Quote:

---

According to Jesselyn A. Radack of the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy organization, the Obama administration “has brought more leak prosecutions than all previous presidential administrations combined.”

---

Quote:

---

A day after he took office in 2009, President Obama issued a memo to every government agency declaring his commitment to an open and transparent government. It's been a hard commitment to keep. Though the administration has an open government plan and created a website for data, Wikileaks, whistle blowers and challenges to security have continued to cultivate a government culture steeped in secrecy.

In fact, last year alone, nearly 77 million documents were classified by the U.S. government, a 40 percent increase from the year before. Statistics like that, obviously, have civil liberties groups up in arms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And not closing Gitmo.
And not ending Rendition.
And not getting us out of Iraq.
And not getting us out of Afghanistan.

And not doing a lotta things he promised to do, really - not that many of us have forgotten this.

That's a good chunk of my beef with the other side, too, is that they're not offering anything of that nature, other than Ron Paul, who they wouldn't support in it - so when the choices come down between an unreliable berk, and an unreliable berk that's BAT SHIT CRAZY (See Also: Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Palin...) folks are gonna chose a safer alternative even if they know there's a shafting gonna be involved.

So both parties are at fault, cause they're not offering americans any of the options they WANT, and the fare that is being offered is so unpalatable many of em just stay home unless they're self-defense voting against the crazies.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
First - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ which I'm sure most of you have seen.

Second, DT how was the military involvement in Libya illegal? How is deploying US troops in the US illegal?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't really remember the GOP touting illegal warrantless wiretaps and illegal torture in Bush's re-election bid. Do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't really remember the GOP touting illegal warrantless wiretaps and illegal torture in Bush's re-election bid. Do you?

---

Nor Lincoln running on suspending habeas corpus in the 1864 campaign. One's about as relevent to the 2012 campaign as the other.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

For the second question, look up "posse comitatus".

Here's the short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

It's real, and it's very much a threat.

---

Quote:

---

Nick:

Yes, but the Posse Comitatus Act only prohibits that use of the military as law enforcement. Plus actions taken under the Insurrection Act are exempt.

---

Oh p-h-lease. Even if we ignore the fact that invoking the insurrection act *is* declaring martial law, the purpose of posse comitatus was to *strengthen* the prohibition on the use of US troops against US citizens because the civil war proved that the insurrection act did not go far enough in that direction. (Note the total insensitivity towards Jackson's little Georgian excursion on the part of the US govt., which is totally duplicitous, since at the same time they were claiming the right to act against the cherokee because they were a foreign nation and therefore not american citizens, the supreme court, our local theocracy, had just decided that they *weren't* a sovereign nation for the very purpose of allowing the attack to proceed.)

Quote:

---

I for one have never thought the War Powers Act would stand up in a court challenge.

---

Sorry Nick, this gets my WTF award.

The reason for the War Powers Resolution was *because* of the illegal war in Vietnam, which, again, was to reinforce what was already law but which was legally not holding. This is something they do again and again in US law and it never works because they don't look to the heart of why no one is paying any attention to the laws in the first place because there is in no way for we the people to kick their asses out of office and into jail when they break the law.

But on this one I have to say



I mean, It's in the gorram Constitution.

Given that the supposed job of the supreme court, unelected theocracy that it is, is to interpret the constitution, the whole congress shall have the power to declare war clause pretty unequivocally states that the president will not go to war without the consent of congress. I don't think there's any wiggle room for the court to suck up to the president on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh p-h-lease. Even if we ignore the fact that invoking the insurrection act *is* declaring martial law, the purpose of posse comitatus was to *strengthen* the prohibition on the use of US troops against US citizens because the civil war proved that the insurrection act did not go far enough in that direction. (Note the total insensitivity towards Jackson's little Georgian excursion on the part of the US govt., which is totally duplicitous, since at the same time they were claiming the right to act against the cherokee because they were a foreign nation and therefore not american citizens, the supreme court, our local theocracy, had just decided that they *weren't* a sovereign nation for the very purpose of allowing the attack to proceed.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Point being, nobody runs on their dubious achievements, do they?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Watching the right-wing attack Obama for not being left-wing enough.

---

Quote:

---

we need to put their feet to the fire, we need to hold them accountable.

Why, for pete's sake, refuse to work with the president to raise the debt ceiling?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Point being, nobody runs on their dubious achievements, do they?

---

Exactly. That's why other people need to remind the voters about them. You can probably expect a lot of stuff about Pres. Obama's lack of leadership on health care, Gitmo, corporate bailouts, etc. to be directed at independents and disaffected Democrats through 2012. Just like you'll see criticisms of dubious things the Republican candidates have done in previous positions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And that's why people should be reminded of the failings of every GOP hopeful as well.

Like Rick Perry's "Texas Miracle" which is non-existent. Papering over $25,000,000,000 in budget shortfalls this year and that much or more next year isn't exactly what one would call a "balanced budget".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick,

Why should it try to do away with the insurrection act, posse comitatus was created to strengthen the act, it's fall out from the civil war. The insurrection act limits the power of the feral govt. to try to prevent things like sullivan's raids, which didn't prove too effective because just look at what happened to the choctaw.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

You DO realize that Constitutionally, we're not even supposed to HAVE a standing army, right ?

Honestly, a lot of this is covered in the Federalist/Antifederalist papers, with the Antifederalists pointing out exactly how it was going to (and eventually did) happen, and the Federalists going "Oh no, they'd never dare do that, cause they wouldn't, so we don't need protections... truuust usss...".

Fuckin Hamilton - every time I hear the what if someone plugged Hitler before WWII argument, first thing that comes to mind is Aaron Burrs fateful shot...
We'll never know how MUCH trouble he saved us, I think.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Watching the right-wing attack Obama for not being left-wing enough.- Signy

Newsweek, the Smithsonian magazine, the Government Accountability Project, and NPR are Right-wing?-Geezer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Burr was just as much of a dick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
ah, the long lasting impact of being a better shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

You DO realize that Constitutionally, we're not even supposed to HAVE a standing army, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick

Hey, those jackboots don't clean themselves. Just remember to brush your teeth when you're done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It is not set up for us to have one, but nothing forbids it.

---

Quote:

---

From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. The circumstances of a revolution quickened the public sensibility on every point connected with the security of popular rights, and in some instances raise the warmth of our zeal beyond the degree which consisted with the due temperature of the body politic. The attempts of two of the States to restrict the authority of the legislature in the article of military establishments, are of the number of these instances. The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of an hereditary monarch were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the people in their popular assemblies. Even in some of the States, where this error was not adopted, we find unnecessary declarations that standing armies ought not to be kept up, in time of peace, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. I call them unnecessary, because the reason which had introduced a similar provision into the English Bill of Rights is not applicable to any of the State constitutions. The power of raising armies at all, under those constitutions, can by no construction be deemed to reside anywhere else, than in the legislatures themselves; and it was superfluous, if not absurd, to declare that a matter should not be done without the consent of a body, which alone had the power of doing it.

---

Quote:

---

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.

But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.

---

Quote:

---

But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because, says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? Because, "the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion." It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. I ask then, why should this government be authorised to do evil? If the principles and habits of the people of this country are opposed to standing armies in time of peace, if they do not contribute to the public good, but would endanger the public liberty and happiness, why should the government be vested with the power? No reason can be given, why rulers should be authorised to do, what, if done, would oppose the principles and habits of the people, and endanger the public safety; but there is every reason in the world, that they should be prohibited from the exercise of such a power. But this author supposes, that no danger is to be apprehended from the exercise of this power, because if armies are kept up, it will be by the people themselves, and therefore, to provide against it would be as absurd as for a man to "pass a law in his family, that no troops should be quartered in his family by his consent." This reasoning supposes, that the general government is to be exercised by the people of America themselves. But such an idea is groundless and absurd. There is surely a distinction between the people and their rulers, even when the latter are representatives of the former. They certainly are not identically the same, and it cannot be disputed, but it may and often does happen, that they do not possess the same sentiments or pursue the same interests. I think I have shown [in a previous paper] that as this government is constructed, there is little reason to expect, that the interest of the people and their rulers will be the same.

Besides, if the habits and sentiments of the people of America are to be relied upon, as the sole security against the encroachment of their rulers, all restrictions in constitutions are unnecessary; nothing more is requisite, than to declare who shall be authorized to exercise the powers of government, and about this we need not be very careful-for the habits and principles of the people will oppose every abuse of power. This I suppose to be the sentiments of this author, as it seems to be of many of the advocates of this new system. An opinion like this, is as directly opposed to the principles and habits of the people of America, as it is to the sentiments of every writer of reputation on the science of government, and repugnant to the principles of reason and common sense.

The idea that there is no danger of the establishment of a standing army, under the new constitution, is without foundation.

It is a well known fact, that a number of those who had an agency in producing this system, and many of those who it is probable will have a principal share in the administration of the government under it, if it is adopted, are avowedly in favor of standing armies. It is a language common among them, "That no people can be kept in order, unless the government have an army to awe them into obedience; it is necessary to support the dignity of government, to have a military establishment. And there will not be wanting a variety of plausible reasons to justify the raising one, drawn from the danger we are in from the Indians on our frontiers, or from the European provinces in our neighborhood. If to this we add, that an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry, and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay them, and perhaps sooner.

---

Quote:

---

The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise; but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority they are raised, and establish one [rule] according to the pleasure of their leaders.

---

Quote:

---

The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the civil power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil power may do it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to interpose till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your new Constitution, that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we may easily divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The civil power is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read inattentively, and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil power can be called for. I should be glad to see the power that authorizes Congress to do so. The sheriff will be aided by military force. The most wanton excesses may be committed under color of this; for every man in office, in the states, is to take an oath to support it in all its operations. The honorable gentleman said, in answer to the objection that the militia might be marched from New Hampshire to Georgia, that the members of the government would not attempt to excite the indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the general unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is no danger.

Will gentlemen be satisfied with an answer which admits of dangers and abuses if they be wicked? Let us put it of their power to do mischief. I am convinced, there is no safety in the paper on the table as it stands now.

---