merrily
merrily's JournalDoes Obama really buy into John Yoo's view? (Or Bybee's?)
In 2009, two days after taking office, President Barack Obama in Executive Order 13491 repudiated and revoked all legal guidance on interrogation authored by Yoo and his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[5][6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
I googled for the full text and look where I found it first.
Gotta love DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2017065
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Hell, at the time, Biden claimed that it had not even authorized Dimson's invasion of Iraq because Dimson had not fulfilled all the conditions or some such. I even posted that on another board at the time; and a Republican lawyer, who hated Bush, but not as much as he hated Democrats, I guess, posted the full text of the resolution, without additional comment.
But, the AUMF against Iraq is not the only authorization to use military force of that fateful era.
Authorization for Use of Military Force may refer to:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 authorizing the Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm: H.R.J. Res. 77
Authorization for Use of Military Force I, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40", authorizes the use of military force against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force II, also known as "Iraq Resolution", "Iraq War Resolution" and "Public Law No: 107-243"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force
"What was the middle one, again?"
Full text of "the middle one" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
US schools are battlefield for the hearts and minds of USians.
Over the years, I've seen stories about prominent Republicans, mostly women--Mrs Bush 41, Mrs. Bush 43, Mrs. Cheney, et al. writing books for very young kids. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas.
Over the years, I've seen stories about how Texas, being (collectively) the largest public school district in the country, in essence, decides what public school textbooks say. I'm guessing that those books are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, ideas, either.
Over the years, I've seen stories about religious groups and churches volunteering to teach classes, such as American history, in public schools in Texas, at no cost to the schools--and the schools allowing that. I'm guessing that those public school courses are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either, or secularist ideas.
Over the years, I've seen bipartisan, but still partisan, stories of private charter schools being funded with public tax money and being allegedly superior to public schools. I'm guessing that people who think that private schools funded by public money are superior to public schools funded by public money are not going to be spreading liberal ideas, either.
And then of course, there are church youth groups and like, also probably not spreading liberal ideas.
Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Brownies and Girl Scouts? Dunno. Never joined.
Anyway, anyone have any thoughts on the so far highly predictable result of the above?
Members of the House sued Obama over Libya.
In that case, the court held that the several members who sued had no standing to sue, citing, among other things, the fact that the group had not shown in any way that they represented the House as a whole.
The suit was, of course, over the Constitutional issue, given that the Constitution requires Congress to declare war. (And for damned good reason, IMO). Originally, the suit had also cited war powers legislation, which allows the President to proceed on his own for a certain period of time. However, that claim was dropped. (In my opinion the constitutionality of war power legislation is itself questionable.)
When Obama drew his "line" about Syria, a Republican started a movement to require Obama to "at least" consult Congress before taking miitary action. He got over 100 signatures from both sides of the aisle. Then, Boehner sent Obama a letter with something like 14 legal questions for Obama to answer.
So, it looked as though the House, as a body, might well take bipartisan legal action against the Executive. That whole scenario was avoided when Obama refrained from taking action.
Then, the right wanted action, so the Constitutional objections flew out the window.
Of course, none of us has standing to sue for enforcement of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war. The standing doctrine sucks, IMO. So does the bipartisan AUMF.
Good question. Have you Asked the Administrators?
If not, perhaps cross post your OP in ATA.
For those who still think this was court mandated, no, it was not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886
To the countrary, the Supreme Court had previously told the FCC that, if the FCC wanted to regulate internet service providers heavily, the FCC should re-classify the providers. Instead, the FCC went back into court without reclassifying, a "strategy" that seemed destined to lose the case to the providers, and lose was just what it did. I can't see how the FCC possibly could have expected anything else. I doubt it did.
Maybe that is because the FCC's legal department has lots of lawyers whose resume included, or consisted of, lobbying for the likes of Verizon and Comcast.
Of course, when confronted with the above, some say that re-classifying was not an option. That, is bs, just as the claim that the court mandated the end of net neutrality was s.
Executive agencies do reclassify. If reclassification were not an option for the FCC and telecommunication industry, why did the Supreme Court not say that from the jump? Just to have the black-robed fun of watching the FCC waste taxpayer dollars on reclassifying, holding reclassification hearings and then losing another case in the SCOTUS, while the Justices LOL and yell "Gotcha?" Come on, now. (Guess I slept through Justice Ashton Kutcher's confirmation hearings?)
As to Chair Wheeler himself.
Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
Wheeler succeeded Genachowski, whose pre-FCC resume included paving the way for FOX and who joined the Aspen Institute* and The Carlyle Group after leaving the FCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Institute
Genachowski, in turn, replaced Acting Chair Michael Copp, who served only until Genachowski could be confirm and was the only one of the three who actually is a "fierce advocate" of net neutrality.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php
BTW I have written Wheeler in the past, despite my view that my letter would do nothing. His form letter response was that he is for net neutrality. IOW, Orwellian Double Speak. (I know it is a form letter because others received the identical letter.)
So, the key in writing Wheeler may be to specify that you oppose tiers of service (which Wheeler has enabled) and leave out the apparently more ambiguous term "net neurality."
Chief Justice Earl Warren.
As AG of California, Warren had been responsible for "interning" the Japanese of California. That was who Eisenhower decided to nominate as Chief Justice of the United States of America. Think about that.
However, once on the bench, Warren turned out to be perhaps the most liberal CJ in US history. Perhaps the jewel in his crown was the school desegregation case, argued by then attorney Thurgood Marshal.
In his autobiography, Warren described talking with Eisenhower during a party attended by many Southerners. Ike said to Warren something like this: "See, Earl? These are not bad people. They just don't their little girl sitting next to some big black gorilla."
Though Joe Scarborough and others will say how Eisenhower desegregated schools, the reality is that he dragged his feet, despite pleas from many people, including Eleanor Roosevelt, who returned to the White House to plead with him.
When asked what the biggest mistake of his 8 years as President was, Eisenhower replied, "Nominating Earl Warren for Earl Warren as Chief Justice." Think about that, too.
When I posted that on another Dem board, I got replies telling me I had to understand that everyone was like that back then, yadda, yadda.
My gut told me otherwise. Besides, Truman had desegregated the military and the records of the Kennedys on race did not match Ike's words. And there was Eleanor Roosevelt, who we know was not like Ike on race.
So, I googled the Democrat who had lost to Ike twice. I found eloquent quotes from Adlai Stevenson arguing for equal rights and posted them. Nothing but silence from Ike's Democratic defenders on that board.
I have no idea if Stevenson practiced what he preached, even a little. I very much doubt, though, that he would have considered appointing Earl Warren the biggest mistake of Ike's 8 years as President.
Speaking of Scarborough, he also loves to credit Ike with building the national highway system. True, Ike loved him some General Motors and some oil companies and our national highway system, a mixed blessing for American families, served them very well. However, the President who conceived of that system was FDR. He did not get around to it because of the Depression and World War II. However, FDR put the wheels in motion.
I have no clue what original ideas Ike brought to the Presidency, but the national highway system was not one of them. And then, there is his choice of VP and putting in motion the Bay of Pigs, for which Kennedy always takes the hit.
Again, the love Democrats seem to have for Ike in the rear view mirror baffles me.
Never be confident about an election and never give up on one.
How we win?
GOTV. There are more of us than them. If we show up to the polls, we win.
Volunteer at the polls. If you are not already hooked in, ask your state and local Dems how you can help.
If you live in an ID state start yesterday. Go to the Secretary of State's website or call. Find out the requirements. Print them out and start passing them out anywhere you can. Supermarkets are good. (A poster with Texas in his or her screen name posted about supermarkets, but I cannot remember which one, so I cannot give credit. Sorry.)
Ask anyone elderly and/or infirm whom you know if they have the required ID or would like your help in getting it.
*Forgot: mail in ballots, esp. for those in nursing homes.
Remember
Aw, fuck it. Just live in a permanent state of fear and we'll use that to justify everything.
Terra! Terra! Terra! Forever.
If you possibly can, pack a lunch and spend your lunch hour picketing.
Try making a sign reading something like "Consumer Supporting Workers."
(I am not the most brilliant sloganeer. If you can think of a way to convey that concept in punchier way, please share.)
As far as I recall, this is my first post in this forum.
This post of mine was hidden on the ground that it was either extremely right wing or I should have used the sarcasm emote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=20411
Thing is, I considered using the sarcasm emote and rejected that thought on the ground that the post was so unmistakeably extreme that adding the emote would insult the intelligence of DUers.
So, instead, even though I did not think it necessary, I added the line about "Governor Oops," thinking that (a) the post itself was very obviously sarcasm; and (b) even someone who missed the extreme nature of the post would realize that no extreme right winger would refer to Perry as Governor Oops.
Did jurors seriously believe I was faulting kindergarten kids for not creating jobs? Or that I really wanted to see "Governor Oops" in the Governor's mansion? If they did seriously believed either of those things, then I have to wonder about the jury system.
In my mind, hiding this post because I did not use the sarcasm thingie was not far removed from concluding that Jonathan Swift a cannibal because he did not add a footnote about sarcasm to A Modest Proposal.
In your view, am I mistaken about the above? (That said, going forward, I will add the emote, even if I feel the post is so obviously sarcasm that the emote is an insult to intelligence.)
I will add as well that jurors get to be anonymous and get the benefit of the last word. For those reasons, I think personal pot shots at a poster, having nothing to do with jury service, are out of place in juror explanations. They can do little to no good, but they can poison the minds of other jurors.
(I do, however, credit the jurors who knew my posts for voting to leave the post alone on the ground I am definitely not a RWer. )
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
