Obama CHANGE melted already?(legally speaking)

(edit: Thread started about Iraq suing Backwater/Xe, but applies to many issues on same subject.)

Here’s a clear case opportunity of Obamadmin to make good on promised Changes…

We should expect to see new diplomacy making up for the lack of solid fear-mongering experience constructing long-term hegemonic ambitions. Let’s watch who comes out against it. Because not far off, the former administration’s resourceful big five miser’s baggage, errrr… influence, dedication, back-pockets are bound to be internally posturing. (also from same link, scroll down to “Obama’s proposal to reduce tax breaks” for an interesting piece)

Of course we know Erik Prince laid down a wise get-out-of-jail-free interview threatening to air dirty laundry. He already disclosed his CIA connection, outing himself. Legally, Obamadmin’s position will be interesting to watch considering Prince’s private army of unrestrained snipers, kidnappers and explosive experts continues to accept massive amounts of our tax dollars. Good dollars though if you join, but don’t expect your conscious back any time soon.

So here’s the legal dilemma.[quote=“Reuters (Jan 4, 2010)”][col]BAGHDAD - Iraq will help victims of the 2007 shooting of civilians in Baghdad to file a U.S. lawsuit against employees of security firm Blackwater, an incident that turned a spotlight on the United States’ use of private contractors in war zones.

[Photo title: A helicopter belonging to the US private security company Blackwater flies over Baghdad, 2004.]|[/col]Iraq has filed a lawsuit against private security firm Blackwater in a US court and will file another in Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said, amid fury over an American court dropping charges against five Blackwater guards. (AFP/File/Nicolas Asfouri)]Last week, a U.S. judge threw out charges against five guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad traffic circle, saying the defendants’ constitutional rights had been violated.

Iraq called that decision “unacceptable and unjust” and, as well as supporting a lawsuit brought by Iraqis wounded in the shooting and families of those killed, it will ask the U.S. Justice Department to review the criminal case, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Sunday.

“The government will facilitate a lawsuit from Iraqi citizens to sue the guards and the company in a U.S. court,” he said.

In a speech to Iraq’s parliament on Sunday, lawmaker Omar al-Jubouri suggested a way the government could retaliate for the decision of the U.S. courts.

“Ask the Iraqi courts to release all the defendants … sentenced to death for killing Americans in Iraq, as an act of reciprocity with the U.S. judicial system,” he said.[/quote]
Or maybe if they do release their prisoners who already fought against the occupiers (yes my countrymen, former battle buddies), the official response could be that such a move “doesn’t measure up to the FREEDOMS” our DC war pimps envision for Iraq. Life just isn’t a 1 way street.

I cheered Obama’s victory two Novembers ago, not that he got my vote, but because he symbolized (and campaigned) “change”. No doubt better than the McCain/Palin ticket, but is it really too soon to call the same spade the same spade? Legally (and militarily speaking), it would seem not. [quote]DOJ to Seek Dismissal of Rendition Lawsuit Against CIA (December, 14 2009)

The Bush administration repeatedly used the so-called “state secrets privilege” in an attempt to have the case thrown out (against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. for its role in the Bush administration’s unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program). When a federal court finally ruled that it should go forward, Obama administration lawyers appeared in court and - to the surprise of everyone, including the judges - took exactly the same position as their predecessors.

Ben Wizner, an attorney with the ACLU, which represents the plaintiffs, told us, "Much is at stake in this case. If the CIA’s overbroad secrecy claims prevail, torture victims will be denied their day in court solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by their torturers.

He said he was “disappointed that the Obama administration continues to stand in the way of torture victims having their day in court.”

He added, “This case is not about secrecy. It’s about immunity from accountability. To date, not a single alleged torture victim has had his day in court. In this case, most of the evidence is already public. There are no ‘state secrets’ here. And if there were, our federal courts are well prepared to handle this issue. This is a betrayal of the rule of law. It is not the standard we expected from the Obama Administration.”

In a statement, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, said, “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same.”

He added, “Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”[/quote]Maybe I’m the only one here wondering why teamObama considers accountability to be so off the table… but in his defense he did tell us he’d rather not look back. Too ugly perhaps. Maybe it keeps him alive, but he isn’t any prettier for it.

Still holding out hope…

[quote][col]Iraq booting 250 Blackwater employees

“A total of 250 employees working for the U.S. security firm Blackwater have been dismissed and given seven days to leave Iraq”

“The United States does not tolerate attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians,” State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters in January.

“Whatever the case’s ultimate outcome, we deeply regret the suffering and loss of life caused by the Nisour Square shootings,” he said.

“And we are fully committed to holding accountable persons who commit such crimes, whether at home or abroad,” Crowley said.


Why did you use this phrase during your latest monologue?

monologue lol. Hmmm call a spade a spade x2, not racial.
It was natural to celebrate change, when hope was fresh.

Don’t you just hate politicians.

‘Hate’? No.
Diplomacy has improved, which is nice.

[quote=“j.scholl”]monologue lol. Hmmm call a spade a spade x2, not racial.
It was natural to celebrate change, when hope was fresh.[/quote]

It means something completely different, was the point, I think.

Dear Me…

Such gnashings of the teeth. What exactly is it that Obama has done to earn such ramblings from our very own J something or other Scholl? I see nothing wrong or out of the ordinary with his recent moves… perhaps, some were expecting a slightly different policy before he became president but perhaps that is because they were engaging in wishful thinking? and refused to listen to what Obama was really saying. Except for the high deficits and some of the stimulus measure recipients, I ain’t been too disappointed yet… worried, of course, but then I would have been the same had George W stayed on or McCain won given the severe challenges (not of Obama’s making) that we are facing globally. Cut him some slack. Er, rather, the thought of you being against him seems to make his choices all the more rational/logical/supportable. Thanks for your vote of opposition to enable more to see the logic of support/approval.

[quote=“j.scholl”]‘Hate’? No.
Diplomacy has improved, which is nice.[/quote]

I can’t stand diplomats, either.

This could be particularly intriguing… fred smith… which of Obama’s recent policies regarding investigating torture, kidnapping and terror interrogations different from the previous disaster administration?
Has waterboarding returned to being absolute torture yet?
If yes, what policy? We know kidnapping hasn’t, which is the theme of the second post.
Did Obama campaign Change?
Simple point really.

But to be fair, Bush did the same in 2000… something about decency, honor, integrity, fred smith, being restored with pride.

Granted the speaker favors civil right advocacy, but turning away simply allows torture, kidnapping and terror interrogations to remain acceptable and decent under states secrets privilege policy.

Gnashing? Don’t you wish.
You were hoping to recommend your dentist weren’t you?

Dear Js:

Well, color me as much surprised as you… but not necessarily disappointed… hahaha you seem to think that this would be an issue for me? ah well… there you are…

Of course we’re surprised, a lot of people already are.

Like the Iraqis who said they’d try and release prisoners arrested for attacks on Americans if Obama’s DOJ doesn’t prosecute Blackwater mercs for atrocities.

And no, I don’t think it matters to me if you have issues.

Hmm a man who campaigned on a ticket of change and never actually specified what he would change has surprised you by not delivering any change - - - really?

The man is a fantasti orator and as has been said before came to symbolise hope in desperate times but to be fair is very inexperienced and wisely didn’t actualy promise to do anything.

He will be remembered as the first black president (in itself a huge step forward) and for failing to get his health reforms in.

Next election it will be back to normal with an old white geezer and maybe Sarah Palin as his #2.


Obama is inexperienced but has very experienced advisors… be patient… give him time…

I think that he may win a second term… let’s wait for the unrealistic expectations to die down. I admire him for taking on the health care issue. So many others have been afraid to touch this. Why is it wrong for him to try. Even if he fails…

As to the next election… what makes you think that Sarah Palin won’t be heading that ticket?

Change? How do you define change? He’s a major change from the religious-right neoconservativism of Bush that was leading us headlong along a path toward economic destruction, anti-science nuttery and restricted freedom. Sure, he’s nowhere near as progressive as I would have liked, and I knew that even back then. We had a choice of far-right and center-right, and, as always, I chose the leftmost of the two. It was him or McCain. McCain would have continued Bush’s policies; Obama has diverted us away from much (if not all) of that.

Do you want real change? Vote for a green, three-headed, silicon-based alien who wants to instate a Klingon-like imperial system. But instead ee have a human being with two eyes and one head (“Two eyes and one head?? I wanted change!!”)

Ah… so many nasty anti-Bush sentiments from our very own Chris… I, too, am SOOO disappointed with Obama. Well, except for the fact that I like him quite well… but like Chris… I am SHOCKED… that we are engaging in the policies that we are… oh sooo SHOCKED. yes, indeed.