\o/

Jun 08, 2009 20:24

Breaking: Lieberman-Graham Dropped From Supplemental


Read more... )

torture, congress, lindsey graham, photography, barack obama, joe lieberman, banking

Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

schmiss June 9 2009, 01:59:13 UTC
Because the Obama administration's rights to conceal evidence of torture are sufficiently covered already. The only reason to approve this amendment is to override the Supreme Court in case they decide the FOIA forces the O-Team's hand. Basically, the same kind of "executive privilege" Bush was running wild with for the past eight years. Checks & balances, they're doin them rong.

*eta right = rights

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

schmiss June 9 2009, 02:17:22 UTC
ty for the nitpicking, but that's why I said ~basically. obviously I don't think Obama = Bush. I do think the principles of the approach are the same, and I don't believe the rule of law should be treated like a roadblock to be overcome in the effort to withhold these photos from public scrutiny.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

schmiss June 9 2009, 02:42:38 UTC
Really? You don't see the problem in overriding FOIA, the most important transparency law we have? What you're proposing is completely dismantling the framework of the system, rearranging it, and then complying with the law, the saving grace being that it only applies to a certain segment of the Bush era, and not indefinitely. But even with that given, this amendment's still got no purpose other than to grant the administration further power to suppress evidence.

If you're being honest and don't understand how changing the law to grant unwarranted executive privilege is a bad thing, then I recommend Googling "imperial presidency" and seeing what people have been bitching about for the past eight years (and for decades before that). Although I think you're just playing devil's advocate. cause... I reeeally don't see what's so complicated about this.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up