Bush Appointees Bucking Obama On Terror Policies

Politico:

President Barack Obama's claims of broad executive authority to carry out the war on terror are drawing fire from an unexpected source: federal judges nominated by President George W. Bush, who asserted the sweeping powers in the first place.

In recent weeks, three different Bush appointees considering cases relating to war-on-terror detainees have rejected arguments from Obama's Justice Department, which adopted virtually unchanged the positions the Bush administration had staked out.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[judiNJ]

Hot dog, President Obama's reverse psychology is working after all.

[naschkatze]

I hope you're right. You mean, I take it, that Obama is waiting for the courts, the ACLU and others to give him no option but to pursue war crimes? He is alienating many civil libertarians though. I think he just doesn't want the precedent of prosecuting a former president for crimes.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I think he was forcing the issue to a Judicial Opinion, which carries a lot more weight then a Presidential Policy.

Sneaky, sneaky.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Yep! I'm still dancing happy dances :)

[sviolette]

I'm glad they are starting to follow the law. I'm disappointed it took them this long to do it. Now go after the war criminals that took us so far over the line of morality.

[JackRusselTerrier]

I wish they would have followed the law all the time. Instead they keep changing it to fit their mood. Too much ideology. Not enough law.

[AnnfromCA]

Well, look what happened to the ones who supported the executive branch. They ended up with Dems calling for their disbarment.

Dems invited this change of heart.

[dwright]

please grow a couple brain cells

[sviolette]

That is a good thing. They should be disbarred.

[ErnestineBass]

Hmmm...are you advocating "activist judges", Ann?

[crablover]

They're "activists" only when they agree with liberals.

[mystre]

Obama could change some things immediately. However, that would leave the door open for the next admin to change them back.

Politically, forcing the courts to take a position protects Obama's backside in the event something does happen.

Going through the courts is a wise decision imho.

[sviolette]

Agreed. It's discouraging that it takes so long though. At this rate the war criminals will be dead before they are made accountable.

[TruthmongerII]

dwright, you really ought to turn that into a cheer. The reality is that Obama is following most of Bush's policies, including the continuance of rendition sites such as Bagram. Now Obama says "no torture" on "his watch" but that's exactly what happens in black rendition sites.

Who is the hypocrite? Judges who rolled over the Constitution for 7 years before standing up to Herr Bush, or the current POTUS who is now Bush Lite?

[dwright]

Truthmonger - if you are looking for truth - did you really think he could change things overnight?? He literally has NO backing by our invisible government.

I am no apologist for Obama, but I think he is moving things in a much more positive direction and the right direction for our country.

[Liberal2]

Duh....**A­LL*

[JiminNC]

You seem equally intelligent to truthmonger1 - must run in the family

[Gatormouth]

BUSH APPOINTEES? wth Didn't Obama get it about an election being supposed to have consequences? Consequences for whom, I guess ... maybe. How about the part about an election being a new broom?? Bush appointees should only be the very briefest of problems.

[dwright]

Did everyone posting on here read the whole article. It appears to me that they (judges etc.) were willing to do anything for Bush or look away when they knew he was asking for something illegal or usurping his executive powers.

When the Obama admin. is even going towards one of these items - they are claiming - oh we were wrong - so sorry we are not going to allow you to do the things we allowed Bush to do.

If anyone can not see through this hypocrisy they are blind. I also know that if one of these folks is released and does harm to any American citizen - President Obama will be blamed.

[ModeratelyInterested]

Not sure it's all hypocrisy. I think many sane Republicans were (finally!) appalled at the extent of the Unitary Executive bully boy's power grab.

Forcing case law decisions that limit Presidential power may be delightfully devious tactics on the part of our Constitutional Law professor turned President. Long-term, this is very good for the country.

[TruthmongerII]

I agree with the previous writer (jerrypl) that this is Obama's bad karma coming back to bite him. He has dissed his constituencies with very few exceptions -- the guy's a total sellout: now he's wondering whatever happened to his power. Had he honoured his promises to the American people we'd all be helping him right now. As it stands, I can't be bothered with this backstabbing hypocrite.

[bygollymissmolly]

Too bad for you that a large majority of the people in this country disagree with you. President Obama's favorable ratings are still in the 60%+ range. I find that astounding considering the problems he is facing on a daily basis and the daily assault he faces from the Republics. Just think what his approval ratings would be if he had inherited a sound economy and a country not involved in two wars. Then imagine what they would be if the opposition party had not started criticizing him the day after he was elected.

But, then, the Republic assault on President Obama has resulted in the sorry fact that only 20% of Americans still call themselves Republics and the number is dropping on a daily basis.

[radiojunkie]

You have no clue what's going on, let alone understand the problems and what needs to be done to right the Bush wrongs. Retirement is the only solution for some of these problems.

[weatherwaxx]

and I can't be bothered with your spoiled-brat entitlement posturing.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44071
From "The Smi rking Chi mp"

"I haven't forgiven Geo rge W. Bu sh for ste ling two elections, starting two w ars, bank rupting the trea sury and doing his da mnedest to turn the U*S. into a fas cist state. He deserves one of he ll's hottest picnic spots for refusing to lift a finger to bring the 9*/1*1 mur derers to jus tice. Bu sh was stu pid. He was vic ious. He should be in pr ison."

"On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Ob ama is the same as or worse than Bu sh."

"Gu antán amo was but the beginning of Ob ama's bet rayals. First he ordered the camp closed--not immediately but in a year. Now he's expanding the U*S. concentration camp at Bag ram--where 600 inno cent men and chil d ren are being to rtur ed--so he can send the 245 Git mo pris oners there. In the Bu sh era, Gi tmo P*O*Ws received legal representation. Ob ama has ordered that the P*O*Ws sent to Bag ram not be allowed to see a law yer."

"OBA MA BA NS TO RTU RE." But it was a li e. Ob ama's C*I*A director told Congress that there's a "review process that's built into [Ob ama's] executive order" that allows to rtu re to continue."

[jerrypl]

Sure, in the days following 9-11 Americans were angry and wanted revenge, but the intelligence was faulty and Cheney "stovepiped" raw intelligence, with little follow-up validations, to do what Bush and those neo-fascist wackos running the The Project for a New American Century wanted, which was to go after Saddam, topple him, and change the Middle East into a democratically ruled set of nation states aligned with the US and their need for oil. This invasion had been formulated before Bush took office, and kept secret behind closed doors until 9-11 (and that is a different story!). At that point, they had a reason to unleash their attack plans and convince the people, UN, and congress it was necessary to prevent an assault upon the globe by Saddam using chemical, bio, and nuke weapons, which he did not have, and had known he did not have based upon UN inspections and other intelligence.

Obama appears to have lost control of his own presidency and is now seeing that there are forces realizing his weaknesses and basic ineffectiveness and chipping away at it. It is a shame, since he had the voters on his side and now he is totally disappointing them with his inability to do the job.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[JackRusselTerrier]

The politics of Washington is a beast that is not easily tamed. Besides we don't really live in a Democracy, but a corporatocracy.

[dwright]

Plutocracy

[StevenevetS]

"Besides we don't really live in a Democracy, but a corporatoc­racy."

Amen. This is our real problem!

[k6007]

You look s2pid in that hat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120815/Republicans-Down-Own-Party.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118928/Obama-Approval-Compares-Favorably-Prior-Presidents.aspx

[Garybot]

But it's not his fault - it was the voters who thought it would be great to have a president who had never done anything but go to school and community organize. The voters would not listen to anyone who attempted to inform them about his past with very questionable friends. They wouldn't even listen when he would give some insight into his real self - like in the "Joe the Plumber" incident.
They refused to believe their eyes and ears, and then thought they'd have the perfect president?
The "cult of personality" got him elected, but it couldn't make him a good president.

[weatherwaxx]

The voters took one look at Sarah Palin and ran screaming to the BLUE side of the aisle.

Joe the plunger was a plant.

And so are you...

[radiojunkie]

yeah jerrypl, I wish I coulda voted for you. You speak like a man who knows everything.

[weatherwaxx]

If you've got some useful suggestions for how President Obama can change things any faster with the GOP and the NRA and the crazy-@ss fundies fighting every change tooth and nail, I'd be delighted to hear them.

[JackRusselTerrier]

These are strange times indeed. America now has terror policies. The people have been manipulated into a war through fear. We have tortured because of of fear.

We are chasing the Boogeyman and he is in our minds.

"When one is obsessed by the enemy one becomes the enemy." ( that is not an exact quote and I'm not sure who wrote it first - but it still fits today as it always has )

[Kassandra]

I think it's Nietzsche; "When you look into the abyss, the abyss is looking back at you".

I'm glad, you hear GLAD these judges are exerting their power in the return of sanity to this country.
Let's see if they'll take on signing statements as well.

[JackRusselTerrier]

Yes Nietzsche said "When you look into the abyss, the abyss is looking back at you".

But the there a much more similar quote to the one I used. I just can't remember it exactly and who wrote it. ( I didn't want to take credit for the original which is very similar )

Thank you though. I love the fact you have read Nietzsche . His quote fits too.

[Garybot]

Do you remember the attack on our homeland? Sometimes I get the feeling that liberals really want to believe it never happened.

[gbrooks]

Sometimes I get the feeling that "conservatives" don't understand the Constitution and our laws, like they claim they do.

[KevinLoyalAmerican]

Good! Not Bush, Obama, or anyone else is supposed to be an absolute power President.

The strange part is how did Bush get it so wrong? His appointees are honestly trying to interpret the law!?!

Cheney must be rolling over in his undisclosed hidey-hole.

[DLazar1]

In the early days after 9/11, the American people were in the "mood" to do whatever it took to keep our country safe. I don't think anyone was immune to that. Judges are human also. As time progresses, and we get farther away from the shock of what happened that day, we become more secure in our fate, and then people took a second look. If we have another terror attack, we will be right back at that place where we say, "Do whatever it takes" When there is chaos, people give up their liberties. We are seeing that also in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Our government is also playing out a huge power grab, using the financial crisis as an excuse.

[billw8017]

President Obama seems to want controlled change. This requires a measure of deliberation and some consistency in policy between administrations. Perhaps, we all want a more violent transformation and all the pleasing changes effective yesterday, but something is to be said for discipline, too.

So long as this administration merely reminds us of the previous administration, it remains superior to the previous administration. At the last, how the new laws are implemented will be more critical than the precise wording of the laws, the administration will have its appointees in place in office, and we can hope for more sympathy for popular causes.

The old laws had teeth if the government chose to prosecute them. Despite deregulation, some of the stuff the financial industry set up was reckless and fraudulent which was always vulnerable to litigation. Merrill Lynch settled with San Diego for several million dollars despite being technically not responsible for San Diego's bankruptcy. The Clinton administration discouraged Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac from making securitized loans. It's not like nothing could have been done.

[Garybot]

A very good post DLazar1 - and very true. When talking about 9/11 we have to realize that emotions were running very high, and people were very scared.

I have to say I have seen people on Huffington in the last couple of weeks who were saying things like "we should nuke Iran" and basically the same of North Korea. These were the same people who are constantly screaming about the U.S. going into Iraq.

Not saying that was a good idea, but it's easy forget what we were going thru at that time.

[naschkatze]

There was a cool quote from Plato last night in a post by bmaz on FDL: When the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off, but if the law is master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

[Kassandra]

Can wimmin have the blessings too?

[naschkatze]

Mai oui, as far as I'm concerned (being a woman myself), but I doubt that Old Man Plato included us.

[Coinyer101]

I have no problem with these judge's decisions. If it was wrong for Bush , it's wrong for President Obama. Too bad they ignored Bush/Cheney bs for so long, tho.

[ezwizzard]

This is a very good thing! I believe that Obama is continuing the Bush legal agenda in hopes that the courts do shoot these cases down. There must be legal precedent established at the appellate court level to ensure that these atrocities do not occur in the future.

This is a very opaque strategy that is sure to raise questions by the Obama faithful who seek real change. However, it is only through this process that real change can be constitutionally assured.

[DestinationsUnknown]

exactly

Holder's office arguing no release due to late night comedy

Does any Obama supporter believe this is Obama's chess move for no transparency?

really?

only the rethugs

let them

[dwright]

exactly - it is a smooth way of getting the judges and attorneys to admit they were "wrong" under Bush, there by making the case that they are guilty.