Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Obama Embraces Rendition!!??

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    I re-read it before I replied, and I stand by my opposition to your take.

    Your link is to the roll call listing for the TARP bill in 2008, btw.

    On the odd chance that there is any 8A/B/C there, please provide a hint of where to look.

    As to those clauses in the original EO, that would be this language:

    Sec. 8. General Provisions.
    (a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    Which is boilerplate and routine, and no automatic escape clause. OF COURSE it should be interpreted and implemented in a way consistent with applicable law-- that's part of the oath of office. OF COURSE he needs to get it funded through appropriations, or else he would be taking over the function of Congress, and acting against the Constitutional provision of Section 9-- 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'

    And OF COURSE he won't allow the use of this attempted change of policy to pierce the veil of the sovereign immunity of the nation against claims from those parties.

    None of the clauses, then, were obviously insurmountable ahead of time. Remember W also said Gitmo's holding prisons ought to be closed, as did many other Republicans. One would assume the more leftward Democrats in Congress would feel the same way on their own, AND if for no other reason, as they held majority control in both houses of Congress, follow their newly elected president's preferred policy and campaigned upon campaign promise.

    I don't see it as Obama's perfidy and doublecross setting up failure ahead of time, but the Democratic Congress's, spooked by the NIMBY demogoguery.
    Last edited by Soflasnapper; 01-06-2013 at 12:39 PM.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  2. #12
    Tell me again about how you don't slavishly defend the regime.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Sev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    State of Franklin.
    Posts
    9,609
    Seems the defense of Obama is pretty weak.
    Always somebody else's fault.



    There isn't anything wrong with America that liberal ideology, properly applied by government experts, can't make worse.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Quote Originally Posted by LWW View Post
    Tell me again about how you don't slavishly defend the regime.
    I thought you explained that by 'the regime' you had in mind the Democratic establishment, although I may be remembering wrong, or you may have just been making an excuse for an over-broad criticism that you meant to apply to the Obama administration per se, when that wasn't really correct.

    I don't know how throwing the Democrats in Congress under the bus as responsible is defending 'the regime' in that sense, although that may not be who you mean in this case.

    Do you remember clarifying your intended meanings to me for several terms you use-- the cabal, the regime, maybe one or two more? Could you find that? (If I look I'll simply find hundreds to thousands of cites of the various words in unrelated threads.)
    A medium sized fish [...]

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Sev View Post
    Seems the defense of Obama is pretty weak.
    Always somebody else's fault.
    I would agree that Obama did not get the Congress to do this. However, it IS the Congress that had to do it, as to the appropriations side.

    I do not see any language in the EO that intentionally sabotaged the effort from the Gitmo, er, git-go, I meant of course. I think mentioning NIMBY is exactly the right blame-laying, and the NIMBY concerns were from craven Democrats along with craven and partisanly opposed GOPrs.
    A medium sized fish [...]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •