Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
ParticipantPahrump? I must be missing something…
ParticipantPahrump? I must be missing something…
ParticipantPahrump? I must be missing something…
ParticipantPahrump? I must be missing something…
Participant(Too much time on Piggs lately…)
My understanding of Obama’s position vis-a-vis the Patriot Act is again, one of pragmatism, rather than ideology. I believe he voted for the compromise re-authorization, including amendments eliminating extra-judicial avenues of investigation and surveillance, requiring judicial branch oversight over DoJ activities. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How I read this is: his position is squarely in the middle, a centrist interest in providing the FBI and law enforcement with additional investigative powers to apply in the efforts against AQ and terrorism, but on a judicial oversight leash, a check and balance to try to ensure newly granted authorities were not abused.
How does this square with ConLaw? I’ll have to ask my wife the counsel. Given my comparatively limited understanding, I would expect it to be somewhere in the middle of today’s court rulings and arguments. A centrist interpretation that recognizes the threats to national security but attempts to implement some form of ‘legal oversight’.
How does this extrapolate to Gitmo, rendition and torture? I expect he will attempt to find constitutional and legal concensus approaches to these issues as well. Not talking Gonzo consigliere law, or creepy (Berkeley prof) Yoo law either. Gitmo will likely be closed in a procedural manner, and rendition and torture programs will almost certainly end.
I think his overall direction is finding legal and constitutional middle ground approaches that garner bi-partisan support so we can move forward in a reasonably united fashion. Again, I have know way of actually knowing what Obama will do. I may be projecting my centrist ‘Eisenhower’ leadership ideals into the picture. But this is what I’m reading at this point.
Participant(Too much time on Piggs lately…)
My understanding of Obama’s position vis-a-vis the Patriot Act is again, one of pragmatism, rather than ideology. I believe he voted for the compromise re-authorization, including amendments eliminating extra-judicial avenues of investigation and surveillance, requiring judicial branch oversight over DoJ activities. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How I read this is: his position is squarely in the middle, a centrist interest in providing the FBI and law enforcement with additional investigative powers to apply in the efforts against AQ and terrorism, but on a judicial oversight leash, a check and balance to try to ensure newly granted authorities were not abused.
How does this square with ConLaw? I’ll have to ask my wife the counsel. Given my comparatively limited understanding, I would expect it to be somewhere in the middle of today’s court rulings and arguments. A centrist interpretation that recognizes the threats to national security but attempts to implement some form of ‘legal oversight’.
How does this extrapolate to Gitmo, rendition and torture? I expect he will attempt to find constitutional and legal concensus approaches to these issues as well. Not talking Gonzo consigliere law, or creepy (Berkeley prof) Yoo law either. Gitmo will likely be closed in a procedural manner, and rendition and torture programs will almost certainly end.
I think his overall direction is finding legal and constitutional middle ground approaches that garner bi-partisan support so we can move forward in a reasonably united fashion. Again, I have know way of actually knowing what Obama will do. I may be projecting my centrist ‘Eisenhower’ leadership ideals into the picture. But this is what I’m reading at this point.
Participant(Too much time on Piggs lately…)
My understanding of Obama’s position vis-a-vis the Patriot Act is again, one of pragmatism, rather than ideology. I believe he voted for the compromise re-authorization, including amendments eliminating extra-judicial avenues of investigation and surveillance, requiring judicial branch oversight over DoJ activities. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How I read this is: his position is squarely in the middle, a centrist interest in providing the FBI and law enforcement with additional investigative powers to apply in the efforts against AQ and terrorism, but on a judicial oversight leash, a check and balance to try to ensure newly granted authorities were not abused.
How does this square with ConLaw? I’ll have to ask my wife the counsel. Given my comparatively limited understanding, I would expect it to be somewhere in the middle of today’s court rulings and arguments. A centrist interpretation that recognizes the threats to national security but attempts to implement some form of ‘legal oversight’.
How does this extrapolate to Gitmo, rendition and torture? I expect he will attempt to find constitutional and legal concensus approaches to these issues as well. Not talking Gonzo consigliere law, or creepy (Berkeley prof) Yoo law either. Gitmo will likely be closed in a procedural manner, and rendition and torture programs will almost certainly end.
I think his overall direction is finding legal and constitutional middle ground approaches that garner bi-partisan support so we can move forward in a reasonably united fashion. Again, I have know way of actually knowing what Obama will do. I may be projecting my centrist ‘Eisenhower’ leadership ideals into the picture. But this is what I’m reading at this point.
Participant(Too much time on Piggs lately…)
My understanding of Obama’s position vis-a-vis the Patriot Act is again, one of pragmatism, rather than ideology. I believe he voted for the compromise re-authorization, including amendments eliminating extra-judicial avenues of investigation and surveillance, requiring judicial branch oversight over DoJ activities. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How I read this is: his position is squarely in the middle, a centrist interest in providing the FBI and law enforcement with additional investigative powers to apply in the efforts against AQ and terrorism, but on a judicial oversight leash, a check and balance to try to ensure newly granted authorities were not abused.
How does this square with ConLaw? I’ll have to ask my wife the counsel. Given my comparatively limited understanding, I would expect it to be somewhere in the middle of today’s court rulings and arguments. A centrist interpretation that recognizes the threats to national security but attempts to implement some form of ‘legal oversight’.
How does this extrapolate to Gitmo, rendition and torture? I expect he will attempt to find constitutional and legal concensus approaches to these issues as well. Not talking Gonzo consigliere law, or creepy (Berkeley prof) Yoo law either. Gitmo will likely be closed in a procedural manner, and rendition and torture programs will almost certainly end.
I think his overall direction is finding legal and constitutional middle ground approaches that garner bi-partisan support so we can move forward in a reasonably united fashion. Again, I have know way of actually knowing what Obama will do. I may be projecting my centrist ‘Eisenhower’ leadership ideals into the picture. But this is what I’m reading at this point.
Participant(Too much time on Piggs lately…)
My understanding of Obama’s position vis-a-vis the Patriot Act is again, one of pragmatism, rather than ideology. I believe he voted for the compromise re-authorization, including amendments eliminating extra-judicial avenues of investigation and surveillance, requiring judicial branch oversight over DoJ activities. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How I read this is: his position is squarely in the middle, a centrist interest in providing the FBI and law enforcement with additional investigative powers to apply in the efforts against AQ and terrorism, but on a judicial oversight leash, a check and balance to try to ensure newly granted authorities were not abused.
How does this square with ConLaw? I’ll have to ask my wife the counsel. Given my comparatively limited understanding, I would expect it to be somewhere in the middle of today’s court rulings and arguments. A centrist interpretation that recognizes the threats to national security but attempts to implement some form of ‘legal oversight’.
How does this extrapolate to Gitmo, rendition and torture? I expect he will attempt to find constitutional and legal concensus approaches to these issues as well. Not talking Gonzo consigliere law, or creepy (Berkeley prof) Yoo law either. Gitmo will likely be closed in a procedural manner, and rendition and torture programs will almost certainly end.
I think his overall direction is finding legal and constitutional middle ground approaches that garner bi-partisan support so we can move forward in a reasonably united fashion. Again, I have know way of actually knowing what Obama will do. I may be projecting my centrist ‘Eisenhower’ leadership ideals into the picture. But this is what I’m reading at this point.
Participanturbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.
Participanturbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.
Participanturbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.
Participanturbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.
Participanturbanrealtor, not my fault you’re nodding off in the middle of the day. How about contributing your take on Middle East policy. I didn’t catch that in your last post.
– What are your views re: our nation-building exercise in Iraq?
– How best to combat Al Qaeda? Occupy Iraq?
– Would you send troops into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden?
– What should our approach to Saudi Arabia look like?
Anybody can answer these. I’ve written enough. BTW, AFF: I think an Obama Admin would not utilize torture/rendition or resort to unconstitutional activities.
-
AuthorPosts
