The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, my predictions related to the Senate are based on an analysis of the seats in play for 2010. In this year there's still very little defense for the Democrats to play, and a number of Republicans who can be targeted/could be vulnerable.

Regardless of what happens, though, things start to look difficult for Democrats in the Senate from 2012 onward, with a lot of defense to play. I think it's quite likely that the GOP could be back in a slim majority by 2014, especially if the country is still in a poor economic state.

[sterlingice]

Interesting read, flere. It may be end up being completely wrong , but it's as good a read as exists in the thread so far.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Bill Richardson has now taken his name out of consideration for a cabinet position. Obama's aides are saying that Richardson wasn't forthcoming about the grand jury investigation during his vetting promise.

[Flasch186]

Im glad he pulled out, while I like to wait for end of investigations (instead of parallel investigations if youre wondering) before the culmination of results, it is an unnecessary distraction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Leon Panetta for the CIA spot? Umm ... WTF?

First pick I've seen that really had me bewildered, most of the rest I can at least find rhyme or reason for whether I approve of/agree with them or not, but this one? Bizarre.

[Buccaneer]

Agreed. The first choice that I think was bad. The intelligence community was nearly destroyed under Clinton (imo) and Panetta was part of that. It must have been a favor that Obama had to pay back.

While I can understand the pick for Labor (another favor he had to cash), I hate that one. The rest are fine.

[RainMaker]

It is a puzzling move. I guess some have been saying that Panetta will simply be the face of the CIA and that he'll let the real intelligence experts run it.

[flere-imsaho]

The guesses I've seen indicate that the Obama team thinks the CIA needs a management restructuring and that this is a strong point on Panetta's resume.

I'm not sure I agree with that (the latter, I am sure that the CIA needs a once-over from a management perspective), but at least it's somewhat logical.

[RainMaker]

The Sanjay Gupta pick is interesting. The guy would certainly make a good face for the country's health movements, but his beliefs on universal healthcare seem to go against Obama.

The trouble with Sanjay Gupta - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

[Vegas Vic]

[Edward64]

Watching some news clips on Obama and his train trip. I've obviously noticed this earlier but it seemed so much more evident now with the waning days of Bush's presidency (melancholy?) ... the difference between how Obama and Bush give speechs are like night and day.

[EagleFan]

Haven't read every single post in the thread but glancing it over and surprised there is no mentin of the "A" word in the thread. Am I the only one who feels that assasination is a valid prediction for what may happen during his term?

I know this is probably going to draw a lot of flack but I have to think it is a very valid prediction. There are enough whacko groups out there that would like to see this happen and some of them are just crazy enough to try it.

I personally hope this does not happen as it's about the last thing the country needs. It would only splinter the country at a time when the country can't afford that to happen. This fact alone increases the number of groups who would be willing to try it.


Now for my hopes:

- No assasination, or even known attempt. let's get to working on fixing the current state of the country and not have to worry about another problem.
- Get the economy back on it's feet. not really something that is directlytied to Obama but at least him being elected has given some people a positive feel so let's ride that feeling to getting the economy straight.
- Companies learn that paying the top exectives and insane salary is not the answer. these executives need to be held responsible for that they do and not be given buyouts in the event that they get "fired" ("if you fail you'll get 5 million" isn't exactly and incentive to produce).
- Health care costs do not continue to skyrocket. using common sense alone can help these costs (like the number of people who go the emergency room just because they have a stomach virus or flu).
- Fix the prisons. this has been something I have always wanted to see. granted there are some crimes for which people should never see the light of day again but for others we need to make sure that we are not just punishing but rehabilitating. it helps society more if the person coming out of prison is better prepared to be part of society instead of being trained to become a better criminal.
- Stop the flow of jobs out of our borders. eliminate any tax breaks given to companies who ship jobs out of the country. add tax breaks for companies who keep all their jobs in the country. add tax penalties for companies which ship jobs out of the country. to get the country on it's feet you need joe average to be employed and capable of supporting himself.
- Alternate fuel sources. something that is realistic and not going to just raise the cost of automobiles and will also be reliable. let's find a way to cut that cord so we can eliminate the need to pacify middle eastern countries because of their oil supply.
- NCAA football playoff system. the BCS is a sooner-like fraud.

[RainMaker]

My biggest hope for the Obama Presidency would be the return of competence to our government. We've seen over the last 8 years Bush appoint political lackeys who have no business running specific parts of government (hello Brownie!). The Justice Department has turned into a laughing stock. Whether I agree with the people in power or not, lets just get back to having the brightest minds in control. Not someones fucking roommate from college.

[Buccaneer]

Interesting week under the intense microscope that is going to be the Obama presidency.

The Executive Orders were no surprise and fully expected.

There were two quips from Obama in his meeting yesterday that sounded very immature and stupid to me:

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders

I don't listen to that arrogant blowhard but for a president to single him out is no better than a grade school taunt, "you can't my friend if you're friends with him". Limbaugh should not be that important enough for a president to single him out.

Instead, he should have said, "I do not want anyone to believe in the failure of the presidency, thus the country. We need to get things done, which was why I built a team of rivals and ended the calls to petty partisanship."

In other words, taking the high road instead of name-calling partisanship.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

He's right, but his words were very wrong and immature. Instead, he should have said, "As president, the decision to include such proposal is mine. The merits of which can be debated in Congress."

Instead, he essentially went, "Neener neener."

From Campbell Brown, CNN:

You see, what happened is, there is this former lobbyist for a big defense contractor called Raytheon. His name is William Lynn.

President Obama wants him to be deputy defense secretary. So, the Obama administration wants a waiver to its own rule.

That basically means they are saying, we will mostly put tough new restrictions on lobbyists, except when we won't.

Really? Is this how it is going to be?

Please, please don't make us all any more cynical than we already are, Mr. President.

Haven't we had enough of the Exectuive Branch breaking rules to suit their needs?

[bob]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Stop the flow of jobs out of our borders. eliminate any tax breaks given to companies who ship jobs out of the country. add tax breaks for companies who keep all their jobs in the country. add tax penalties for companies which ship jobs out of the country. to get the country on it's feet you need joe average to be employed and capable of supporting himself.

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by bob

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

There needs to be common sense logic built into this. Obviously if you are a store that is opening a branch in another country you are going to be employing people from that country.

I'll use my company as an example. Our "leadership" has funneled development jobs off to India though we are a US based company. We cannot sell our product in India as casino gaming is outlawed in the country and there is not anything close to being in the works to change that.

The excuse is that we can hire X number more developers per US resource but the turnover rate is so great that we are not gaining anything from this as the rate of development and quality of the product has dropped severely.

Any of the developers that are good enough to keep end up being brought to the US to work with visas (at US salaries which kind of ruins the whole "we are saving money in salaries" idea).

Over the past two years we have lost in the area of 1000 years of casino experience and that has been replaces with Indian resources with 0 casino experience, and worse yet most are fresh out of school and have no real world development experience. The IT field is seen as the "easy money" field in India and because of tht there are people graduating with degrees because they can memorize some terms but do not have the mindset to apply these terms in practice.


I guess the big picture problem still goes back to the people running the corporations not being held accountable for their decisions. They make decisions based on how they can sell the idea to the share holders even if the idea is not ultimately in the best interest of the company. Then when things go wrong and the company has to cut costs it's the people who need their jobs the most who get screwed while the CEO's sit back and collect their obscenely inflated checks. How does the CEO get "punished" for running the corporation poorly? Millions in stock options and a contract buyout. That'll teach 'em...


Sorry for the rant, just getting a little fed up with the business as usual crap going on and seeing good people lose their jobs because they are being replaced over seas.


I just hope those that are supporting the idea of change and improving the country also know they have to get off their butts to make this happen and don't think that Obama is just going to wave a magic wand and make it happen so they don't have to do anything.


Also, it's not our responsibility to make sure the other countries of the world are employed. We need to look after ourselves first before we look outside our borders. If your own family is starving THAT is your priority, not the family across the street.

[Edward64]

Pretty neat, an unanticipated Obama 'hope' that may rank pretty high up there as far as domestic, long-term impact. Some possible holes in the study but still interesting.

Lab Notes : An 'Obama Effect' on Blacks' Test Scores?

The results varied according to when the students took the test. Before the convention and in early October, the performance gap was as wide as ever: white students got a median score of 12.1 compared to blacks’ 8.8 before the convention; the scores were 12.9 and 8.4, respectively, in early October. But just after Obama’s convention speech, and just after election day, “when Obama’s stereotype-defying accomplishments garnered national attention,” as the researchers put it, there was a remarkable effect. Among students who watched Obama’s speech, blacks’ and whites’ scores were statistically equal (10.3 vs. 12.1) after the acceptance speech and 9.8 vs. 11.1 after election day. The difference is considered statistically insignificant--that is, likely due to chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Haven't read every single post in the thread but glancing it over and surprised there is no mentin of the "A" word in the thread. Am I the only one who feels that assasination is a valid prediction for what may happen during his term?

Not at all, but I hope you get a better reaction than I got for mentioning that a few weeks (months?) ago.

FWIW, I believe the unprecedented level of security in DC this past week might be an indication that you & I aren't the only people who have this on the list of significant possibilities.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

The excuse is that we can hire X number more developers per US resource but the turnover rate is so great that we are not gaining anything from this as the rate of development and quality of the product has dropped severely.

Any of the developers that are good enough to keep end up being brought to the US to work with visas (at US salaries which kind of ruins the whole "we are saving money in salaries" idea)..

I'm in the IT consulting industry and have seen the technical jobs go offshore (good thing PM's and SME's are still needed onsite). It has been my experience that offshore does ultimately produce the necessary 'blended rate' to make us competitive and one-way-or-another, the job gets done even factoring the issues of turnover, language etc.

My issue with offshoring is that I believe we should keep some key intellectual capital within the US. I don't have a clean description of intellectual capital but think development of Oracle DB/SaaS Apps vs development of latest version of Quicken/compilers/games. As time goes by and as other countries catch up the definition changes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bob

So here's my problem with this kind of thinking given this era of globalization (btw, I certainly don't like the idea of offshoring jobs):

What's an American firm? A company with headquarters in the US? A company that makes products entirely in the US? How do you define that. Start taxing the hell out of firms and they will "move" entirely outside of the US.

People can't have it both ways - you can't bitch and moan about companies going overseas because of cost cutting ways and then buy stuff made overseas at Walmart b/c that's the cheapest price available. And if you are restricted from competing by moving jobs overseas b/c of punitive taxes, American firms will be at a huge cost disadvantage in the global marketplace and will all go belly up.

I don't understand this argument some of these arguments again US protectionism.

1) It's not as if those firms are being taxed horribly as it is. Yes, the percentage is high. However, with lots of corporate loopholes, the corporate taxes in this country aren't nearly as high as they are being made out to be. When you can deduct all levels of crap- I imagine that with a good tax lawyer, corporations are paying much less than they would in other countries. Or they are at least competitive because it's not as if these companies are staying here just for name's sake. If they could save a buck and move to, say, the Cayman Islands for a corporate account, they would have already.

2) A lot of companies could only exist in this country. It's not as if you could open up a Starbucks in China and charge $5 a cup of coffee when their middle class makes barely $10K per year.

3) I do strongly agree with the first part of the final sentiment- people love to complain about service or selection and then go for the cheapest price. Search my history and I'm sure I've used my Ultimate Electronics/Best Buy analogy a couple of times. However, I disagree with the second- see my second point. Look at what Microsoft or most major pharmaceutical companies do- they sell at one price here and then substantially less in other places.

SI

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

2) A lot of companies could only exist in this country. It's not as if you could open up a Starbucks in China and charge $5 a cup of coffee when their middle class makes barely $10K per year.

Price-tiering is of course a little different, but they are all over the place...

Starbucks International Sites

Starbucks plans China expansion, 80 new stores to open in 2008 | China Briefing News

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My issue with offshoring is that I believe we should keep some key intellectual capital within the US. I don't have a clean description of intellectual capital but think development of Oracle DB/SaaS Apps vs development of latest version of Quicken/compilers/games.

I agree with this. I'd like the government to get more involved in R&D grants for tech. Maybe have the government get a bit into the VC game, in some way.

[Galaxy]

Not liking this move by Obama on allowing states to set its own auto emission requirements.

Obama to let states set auto emission rules - CNN.com

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Not liking this move by Obama on allowing states to set its own auto emission requirements.

Obama to let states set auto emission rules - CNN.com

Why? Isn't this a great example of state's rights?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Price-tiering is of course a little different, but they are all over the place...

Starbucks International Sites

Starbucks plans China expansion, 80 new stores to open in 2008 | China Briefing News

I'm a little ashamed to say that I bought a Starbucks tea at the Forbidden City. I think I read, though, that that store has been closed.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why? Isn't this a great example of state's rights?

It would be a huge blow to an auto industry that your trying to save.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting reads about the Gitmo executive order. It appears the order was done to satisfy the liberal base while not actually changing much of anything. The executive order actually still allows for the same torture that was done in the Bush Administration when needed.

Jack Bauer Exception: Obama's Order Wants It Both Ways on Interrogations - WSJ.com

A walkthrough of the executive order section by section......

President Obama: Close Gitmo! | A Soldier's Perspective

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm a little ashamed to say that I bought a Starbucks tea at the Forbidden City. I think I read, though, that that store has been closed.

Yeah, they are literally all over the place. Expressway rest stops in the Philippines? Yep they've got 'em. Lunch meeting with my clients in Chile? No problem, we can grab a quick sandwich and frappucino at Starbucks downstairs...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists. The Bush administration was hammered for sending detained terrorists to other countries to be detained and tortured (also called renditions). Turns out that Obama is actually going to INCREASE that policy.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Surprise! Obama expands renditions

So yeah, he's shutting down Gitmo, but he's also effectively increasing the amount of torture on the detainees. They'll be more poorly treated in other countries, but at least the blood's not on our hands, right? It'll be interesting to see if the same liberals that decried this tactic will blast Obama for increasing the use of this policy rather than reducing it.

[Flasch186]

I see Blog (also the appropriate Hot Air) in the link so Ill pass. Show me a legitimate link and we all can either get on board with you or leave you on your island.

[flere-imsaho]

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Edit #2: For instance:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists.

The L.A. Times article's assessment is that Obama's executive order actually limits pretty much everything considerably more than Bush's policy, but keeps open an option for short-term, "transitory" rendition which is, admittedly, a big grey area.

To quote the article:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

Emphasis mine.

"Hot Air", however, takes this statement and transforms it into:

Originally Posted by Hot Air

Obama has had a sudden revelation as President that renditions are more necessary than ever, if the CIA can’t hold these subjects at Gitmo or its own secret sites

Next, a rationale from (supposedly) an Obama Administration source:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

And not everyone "on the left" is immediately against this:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said.

Still, intelligence veterans doubt there's a significant place of value in America's policy for renditions going forward:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

CIA veterans involved in renditions characterized the program as important but of limited intelligence-gathering use. It is used mainly for terrorism suspects not considered valuable enough for the CIA to keep, they said.

"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," said a former senior CIA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The most valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from prisoners who were in CIA custody and questioned by agency experts, the official said. Once prisoners were turned over to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere, the agency had limited influence over how much intelligence was shared, how prisoners were treated and whether they were later released.

"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

Of course, "Hot Air" takes issue with these conclusions:

Originally Posted by Hot Air

Frankly, I think the US does a better job of treating its detainees than anywhere a rendition program would deliver them, but without a Gitmo or CIA holding site, that’s the only way to ensure that we can get any intelligence that will protect the US.

To summarize, here's "Hot Air's listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness:

1. Torture by U.S. at Gitmo/secret CIA holding sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest
3. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites

Here's CIA veterans' listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness (note they don't mention Gitmo):

1. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest

And anyway, the policy is evolving and not final yet:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties.

So anyway, read the L.A. Times article, not the blog.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I see Blog (also the appropriate Hot Air) in the link so Ill pass. Show me a legitimate link and we all can either get on board with you or leave you on your island.

There's an article link to the LA Times. I'm assuming that paper is right up your alley given your previous stances in political threads.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed, but that's to be expected given that it's the LA Times. It's a conservative blog citing a liberal newspaper article. Both of them have an inherent bias.

How is it a liberal newspaper article? Is it because it's in newspaper print?

Never mind, I should know my audience here: "Paper bad. Fox News good."

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I've made edits to my post which expand on that.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which source is reporting the news and which source is using misguided assumptions to make spurious conclusions based on a sliver of the news.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How is it a liberal newspaper article? Is it because it's in newspaper print?

SI

It's an article in a liberal newspaper. That suit your nitpicking better?

Listen, as a supporter of Bush's terrorism policies, I couldn't be happier about the decision. I'm just surprised that there's not more outrage by the liberal supporters that Obama is failing to follow through with most of his promises regarding torture. Perhaps their motives weren't as sincere as we previously thought.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which source is reporting the news and which source is using misguided assumptions to make spurious conclusions based on a sliver of the news.

Agreed. It's a wonder the LA Times is even considered a valid news source at this point.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Mizzou, you must go through life constantly surprised by things based on the number of times you post that you're surprised on this board.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm just surprised that there's not more outrage by the liberal supporters that Obama is failing to follow through with most of his promises regarding torture.

That's probably because Obama has, in fact, followed through with most of his promises regarding torture.

[Senator]

When do I get my president's check?

[JPhillips]

This is a good summary of what's actually in the Presidential order. From Hilzoy:

If the LA Times is right to claim that the Obama administration has left open the possibility of extraordinary renditions, that would be a huge problem. However, I don't think it is. Here it helps to have spent some time reading the actual orders. The order called "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations" contains the following passage:

"Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties."

Part 1, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states:

"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

Obama orders people to comply with the Convention Against Torture, and that Convention states that we cannot return people to states where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be tortured. And nothing the Obama administration has done to date suggests to me that they would engage in the kinds of creative reading of legal documents that would allow them, say, to disregard Egypt's long record of torture in making this determination.

Moreover, Obama's Executive Order also establishes a commission one of whose goals is:

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

So in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured. His executive order also precludes any kind of secret detention of prisoners, and thus "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners":

"All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies."

Note that this has no exceptions for short-term detainees whom we quickly hand off to someone else.

[DaddyTorgo]

bawhaha


JPhillips wins.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's an article link to the LA Times. I'm assuming that paper is right up your alley given your previous stances in political threads.

naw, but Flere sure lit it up didnt he

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a good summary of what's actually in the Presidential order. From Hilzoy:

You're right. It's an excellent summary. It notes the following:

"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

All of that is VERY subjective and assumes that the U.S. government has full disclosure of what occurs overseas in other countries. Even in cases where they do have a high level of disclosure, there still is no guarantee of a decrease of torture. The increase in exportation of these suspects takes the direct monitoring of independent groups that is done at Gitmo to places where direct monitoring likely will not be allowed.

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

In regards to any studies done by the government, count me as unimpressed. There's a laundry list of studies that were done by the government on various issues where they 'thoroughly' talked through an issue and totally failed to address the real problem. A glaring example is the sub-prime mortgage mess we're currently in.

[JPhillips]

I'd agree that the possibility exists of continuing the Bush extraordinary rendition practice. However, at this point we have ample text that says the opposite, no evidence that any loophole has been exploited, and a consistent tone about ending detention/interrogation policies that may be in violation of US or international law.

If there's a story here at all it's simply that the possibility exists of Obama doing the opposite of what he's said. If that comes to pass it will be a big deal, but until it does I don't see any smoke here.

[JPhillips]

dola

It's almost beyond my ability to understand how the same people that a few months ago spent all their time yelling that Obama was a radical, Marxist, terrorist lover now spend all their time yelling that Obama isn't anything like the radical, Marxist, terrorist lover that Democrats thought he was.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree that the possibility exists of continuing the Bush extraordinary rendition practice. However, at this point we have ample text that says the opposite, no evidence that any loophole has been exploited, and a consistent tone about ending detention/interrogation policies that may be in violation of US or international law.

If there's a story here at all it's simply that the possibility exists of Obama doing the opposite of what he's said. If that comes to pass it will be a big deal, but until it does I don't see any smoke here.

That's basically correct. We don't have any smoke or loophole exploits because he's just started his term. We'll obviously have to wait a couple of years to get a feel for how it's actually implemented by Obama's staff.

Here's the problem for Obama politically as I see it.

1. He has not unilaterally rolled back the torture policies of Bush. That may upset some who wanted a much broader brushstroke on this issue.

2. Although he did not fully rollback the torture policies, he has come out with the executive order and made sure to claim success with the order. As a result, any attack on the U.S. during his term will be immediately tied to the rollback of those policies, whether it's fair or not (or even relevant).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

It's almost beyond my ability to understand how the same people that a few months ago spent all their time yelling that Obama was a radical, Marxist, terrorist lover now spend all their time yelling that Obama isn't anything like the radical, Marxist, terrorist lover that Democrats thought he was.

Agreed. The radical left is probably wondering exactly what they elected while the radical right is counting their blessings that his policies aren't nearly as black and white as he claimed during the electoral process.

[Buccaneer]

One of my fears appears to be coming true.

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

I have worked with Census data off and on for 30 years, as well as studied the methodologies for counting and their political ramifications. There have always been political crap going on with Census data but at least keeping it in Commerce, you can count some measure of neutrality (or balancing). But to have the White House (and esp. Rove2: Emanuel) controlling the output, that would be stupid. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this and if it does, will it be ignored with the WH not being held accountable?

[JPhillips]

Dr. President Obama,

Use fewer sentences.

Thanx. Bye.