http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html

Hear this, folks? It's the sound of me LOLing at the naive fools that saw hope in Obama.

Quote: Original post by Prune
...

I no longer believe that Obama is calling his own shots after the back-peddling he did on the ground zero mosque issue. I feel sorry for the guy, because he's the one with the least amount of ability to high tail it out of this huge mess of a world we've created. If you want a truly deserving lightning rod, you should slam Glenn Beck instead. He's the true control freak.

Anyway, you do realize that this is just sabre rattling, right? <blink>WikiLeaks</blink> just announced the other day that they will be releasing a whole new cache of military documents.

This reminds me entirely of the Assange thread that I started a while back.

Step 1) WikiLeaks makes a threat to release classified military documents.
Step 2) The US government beats its chest and makes loud noises.
Step 3) WikiLeaks releases said documents.
Step 4) The US government releases its own "damning" documents about computer security flaws in their infrastructure to make itself look self-deprecating.
Step 5) Lather, rinse, repeat.

Surely you mean Wikileaks, not Wikipedia...

Also, how can this be sabre rattling given that a) the courts are an independent branch of government from the executive and b) even if there was undue influence, this has been something going through the courts for a long time, so it cannot be related to the leaks.

Oh, of course. I just woke up and have had literally 0 cups of coffee. :)

I swear that in my past thread I didn't confuse the two whenever I said the word "WikiLeaks" (which was roughly 1000 times, I'm sure). ;)

Quote: Original post by Prune
Surely you mean Wikileaks, not Wikipedia...

Also, how can this be sabre rattling given that a) the courts are an independent branch of government from the executive and b) even if there was undue influence, this has been something going through the courts for a long time, so it cannot be related to the leaks.

Edit: OK, I FINALLY see what you mean about the timing of all this, and so it doesn't seem to be the same thing as my Assange thread. :)

My point though is that Obama is only protecting Bush via the official channels of information flow. The unofficial channels of information flow still exist, so obviously this is INHERENTLY related to the leaking/protection of information.

If you don't prefer the analogy of sabre rattling, perhaps visualize a person trying to save Hoover Dam from collapsing using wads of bubble gum. No matter how hard you try to ensure that the water only passes through the pipes, you're still going to get water leaking through the concrete. Water and electrons and light, and most importantly, information are all like that... they always find the path of least resistance.

So even if this isn't WikiLeaks-specific, I still think it's just useless sabre rattling, because the information is bound to get out eventually one way or another.

Please note the quotation marks. I don't think Bush is actually a war criminal. :)

[Edited by - taby on September 10, 2010 12:54:11 PM]

Quote: Original post by Prune
Also, how can this be sabre rattling given that a) the courts are an independent branch of government from the executive and b) even if there was undue influence, this has been something going through the courts for a long time, so it cannot be related to the leaks.

Given what you've said about the courts here, shouldn't you be complaining as much, if not more, about the court and it's ruling than what the Obama administration argued? It seems to me that 5 judges got it right, so what happened to the sixth judge? or the seventh? or the eighth? What happened to the check on the executive branch that the judicial branch is supposed to provide? As Greenwald points out, the lower court rejected the "state secrets" argument, so what compelled this higher court to reverse the lower court? How did the court come to fail it's responsibility as the last defender of liberty?

And to a self-proclaimed libertarian wouldn't crying be a more appropriate response to this ruling than gloating over what you see as the naivete of Obama voters? In other words, it seems that you're more concerned with issuing an "I told you so" than you are with the negative impact of the ruling.

I'm not a self-professed libertarian.
Your argument is invalid.

Nice red herring bait though. I'm sure everyone around here was diverted *rolleyes*

I'm a libertarian (see physical non-aggression principle). I'm not really frightened or sad though. The necessary information will get out some way. It's only a matter of time.

I prefer to look at this whole thing as Obama trying to protect the reputation of the entire US, not just Bush. It's noble of Obama, but kind of futile: Let's say that thieves are breaking into a home through the back door every night, and stealing lots of personal information about the homeowner. This infutiates the homeowner, and so he adds two extra locks to the front door of the house. The illusion of safety, as Tyler Durden would say.

Quote: Original post by taby
I'm a libertarian. I'm not really frightened or sad though. The necessary information will get out some way. It's only a matter of time.

I prefer to look at this whole thing as Obama trying to protect the reputation of the entire US, not just Bush. It's noble of Obama, but kind of futile: Let's say that thieves are breaking into a home through the back door every night, and stealing lots of personal information about the homeowner. This infutiates the homeowner, and so he adds two extra locks to the front door of the house. The illusion of safety, as Tyler Durden would say.

Hiding information about torture is not noble. The noble thing to do is to come clean and make it right. I've just skimmed the article, but it seems like a few people who were tortured haven't been able to properly testify because of this ruling which seems like a pretty shitty thing.

Quote: Original post by M2tM
...

But we already know for a fact that Bush led a government that accepted the torture of prisoners of war.

To continue harping on that fact would be an abuse of the US legal system's time and energy.

However, in case you are correct: If there is information about something worse than waterboarding, and it's being hidden, then I highly doubt that Obama would know about it. I don't think the Bush croneys would ever trust him (a libertarian at heart) with that kind of information. I mean, when Bush's email systems were wiped, I don't think Obama was mailed a copy of their contents beforehand. Oliver North already made that kind of mistake, and Bush obviously learned well from it.