involving Congress in the process of creating a real law and a real system to deal with them.)

[Bang]

If Obama were an NFL coach, he'd be coaching the Lions, and already he's 0-4. 3 and 1/2 years and counting................

You should take this act on the road. I swear, every time I read one of your posts I laugh my ass off for about five minutes.

I hope that is what you intended...

~Bang

[Prosperity]

PeterMP, those are good points, conceding that, it's still a bit far from your characterization of the past. It seems like most of the left was relatively glad that they did get some form of due process. There were some angry about the idea of military tribunals, but most seemed to think it wasn't so bad of an approach since it was so much of an improvement.

I like your suggestion of creating a new system for terrorists instead of trying to fit them in what we already have. Several times I have pointed out that other countries have separate courts do deal with terrorists, like France for example. I think trying to fit them in to our civilian courts doesn't make sense, and I also think that just because that's not a perfect fit that it doesn't mean that they should get no due process at all. For the time being military tribunals make sense. I don't think it's all that good to keep people from getting due process until we get the new system in place. So... I'm ok with military tribunals, but I think there can be improvement in the future.