"Earlier today, I noted that Barack Obama’s team has started hinting that they will move back towards John McCain’s position on interrogation techniqiues. Now supporters of Obama who have criticized the Bush administration’s position on indefinite detention have begun rethinking that policy as well: As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration’s military commission system.
Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?
That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.
“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.
You can’t? That’s all we’ve heard from the close-Gitmo crowd for the last seven years. Indefinite detention supposedly violates American values, we’re losing the war if we adapt to the threat against us, blah blah blah. Certainly Barack Obama never gave any indication of nuanced thinking along the lines of indefinite detention during the last two years while campaigning for the presidency. In fact, Obama made the absolutist case that Cole now belatedly rejects in June 2007:
O man : “While we’re at it,” he said, “we’re going to close Guantanamo. And we’re going to restore habeas corpus. … We’re going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That’s our vision for the future.
Now that Obama has to live with these decisions and not simply snipe from the sidelines, the game appears to have changed. A month ago, the NYT’s editorial board scoffed at the Bush administration’s efforts to keep Gitmo detainees from being released as merely a way to avoid bad press and not to keep dangerous people from killing Americans. Suddenly, the New York Times discovers that the American system does allow for indefinite detention to protect society from dangerous individuals without full-blown criminal trials — as with the criminally insane.
So what happens when the incoming Obama administration decides to continue indefinite detention and back away from Feinstein’s bill on interrogation techniques? Not only will the MoveOn/Code Pink crowd utterly revolt, but it will force a re-evaluation of the Bush administration’s efforts to keep this nation safe from attack — and the success he had in doing so." http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/1...detention-too/
so now obama is cool with torture and going back on guantanomo bay...obviously he's making the right decisions but that is not what he campaigned on...
but the media will not villianize him like they did bush thats for sure
Oh My god, just proves that nobama is a damn joke here.
__________________
To the people of haiti, our deepest sympathies
@ being shocked there's a debt in the national debt. It's called the debt for a reason.
He had a budget surplus, moron.
what he claimed as a budget surplus was him paying down the public debt...but he ended up borrowing more in intergovernment holdings (social security) ...more than he paid down lmao
it was a jedi mind trick from the clintons...he never had a surplus the debt went up every year
what he claimed as a budget surplus was him paying down the public debt...but he ended up borrowing more in intergovernment holdings (social security) ...more than he paid down lmao
it was a jedi mind trick from the clintons...he never had a surplus the debt went up every year
the .gov link that you gave is for debt not the deficit, are you really this stupid?
and the craigsteiner.us website is obviously making stuff up
that .gov site is showing the debt...and if it keeps going up ...its quite obvious the deficit was also up every year ...the deficit is just the difference between government revenues vs what they spent that fiscal year...and well the lowest the deficit got was 17 billion where he paid down the public debt by 230 billion but then ended up borrowing 248 billion from social security ...which was around a 17-18 billion dollar deficit...the next year the deficit balloned to 128 billion
as you can see the small recession bottomed out in 91 and was on its way to recovery before clinton got into office in 92 and kept continuing the reagan boom...that 90-91 slowdown is typical in all booms
that .gov site is showing the debt...and if it keeps going up ...its quite obvious the deficit was also up every year ...the deficit is just the difference between government revenues vs what they spent that fiscal year...and well the lowest the deficit got was 17 billion where he paid down the public debt by 230 billion but then ended up borrowing 248 billion from social security ...which was around a 17-18 billion dollar deficit...the next year the deficit balloned to 128 billion
thus his deficit nor budget ever was a surplus...
as you can see the small recession bottomed out in 91 and was on its way to recovery before clinton got into office in 92 and kept continuing the reagan boom...that 90-91 slowdown is typical in all booms
lmao at your link co-signing what i said
Isn't it amazing how your saying your favorite president is so amazing that when a new president came in, HIS GDP boom throughout his entire term is because of the last one?!
You republicans are fucking insane.
Reagan barely raised the GDP, as provided in my link, and then when Clinton got into office it skyrocketed, and now you're telling me it's because of Reagan?!
wtf sly Conservatives have doubled the debt.....like wtf, you lack the genes that tell humans "you should feel embarrassed" and the one that tells you "you're making no sense"
How can you even ride Obama when your people doubled the debt. Stop listening to limbaugh, he is going to ruin your life, that kind of thinking works when you have your own radio show and make millions of dollars a year, in the real world accusing somebody of something you are currently doing doesn't fly.
Reppin': The intellectual development of the Hip Hop Nation
Posts: 17,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by slystallion26
that .gov site is showing the debt...and if it keeps going up ...its quite obvious the deficit was also up every year ...the deficit is just the difference between government revenues vs what they spent that fiscal year...and well the lowest the deficit got was 17 billion where he paid down the public debt by 230 billion but then ended up borrowing 248 billion from social security ...which was around a 17-18 billion dollar deficit...the next year the deficit balloned to 128 billion
thus his deficit nor budget ever was a surplus...
thats a lie, the websites discusses the debt not the deficit, and it doesnt show this figure of 17 billion
every administration has "borrowed" from SS, you cant measure the deficit one way for one president and then measure the deficit differently for another president, using the method of measuring he deficit used for bush and reagan, clinton had a surplus
its an open question whether using SS money for general government expenditures is stealing or borrowing or unethical, but its something that has always been done by every president so its stupid to use that as a way to say there was no real surplus
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf
You can clearly see Clinton's surpluses by month. He had a deficit surplus at the end of his term.
I'll gladly show you the math if you need it.
Sly, you're getting bodied. When you're already in a hole, stop digging.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowgli
Freaks dont grind to Bob Marley, that sh1t is for pothead white boys.
sly there's a difference between deficeit and debt.
We have national debt, we will almost always have a national debt because people are borrowing. National Debt is not technicially a bad thing...we issue Treasury Bonds and nations, banks, investing houses, etc purchase them. That is the national debt. We use funds from that for government expenditures
The deficeit/surplus relates to the profit/loss of the government from Taxes they receive. Taxes are governemnt revenue and if we don't spend all the taxes we will have surplus.
