"Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact":
Siobhan Gorman of the Wall Street Journal reports:
President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.As I noted yesterday in yesterday's thread on Gitmo, the devil is in the details. But this sounds promising to me. Thanks to commenter wyswyg for the link.
Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques -- which some consider torture -- by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.
Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.
"He's going to take a very centrist approach to these issues," said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble."
I guess it's another case of "Oops ...nevermind!" I suspect that Hillary's a little bit peeved right about now.
Now, what does the article say?
that if you believe the rhetoric during an election, you are an idiot. :)
this one is especially great because it cuts both ways - negating the non-sense about bush the fascist and obama the manchurian candidate.
It says "this is not the Barack Obama you thought you knew". Heh heh.
Rather than speculating, you can see what Greenwald thinks here (update III).
Well it's a good thing that libertarianism is on a separate axis and therefore isn't "right-wing". All one has to realize is that high taxes and big government take money out of the private economy and deplete the capital stock, slowing down economic growth and development, making society as a whole poorer. And that you shouldn't use force or fraud on anyone. Boy am I glad that libertarianism isn't extremist. Those dirty extremists scare me.
We can glean that the article tells us what *some* people would *like* the policies to be. Those people's authority to speak on behalf of, or bind, the incoming administration ... not so clear.
In any event, if President Obama permits torture, then he will have Anderson to deal with. You see how I drove out Bush and Cheney after two terms of office. Tremble, torturers!
Great point. Someone needs to dig up Obama's big Bushitler speech from Iowa and really shove it in his face. Obama clearly ran on a platform of "radical leftward lurch you can believe in," which is why the 53% of americans who make up the extreme left wing of this nation voted for him.
Man are they going to be disappointed.
WTF happened to our country?
Down in Jackson, MS, whose mayor is about to go on trial in federal court for warrantless entry &destruction of an alleged crack house, I found this quotation remarkable:
Without explicitly saying what he did, [Mayor] Melton has long defended his actions that night on the grounds that the house was a "crack house" and he was acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the city.
But [U.S. district judge Dan] Jordan signaled his intention early to keep arguments focused on the constitutional questions at hand.
"I'm not persuaded by that argument. Being commander in chief of the United States doesn't allow you to violate the Fourth Amendment," Jordan said.
How did THAT guy get nominated by the present administration? Paging David Addington!
(Thanks again btw to Prof. Kerr for the Angler recommendation -- just finished it &it was a depressing read indeed.)
Trial balloons. From what I can see the Obama trial-balloon launcher is working overtime in the last couple days. This is sort of SOP for a guy who's trying to order his priorities.
Right, but I wouldn't assume they're coming from Obama.
I *am* quite worried that no one in his organization has kept up with the issue. Knowing that anyone close to him had actually read Ron Suskind and Jane Mayer would cheer me up.
I do wonder how much Obama can leave in place before he starts getting hit with it-especially on the issue of torture and the spying (although in the end I bet he leaves the spying stuff in place, because I think that one has mostly been over blown by the left and hard libertarians anyway).
If what they're doing is legit, I don't see why Congress can't legalize it, subject to rather closer oversight (from an independent board, not from a partisan Congress) than we've seen.
I'd qualify this only to say that certainly the invasiveness of the search was always a separate issue. I may or may not agree with the extent of search permitted, but I certainly objected to the violation of existing law.
Well, yeah, since we may not actually know what that extent was. I'm merely guessing that it was some kind of data mining that would indeed be politically acceptable to Congress.
So for those of you keeping score at home, Mr. Kerr is NOT an apologist for the Bush Administration's abuses of power, but he thinks it is a good idea not to change those policies.
So for those of you keeping score at home, Mr. Kerr is NOT an apologist for the Bush Administration's abuses of power, but he thinks it is a good idea not to change those policies.
</blockquote>
the 'gotchas' are gonna make your head spin if you try too hard on this one.
obama = more of the same (i wish there was a cute way to turn obama into something mindless like McSame)
Obusha.
first google hit
[sarcasm/]you are discovered![\sarcasm]
If Obama's openess with the press during his campaign is any indication I suspect he will be either the same or maybe worse when it comes to transparency.
Oh there are some better ones. Obambi and Hopey McChange come to mind.
Yah, I googled it after I posted the comment. Nothing like Google to crush any illusion of originality one might harbor.
Oh there are some better ones. Obambi and Hopey McChange come to mind.
Those aren't better, is the problem. They don't convey the impression of "more of the same" as requested. Whatever one thinks of Bush, one is unlikely to satirize him as "Bambi."
And "Hopey McChange" simply suggests that one has not bothered to do any inquiry into any Obama policy proposals, which do, in fact, exist.
If you read the story, you will see that Obama does not plan to continue any radical and abusive Bush policies.
That's a bit like saying that Disneyland will be "largely intact" but that you're going to behead Mickey Mouse.
Or something.