Talk:Barack Obama/Archive4

Flagrant abuse of Human Rights?
You've got to be kidding me, right? a TWO SENTENCE order was filed that *admitted* that prisoners out side of the US do not have constitutional rights. Hello, they don't. It's in the constitution that they don't.  Obama knows that as well as anyone. He's done nothing yet, to show what his next step will be to see justice done, though he *has* stated there will no longer be any torture. They do not have access to US courts, nor have prisoners of war ever had that. Obama doesn't get to rewrite the Constitution. Personally, I'd wait and see what the next few weeks bring, before labeling him guilty of, your words, *flagrant abuse* of human rights. Should he act faster, probably. but flagrant?-- 23:17, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Holding people without legal grounds, without charge, without access to an attorney, without habeas corpus, is a flagrant abuse of human rights--certainly most of us thought so up until January 19. Why any different now? And they aren't "Prisoners of War"--they continue to exist in the murky "zone of exception" (pace Agamben) of "enemy combatant." TheoryOfPractice 23:28, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * They are not US citizens, TOP. and the Constitution does not now, nor has it ever applied to non US citizens, especially if they are not being held inside the country.  I agree that it's totally wrong, ethicall, and I do expect it to be changed or he hasn't lived up to his promises at all.  but the fact is, the quote from fox and the ACLU are not based on what the DOJ said, nor on the 2 sentences in the order.  The reports are based on what they *think* will happen based on that order.  -- 23:48, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * By the way, as for why I put "so called" prisoners of war, is because we are not at war, and they do not have that "status". It's not a good status to have, in US codes of law.  If you are a Prisoner of War (enemy combatant is another term the Bushies used) you have even less rights, including the fact that the Military has the right to try you, not a civilian court.  They are not "prisoners of war" in that sense, they are victims of a torturous and manipulated dictatorial regime that should be punished.  we were not at war.  we have no legal right to treat them as if we were.-- 23:51, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC)The Constitution does apply to people held within the country who are not citizens--like me. If the cops pick me up tomorrow, I can't be held indefinitely without charge, I have the right to a lawyer, etc. etc. These captives are being kept in a nether zone away from the reach of any national or international law. And the two-sentence declaration essentially says that "Change You Can Believe In" = "Business As Usual." TheoryOfPractice 23:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * "we were not at war. we have no legal right to treat them as if we were." Then let them go, or at least give them the means to challenge their captivity. To do otherwise is a flagrant violation of human rights. TheoryOfPractice 23:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Under the Geneva Convention, Prisoners of War have specific rights--rights that Bush wanted to deny them, hence his coming up with the bullshit designation "enemy combatant", which appears to translate as "People we can do ANYTHING WE WANT to". And if that concept doesn't scare the phlegm out of you, you have a LOT more trust in the inherent goodness of America than I do. --Gulik 02:07, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Was there a link here? Because as I understand it, Obama ordered Gitmo closed. Obviously I am missing some news?  ħ uman  03:07, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, I see we are now footnoting Faux News, in order to maintain our fair and balanced approached to the news. Nice work.  ħ uman  03:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fox was the first one to run the story--I've added a link to a BBC report that says essentially the same thing, along with describing very briefly the atrocious conditions under which Obama is having these men kept. TheoryOfPractice 09:25, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Consitution or not, Obama needs to be more careful. Don't make the Dems look bad now. --"C, U Ra(n), ing. 12:11, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why not make the Dems look bad? From LBJ in Vietnam to Carter's use of Afghanistan as a playground during the Cold War to Clinton's bombing of Kosovo and enforcement of an embargo on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of children to Mr. Change bombing Pakistani villages and sending more troops to Afghanistan and planning to double the facilities to imprison "enemy combatants" there, they look pretty bad...TheoryOfPractice 12:22, 21 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) As in, Obama, do not make your political party lose the next election to Jeb Bush. Or some other Bush. --"C, U Ra(n), ing. 12:25, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm all about criticizing everyone equally, but are the abuses taking place at Gitmo Obama's fault, when he didn't put them there, ordered the place closed, and has his team figuring out what to do with them? At worst, he's guilty of not immediately acting to close the prison, something that (while the abuses are appalling) is not really practical anyway, as the mess Bush left us kinda has everyone scratching their heads.   12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * This has nothing to do with Gitmo--Bagram is in Afghanistan. Some 600 men are held there in appalling conditions and Obama does not want to give them the means by which to challenge the fact of their imprisonment. TheoryOfPractice 12:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * (note to self; read entire conversation first) Okay, that brings back the point of holding foriegn citizens on foriegn land; why, again, do they have constitutional rights? I do agree they should have certain basic rights (like not being tortured) and that they should be treated as POWs, but the problem is that Obama has been left with a sort of "war" that isn't a war, so how do you take POWs?  And if they're not POWs, they don't get American rights as they're not Americans; what should Obama do?   12:49, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Provide them with the means by which to challenge their detention, either in the American court system or at the ICC (which the US isn't a party to. typical...). Move them to the US criminal system where they will fall under some sort of constitutional law. Declare a face-saving victory in Afghanistan, withdraw the troops and let them go. TheoryOfPractice 12:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm all about face-saving victory declarations, but really the issue here is two-fold: first, none of this is directly Obama's fault. He's a politician, bound by politician's rules, who inhereted a mess.  Second, the idea that foriegners in a foriegn country can challenge their detention is US courts is a bit ridiculous.   13:07, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * It may be ridiculous, but the idea of the US holding people against their will anywhere in the world (...and don't forget about the shiny new prison Obama wants to build at Bagram with double the current capacity...) with no legal recourse is chilling. TheoryOfPractice 13:14, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, I agree that holding prisoners without some sort of recourse is horrible, just pointing out that 1. it's not entirely Obama's fault and 2. what else are we supposed to do, given the situation?  13:19, 21 February 2009 (EST)

1. It's his fault if his administration perpetuates and reproduces it. 2. Already answered. TheoryOfPractice 13:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * At impase. Lame.   13:48, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * @ TOP #1, the question is "how long" does he get to fix the multiple messes he inherited? Obviously, I would say, "more than one day" (to be extreme), but a lot of what he has to do will take "years".  Now, if, say, six months from now, the US military under Obama is taking new prisoners and murking them in similar ways (were the 600 in question captured before or after he got the job?), it definitely becomes "scream time".  And we still have to sign Kyoto, and get on board with the ICC...  ħ uman  17:33, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * Human, read the BBC report I referred to (linked in the article)--the US is not only not fixing this particular part of the multiple mess; it is going ahead with a doubling tripling (600 current, new facilities to hold "1100 more") of the capacity of its prisons at Bagram; not fixing. Compounding. When those extra, what, 17,000 troops get to Afghanistan, they'll be taking lots more "enemy combatants" prisoner, I guess. So it's already scream time--beat the rush. And please, find me the part of Obama's platform where he saud that he would move to have the Senate ratify Kyoto or the ICC. Or the landmine ban. Or the cluster munitions ban. TheoryOfPractice 17:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm a little appalled at this situation myself. It considerably weakens the West's argument that democracy and the rule of law (and explicitly, trials are the very foundation of that system) is better and also has the higher moral ground when we apply those rules selectively, and only against the very enemies at whom the argument is directed.   And while I'm more than happy to accept the argument that Obama cannot instantly cure the US of all of the ills created by the Bush years,  a statement that such policies are not in line with our beliefs and will be ceased in due course allows the administration to make the point, and ask forgiveness while they try to figure out the practicalities.   DogP  15:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Kyoto
This isn't really addressing ToP's question above, it's more because there was a "question" in the article. My edit comment was "Senate ratifies treaties, Pres must sign. Bush ignored it after Senate passed.  Might need re-ratifying." Since ignored bills do expire (I think?), Kyoto would need to be re-passed by the Senate, but I suspect if Obama asked them to it would happen pretty quickly. So it's mostly on his shoulders, since he is "leading" right now in this dance. Of course, if he lets the Senate have any time to play, they could pass it on their own. Aside to ToP, while I don't recall him running it as a "promise", I suspect he would be on board, and it might be part of his "energy/environment" plans. At least, I hope it will be. We'll see.  ħ uman  23:37, 25 February 2009 (EST)

This wiki is awesome!
Although this article is obviously praising of Obama, and is written in the obligatory snarky point of view, it still has a section on war crimes. RationalWiki: Not afraid of truth, even though it may not always be positive! Best wiki ever. YB indeed! 22:21, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Glad you enjoyed... when he really fucks up (and he's bound to, it's in the job description), I hope we will be in the forefront of his critics.  ħ uman  23:44, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Controvervies over protectionism
Obama has been accused of protectionism which is aginst the principles of free trade. He limited H-1B visas which did mauch harm to Indians seeking job in the US and it was strongly opposed by India. India's external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee told India will go to the international forums against US protectionism. India's Commerce Minister Kamal Nath suugested India will go to the World Trade Organisation against Obama's policies. 

Anything worth adding, my eyes hurt with all the redlines under the words? - User   06:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia article on B.O.
"...Obama is likely the first Muslim President..."

Muslims will kill other practicing Muslims despite the strict prohibition against killing them written in the Quran. They do this by defining them as non-Muslims just for standing in line to sign up for a job as an Iraqi policeman. But let a little Hawaiian Christian boy have a non-practicing Muslim father he only remembers seeing briefly one time in 1971 and Conservative Republicans will define that boy as a hard-core Muslim when he grows up to be President.    21:37, 8 April 2009 (EDT)