I am so tired of this defense of Obama!

[Vattel]

It seems that every thread that pertains to prosecuing Bush people for torture or war crimes, and every thread that discuuses the efforts of Obama's DOJ to deny to the courts classified information, includes one or more posts to the effect that it would be inappropriate for Obama to "interfere" with the DOJ. Again and again we read that it is Holder's decision whether to prosecute person X or release information Y, or we read that if Obama were to intervene, he would be politicizing the Justice Department. This is bullshit. The U.S. Constitution invests the federal executive power in the President. The Constitution gives Obama the authority and so the responsibility to ensure that the law of the land is executed. Thus, he is in charge of DOJ and if he feels that they are not properly executing the law, he has a duty to intervene and correct matters. I guess it's kind of funny. Instead of the "He was just following orders" defense, we get the "It's not his place to be giving orders" defense.

[dionysus]

1. huzzah!!

:rofl:

[Cant trust em]

2. I can't decide if I agree or disagree with this or not

It is DOJ that decides whether crimes have been committed or not, not the President himself. Theoretically DOJ knows these laws and are the practitioners and the president is the manager of the department. Yet somehow I also find this unsatisfying. Whatever happened to serving at the pleasure of the President?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[villager]

5. so in which month does he become responsible for his administration's policies?

:shrug:

[tridim]

17. He gave a "The buck stops here" speech very early in his administration

WTF are you talking about?

[Jakes Progress]

30. Yeah. He's only the president.

It's not like he can really, you know, actually do something.

[QC]

4. It's much better than the three-dimensional chess excuse, though.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Q0lTtPVTG40/SXUe78pcKdI/AAAAAAAAnEc/TGLVLQpStYI/s400/spock+chess.jpg

[Bucky]

20. Damn you and your blasted Vulcan logic!

[tridim]

6. The greatest crime in American history shouldn't take longer than 4 months to prosecute.

Do I have that right?

:eyes:

[Cant trust em]

33. I think there has to be a serial killer case that is probably worse.

Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City would probably be up there.

[tridim]

35. BushCo has murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

It's the worst crime in our history, by FAR.

[Cant trust em]

38. Well, if you're including the wars that's another case.

This list is going to take a long time to compile.

Not :ROFL:

[tridim]

That's what people don't seem to understand..

BushCo is all one massive crime, it's all connected.

It's going to take years for the DOJ to sort out before any big fish are prosecuted.

[Cant trust em]

47. I thought you were saying that it shouldn't take more than 4 months. nt

[tridim]

58. I guess I forgot the sarcasm tag.

[Cant trust em]

66. I'm usually not that obtuse, but some people around here actually think that. nt

[bvar22]

84. That is completely bogus.

There is no need to compile a comprehensive list of all crimes committed.
They can and should be handled as they come up.
There is NO DOUBT that serious crimes have been committed concerning the torture and abuse of prisoners.

It is past time for Holder to appoint a REAL Independent Prosecutor to pursue these crimes.
The longer the Obama administration delays this issue, the more it looks like they are protecting Torturers and War Criminals.

[tridim]

88. Yes he should, and I see no reason to not believe that's exactly the plan.

Do you have a link where Holder says he's not going to appoint an IP?

[bvar22]

93. There is plenty of evidence Obama won't prosecute.

AND, if you live in the REAL World, you already know that Holder will do as Obama wishes.

(AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

Obama last week authorized the release of a series of memos detailing the methods approved under President George W. Bush. In an accompanying statement, he said "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, that they will not be subject to prosecution." He did not specifically address the policymakers.

Asked Sunday on ABC's "This Week" about the fate of those officials, Emanuel said the president believes they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/20/politics/main4955428.shtml

Do you believe Rahm is "out of the loop"?
There are others.

There was a meeting last week, attended by Holder and Obama where Obama stepped in and answered questions directed AT Holder concerning prosecutions. Obama was characteristically vague in his answer, but what wasn't vague at all was that Obama WAS speaking FOR Holder.

[pokercat999]

108. OK City wasn't even close to the crimes comitted by

bushco in Iraq. There have been over 1M deaths!

[snowdays]

7. Those who agree with Obama will find and use any EXCUSE they

can regardless if it is correct.

[vaberella]

10. Untrue. I have no defense of his position in Afghanistan which I want to end now. n/t

[PretzelWarrior]

15. I'm with you on single payer health care. but not on this matter.

Barack Obama has already done far more than I would have hoped in this first few months. I had figured he'd be too consumed with the financial meltdown to hit on other issues.

He is definitely working the items one issue at a time. Patience, young grasshoper.

[snowdays]

21. :-)

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Puhleeeze. You can't even find a thread with your name on it that isn't

complaining about something! You must be a load of fun with your constant bitching.

[Zodiak]

54. That's a cheap shot

Even if true, that kind of discourse is unwarranted.

[cali]

31. bzzzzy. i support Obama but I disagree and disapprove on a number

of issues. I'm disappointed in his lack of action on GLBT issues. I think it's getting to the point where it's fair to say he's been truly shitty on those issues. I disapprove of his Afghanistan policy. I think it'll fail. Of course, I don't think there is any answer to Afghanistan, but that's neither here or there. I'm absolutely opposed to preventive detention. I could go on, so why do I support him? I support his increased effort when it comes to diplomacy. I support his I/P position. I support his environmental polices- largely. I support his pro-choice position. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

[Cant trust em]

34. Define "correct". nt

[Jennicut]

40. I like Obama immensely but hate his passive views on gay rights.

So there. :)

[NoPasaran]

42. Those fucking Obama supporters!

God how I hate them!




















:sarcasm:

[NYC_SKP]

60. I love you, snowdays!

It's good to have opinions on all sides of the matter, so long as we keep it productive, and not personal!



.

[geek tragedy]

61. Yes, only his opponents and enemies on the far right and far left

are intellectually honest.

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Hey, at least it's consistent

He's all things to all people and they're in agreement with every one.

Disagree with this? I'm sure our President does, too. If there's some problem, it's obviously Rahm, Congress or some other infidel. Triumphs, of course, stem only from him.

[Patchuli]

124. Anyone who says that they always agree 100%

with our leaders is a damn liar. I want more action too but I have patience and enough common sense to know you have to proceed slowly with the biggest mess any president has ever left behind. Just the same, I think many completely underestimate how smart and methodical President Obama is. He needs to allow those who drank the Kool-Aid for so long to realize what has been done with their tax dollars and in their name. I too want to hold the admin's feet to the fire on the torture and every other awful act of inhumanity our soldiers and the mercs were pulling. I know it will come...

If you trusted him enough to vote for him, then let him do his job.

[vaberella]

8. While I can sit there and list hundreds upon hundreds of threads where O is lambasted.

And the nice little names he's called: homophobe, corportist, Obama=Bush....and on and on it goes.

So you can be all upset--but so can the other side, especially when more information is released showing how in the wrong people are on Obama's decisions.

[Teaser]

9. So you're tired of it. Who cares?

.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. You're tired of people are defending a Democratic President on Democratic Underground?

Interesting.....

[Howardx]

13. beat me by a second

[Vattel]

23. Just trying to point out a common mistake

[MADem]

45. Your avatar is hugely ironic, especially since you 've not read the document it illustrates.

You're the one making the common mistake--the President is not the KING.

[Vattel]

55. Yes, the President is not king. Thanks for letting me know.

(sarcasm)

[MADem]

64. Your sarcasm aside, your OP clearly suggests you were unclear on that matter. NT

[Vattel]

68. I think I was clear, but let me try again.

The executive power of the federal government is vested in the President. This is the power to execute the laws that govern the United States. Most of the federal government's war powers are vested in Congress. The President does have the commander-in-chief power which is the power to direct the military in battle when war exists (subject to federal laws that govern and regulate the armed forces). The President has a few other powers (make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, pardon, etc.).

The crucial issue here is whether the President's power to execute federal law includes the power to set priorities, make policies and otherwise direct the activities of the DOJ. The answer, I believe, is yes. Obviously the President should not abuse that power in the way Bush did. And most President's aren't competent to actually be involved in making arguments in Court. (Imagine Reagan arguing a case in Court.) Similar things could be said about the President being too involved in the details of military strategy. But that doesn't negate that the President has the ultimate command in military affairs.

I'm open to being proven wrong. But I need an argument. Waving of hands won't do.

[MADem]

71. He does NOT have the power to tell DOJ what to do. How old are you? Don't you remember NIXON?

"Impeach the Cox Sacker?" He tried to "interfere" with DOJ, too.

It's not a question of my "proving" anything to you. It's law of the land. Co-equal branches.

[Vattel]

74. True, he cannot just decide to get rid of an independent prosecutor,

but the key word there is "independent." I don't see what "co-equal branches of govt" has to do with anything. The DOJ is a part of the executive branch.

[MADem]

78. Their job is to enforce federal laws--not kowtow to the President.

DOJ was established --by Congress-- to do this. There is no duty of DOJ to prosecute a "political" agenda that the President might have, or to place the prosecutorial desires of the President ahead of the impartial administration of justice.

We don't have a king, and we don't want one.

http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/

Mission Statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Statutory Authority

The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) created the Office of the Attorney General. Originally a one-person part-time position, the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law" with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments." The workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. With an increasing amount of work to be done, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.

In 1870, after the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload, a concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870 Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States. The Act gave the Department control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the Attorney General and the Department control over federal law enforcement. To assist the Attorney General, the 1870 Act created the Office of the Solicitor General.

The 1870 Act is the foundation upon which the Department of Justice still rests. However, the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the Deputy Attorneys General and the formation of the Divisions. Unchanged is the steadily increasing workload of the Department. It has become the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

The AG gives advice and opinions TO the President--he doesn't take orders FROM him:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/

Office of the Attorney General

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

The AG is the nation's chief law enforcement officer--not someone who "takes orders" from the President. It would be profoundly inappropriate for the AG to do that.

[Vattel]

81. So the power to execute federal law

is now vested in the Attorney General. Is that your claim? You should read up on this. You are a bit naive on the structure of the federal government. My claim is not that Obama should try to use the DOJ for partisan ends or to pursue some political agenda. Obama should ensure that the DOJ fulfills its obligation to impartially administer justice.

[MADem]

82. Please read what I've provided, and stop extrapolating.

My cites are from DOJ....not the back of a cereal box.

If you're now claiming that you want DOJ to be impartial, they don't need the President to be giving them a list of what "he" feels is the "impartial list." See, that's HOLDER's job--not Obama's.

If Obama doesn't like the way Holder is doing his job, he can fire him. He shouldn't, though, be telling him HOW to do his job. That's what got NIXON in trouble.

[Vattel]

85. Look I don't disagree with what you posted.

There is a sense in which the AG is the chief federal law enforcement official just as there is a sense in which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (if I remember the title) is the nation's chief military leader. But there is also a sense in which Obama, as chief executive and as commander-in-chief, is in charge when it comes to both enforcing federal law and determining military strategy. You suggest that Obama should leave Holder alone or fire him. That would be irresponsible on his part. If he feels Holder is screwing up, he should give direction to him and only if Holder doesn't improve should he resort to firing him. You may not realize it, but as chief executive, the President does have the right and the responsibility to give direction to the DOJ so that it fulfills its function of enforcing the law.

You do realize that the DOJ is a part of the executive branch of government, right?

[MADem]

95. The Chairman of the JCS has no operational authority. NONE.

That's not an appropriate comparison. The CJCS advises the President and the SECDEF (and serves two masters in this regard). He has absolutely no "command authority" and can't tell anyone to do anything, operationally speaking--he cannot cause a bomb to be dropped, a bullet to be fired, or an aircraft to be launched (unless he's taking the Lear somewhere to go speak). The chain goes from the Commander in Chief through SECDEF to the unified commanders. JCS can whisper recommendations, but he can't tell anyone to do diddly.

Yes, I do realize that DOJ is part of the executive branch, but you apparently think that DOJ is "subordinate" to the President in terms of how they do their job. They aren't. The only thing the President can do to or at DOJ is hire and fire. That's it. He can have discussions, sure, but those discussions have no "authority" or "command" behind them and he'd better be VERY careful not to "suggest" that Holder do this thing, or worse, NOT do that thing. The President can't tell the DOJ crew what to prosecute, or not prosecute. Again, I invite your attention to "Cox Sacking" Nixon.

At least forty percent of the gripes about Bushco that one sees around here had to do with Gonzales getting a bit too "political" in some of the crap he chose to do--and not do. Alberto fired US attorneys that didn't prosecute Democrats. He pushed aside requests for legal redress from Democrats. Alberto oversaw a staff that twisted the definition of torture beyond recognition and mutilated the Constitution so Bushco could wiretap anyone they chose--and was egged on, indeed, DIRECTED, by the WH. Remember "Let the Eagle Soar" Ashcroft taking a stand against that kind of bullshit from his hospital bed? That WAS his finest hour--the Senate made a good pick when they confirmed him.

The President's job is to pick someone who can DO the job over at DOJ. That's it. Same as he should pick Supreme Court justices who can do the job. He's not going to be calling up Sotomayor and telling her how to rule, now, is he? He needs to leave Holder to his own devices as well, and not try to overtly influence him in his law enforcement role. If he does otherwise, he's no better than Bush or Nixon--and anyone encouraging Obama to involve himself the way Bush or Nixon did is just WRONG.

[Vattel]

100. The chairman of the joint chiefs

was a bad example for the reason you give. But your comparison of SCOTUS and DOJ doesn't help your case for the obvious reason that unlike SCOYUS, the DOJ is part of the executive branch. And I'm obviously not recommending that Obama involve himself in the way Bush or Nixon did. You have not cited a single statute or a single consttutional provision that requires the President to adopt the hands-off approach to DOJ that you believe he is required to adopt. The president's article 2 powers give him the authority to offer such direction as is necessary to ensure that the laws are executed.

[MADem]

103. The point that you missed was that Obama nominated both candidates--

Holder and Sotomayor. It doesn't matter what "department" they fall under, particularly when the rules for interaction between DOJ and the President are pretty clear. The AG is an advisor, and the President had better not tell him who to prosecute--or who NOT to prosecute. Absent the AG NOT doing his job, the President, or his pals at the WH, had better not be sticking his beak in--otherwise, we end up with Bush/Gonzales, a politicized DOJ, and a corrupt administration which, in Nixon's case, led to his resignation to escape impeachment.

You want the "controlling law?" Here it is: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/judiciary.html

The AG isn't the personal lackey of the President. He's the top law enforcement official for the nation. And the President is a citizen of this nation, and not above the law. That's the point you seem to be missing.

Apparently, you want Obama to be this kind of President--I don't: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-30-cox-death_x.htm

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/opinion/editorials/article/justice_is_missing_at_the_department_of_justice/7100/

A President picks an AG to do the job--he (or she, one day) doesn't do that job FOR the AG. The President HAS his own lawyers, too--at the White House, separate from the DOJ, whose job it is to advance arguments on behalf of the President. You seem to be of the impression that the AG is the President's personal lawyer, and the President can make up a laundry list of "Things to Do" for the AG--that's not the AG's role or job.

Obama understands this concept--he's said so. I don't know why you are having such a hard time with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1UPvMfBD8w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress%2Eorg%2F2009%2F04%2F21%2Fobama%2Dholder%2Dprosecutions%2F&feature=player_embedded



Maybe you'd like to see the AG elected? http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0130/p09s01-coop.html Some think that might solve the problem.

[sl8]

107. How does the 1789 Judiciary Act support your contention?

Holder and Sotomayor. It doesn't matter what "department" they fall under, particularly when the rules for interaction between DOJ and the President are pretty clear. The AG is an advisor, and the President had better not tell him who to prosecute--or who NOT to prosecute. Absent the AG NOT doing his job, the President, or his pals at the WH, had better not be sticking his beak in--otherwise, we end up with Bush/Gonzales, a politicized DOJ, and a corrupt administration which, in Nixon's case, led to his resignation to escape impeachment.

You said that the rules for interaction between the DOJ and the President are pretty clear. Could you clarify that? I don't find them to be clear at all. Are these rules written down somewhere?

You want the "controlling law?" Here it is: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/judiciary.htm...

"Controlling" how? How does the 1789 Judiciary Act limit the President's interaction with the Attorney General?


One of the duties of the President is to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. How does he do that?

[MADem]

112. He does it by firing an AG who doesn't do the job. Not by doing the job FOR the AG.

The Act established the Judiciary AND the DOJ. It laid out their duties and it's been added to over the years. The AG advises. That's his job. He doesn't "take orders from."

Please look at the links I've provided. I still can't figure out why you want Obama to behave like Nixon. I can't get why you find that "OK." It makes no sense.

[sl8]

114. The 1789 Judiciary Act did not establish the DOJ.

The DOJ was created more than 100 years later.

Regardless, how does that answer my question? How does the 1789 Judiciary Act define the relationship between the AG and the President?

I am curious as to how you determined that I want Obama to behave like Nixon. How does that follow from my questioning your interpretation of the Judiciary Act?

[MADem]

117. It established the position of AG, and states' attorneys, around which DOJ grew.

It's right in the act, what the AG's duties are. OK, let me quote from the act (which--let me take pains to point out, since you keep missing my point, which was also Woodward and Bernstein's and everyone else's point in the Nixon era-- says absolutely zip, zilch, nada, and nothing about "take orders from/obey the wishes of the President"). His job is to GIVE ADVICE--not "take direction"--as I have said several times already:


http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm


And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.

[sl8]

120. I know what the Act does say.

I don't know where it says that the President isn't his boss.

The Act also doesn't say that the President can hire and fire him, but he can.

Again, how does the the Act define the relationship between the President and the AG? It requires that the AG give the President legal advice, agreed. What else?

Who sets the law enforcement agenda for the U.S., the President or the AG?

[MADem]

121. Verbal orders don't fly. If you have a hard time reading, I can't help you.

You're now at the point where you're simply being argumentative for arguments' sake.

The President nominates for appointment all cabinet members--and he can fire them, too. They have to be A/C'd by the Senate, of course. That's where the hire/fire comes in.

You need to just give it up. You apparently want the same type of shithead running things that the GOP had in Nixon and Bush. Most people, though, prefer something other than a dictator.

You're just wrong on this. And you don't understand the law.

Speaking of law, it's CONGRESS that makes the law. The President signs the laws (or vetoes them).

The AG is the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

Go back to school. It's not my job to fill in the serious gaps in your education. They're pretty big, too.

[sl8]

125. I guess that you're right - I don't understand the law.

I didn't know that the AG was in a different branch of government than the President.
I didn't know that appointing a Supreme Court justice was the same as appointing a cabinet member.
I didn't know that the President being the boss of the DOJ was the same as the President being the boss of Congress.

I'd better go back to school.

[MADem]

126. You also are being deliberately obtuse. It's not a clever strategy on your part.

But you have one of those nice days anyway.

And yes--you do need to go back to school.

[sl8]

122. Ad hominem bullshit.

The Act established the Judiciary AND the DOJ. It laid out their duties and it's been added to over the years. The AG advises. That's his job. He doesn't "take orders from."

Please look at the links I've provided. I still can't figure out why you want Obama to behave like Nixon. I can't get why you find that "OK." It makes no sense.

Obviously you're wrong about the DOJ.

Furthermore, you accuse me of wanting Obama to act like Nixon. That's complete and utter bullshit. You haven't any idea what I expect from Obama.

Stick to the facts, if you're capable of recognizing them.

[MADem]

129. You and your alter ego have a nice day. Go back to school. Learn all about Nixon. NT

[Vattel]

139. I guess the Justices who wrote this also needed more school:

"The ordinary duties of officers prescribed by statute come under the general administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant to him of the executive power, and he may properly supervise and guide their construction of the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform execution of the laws which article 2 of the Constitution evidently contemplated in vesting general executive power in the President alone."

Myers v United States (1926)

[sl8]

106. How does "Co-equal branches" apply ...

to the relationship between the Attorney General and the President?

[NYC_SKP]

77. Agree.

Many do not understand the separation of powers and the role of each of our three branches of government.

That said, most of the negativity I see on DU has to do with his "failure" to not use the bully pulpit more vigorously on particular issues.

Others just call him Bush II without much to back it up or with suggestions as to feasible alternatives that could be taken.

Good example, what to do with the most problematic detainees from Bush's war on terror.

Plenty of drama, nothing by way of suggestions.

I appreciate your calm and reason.

:patriot:

[BlooInBloo]

28. Could there be anything worse?

[rvablue]

46. Yup. These threads are sprouting up faster than mushrooms in a dark basement!

Pretty sad. Pretty pathetic. Pretty Transparent. Very Frustrating.

[Howardx]

12. youre tired of a democratic website defending...

a democratic president. the answer seems clear.

[geek tragedy]

14. So you endorse Bush's Unitary Executive theory?

Anything to excuse an attack on Obama.

[Vattel]

27. That phrase is used to describe a lot of different things

Congress has some executive powers, and can regulate the President's commander-in-chef power. But I do believe that the President is in charge of executing federal law. If that view makes me a proponent of the unitary executive theory, then I am a proponent of that theory.

[geek tragedy]

62. The attorney general is supposed to determine which cases are

fit for prosecution. Politically-influenced prosecutions is what Bush did.

[Vattel]

79. Who is recommending politically-influenced prosecutions?

I recommend that Obama sees to it that the DOJ upholds and enforces the law.

[izzybeans]

16. You want a dictator.

[Vattel]

49. oh brother

[izzybeans]

105. You should read the constitution and the history of the DOJ.

What you are asking for is the same procedural authority that we deplored Bush for.

If Holder doesn't enforce the laws then we must pressure Obama to get an AG that will. But pressuring Obama to "prosecute" is like pressuring the mayor to do the DA's job. It's misplaced effort.

In order to get anything to happen the criticism must start with Holder. He is the administrator of justice and the law is supposed to dictate what he does and does not do. Obama picked him and we must hold him responsible for his pick. But we have to make Holder the target, if he's failing to do his job, then political pressure needs to be on the office of the AG; otherwise Obama has an out. And that out is exactly what he's saying now. The AG enforces the laws, talk to him.

[TexasObserver]

18. It's the fierce urgency of "not now."

At first, I thought he was just choosing his battles, but it seems he's choosing not to battle at all on most issues.

[Phx_Dem]

19. Good. I'm tired of your incessant bitching after only 4 months. n/t

[Vattel]

24. You've got me confused with some other poster.

[iamthebandfanman]

51. nah, she meant to broad brush

anything to escape discussing whats been said.

[zulchzulu]

25. I guess you're the last person who still thinks the President enforces the law...

Get a clue. The Oval Office doesn't prosecute ANYTHING. That's what Kings do. Or dictators.

It's up to the Justice Department (which is not under the control of the President) to enforce the law and prosecute accordingly.

Take a fucking intro class in Democracy 101.

:crazy:

[Vattel]

59. Now that is funny

What do think it means to execute the law?

[Qutzupalotl]

67. To sign it.

[Vattel]

69. You should read some of the federalist papers

[MannyGoldstein]

26. You're Correct, Of Course

Obama is not supposed to *politicize* the department, but he owns it.

However, since Holder himself has admitted to signing off on outsourced torture under Clinton, I'm not expecting any action here.

[NYC_SKP]

32. BWAAHAAHAHA! HA HA! HA. HA! Let's Dance!

Nothing the naysayers say can dampen my spirits.

I welcome any opportunity to defend the President when I see BS MSM memes repeated her without legitimate backup.

When trying to reason with the perpetrators fails, I embrace them with an "I love you."

And then I continue to dance!

[PretzelWarrior]

37. lol. nice animated gif

[Vattel]

70. cool dancer, see post 68

[lunatica]

36. Didn't our Founding Fathers

Consider the Executive Branch the least important? As a matter of fact the President's job was mostly to represent us to the rest of the world.

So I disagree.

[Jennicut]

39. Hmmmm, but legally I thought the DOJ has the only authority to prosecute anyone.

Can Obama even order an investigation? Maybe you need to reward your complaint. Obama can "influence" the DOJ. The DOJ under Bush unfortunately was not separate enough at all from the WH.

[Fire1]

41. What exactly would one expect to find on a DEMOCRATIC

WEBSITE??? I voted for him, worked for him and gave him money! I GOT WHO I wanted in the White House. I could give a rat's ass about naysayers and what they're 'tired' of 'hearing.'

[MADem]

43. The President is "in charge of DOJ????" Why have a DOJ, then?

You slept through your US government classes.

[Vattel]

52. Um, because the president can't be expected to do everything himself

[MADem]

65. You need to go back to school. Start by googling "co-equal branches of government"

Do you think Obama is "the Boss" of the Congress, too?

:eyes:

[Vattel]

73. more deep insights into the nature of the federal govt.

thanks again

[solstice]

44. And you know they wouldn't be defending Bush for letting the DOJ decide whether to go after

war criminals or not.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Once again, welcome to DU. Really.

:eyes:

[HamdenRice]

50. rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

It takes too much energy to explain why, plus it's self evident why.

[Vattel]

72. see post 68

[old mark]

53. Obama is doing a great job, and is superior to anyone else of either party

who ran in '08. He is already a great president, will get even better.

mark

[Vattel]

56. I'm not attacking Obama

I would just prefer debating his administrations policies and actions rather than pretending that he is not responsible for them.

[StevieM]

63. That's your opinion--not indisputable fact. I agree that Obama is doing well as President

but that doesn't mean that he is automatically superior to all others, by any reasonable person's standards. Different people have different preferences.

I think there were a lot of great Democrats who ran, who would all have done a great job. And supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign was one of the proudest experiences of my life.

Steve

[Zodiak]

57. It is a legitimate defense

In theory, it is essentially correct.

In practice, I have a strong suspicion that the politicization of the DOJ by the last administration continues to have a pronounced effect on the DOJ's actions. It may take a stronger hand than self-policing to reign in the effects of Bushco.

[RollWithIt]

75. But people complained about Bush using his AGs to politicize DoJ???

So why is this any different? Let DoJ make their own decisions.

[Vattel]

76. influencing the DOJ for partisan ends

politicizes the DOJ. Influencing it so that it is better at executing the law does not.

[RollWithIt]

83. But this is my problem, the POTUS shouldn't affect DoJ prosecution...

That's how the system has been set up. His only direct involvement should be who he appoints. Aside from that, it's the AG who makes the ultimate decisions.

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT: I understand your interpretation of the constitution. I personally find it to be very flawed. You want to have separate branches of government, even sub sections, to prevent the abuse of power. But I believe that investing that much power in the executive branch, full executive control of DoJ, results in what we saw for the last eight years.

[Vattel]

87. I do agree that the call on whether something is prosecutable

should be the "experts" in DOJ and Holder's, but Obama has the responsibility to make sure that the "experts" do a good job. As for my interpretation of the Constitution, that would probably be a long discussion.

[RollWithIt]

92. Look, here's my main point, and take it to heart...

Obama has been President for a little over four months. You don't level federal indictments in four months. You also, if you are hoping for your DoJ to prosecute former administration officials, SAY YOU WANT IT. You say you don't want it. Wait a year. Then you let DoJ do the dirty work and no one points a finger at you as POTUS. You STAY OUT OF IT!

But ya, four months. Seriously, what you want the guy to do, part the sea?

[Vattel]

101. I never said that he should have already prosecuted anyone

or that he should ever prosecute anyone. Read my post. It's directed at correcting a common misunderstanding of the relationship between POTUS and DOJ.

[leftofthedial]

80. it must be getting *really* hard to keep defending Obama.

Especially on civil liberties, anything involving the DOJ, human rights, "defense" issues . . .

[tridim]

91. Not hard at all. He's the best President in my lifetime.

By a fucking mile.

[leftofthedial]

96. unless you are very old,

that's not hard to believe.

It's a shame that the reputation of the office has been degraded so.

You think illegal wiretaps are okay (like Obama says); and "prolonged detention" of anyone the Executive Branch decides is too guilty to let go, but too not guilty to try is okay (like Obama does); military escalation with no end in sight and no defined mission in the oil and pipeline countries of the Middle East is okay (like Obama does); supply-side transfer of trillions of dollars of public money into the hands of a few already obscenely wealthy private individuals is okay (like Obama does); expanding the current system of insurance company (that is, bank) ownership of our nation's health care system is okay (like Obama does); and military tribunals are a fine way to ensure justice (like Obama does); and that former government officials who publicly confess to war crimes should not be held accountable (like Obama does)...

wow.

God bless amurka.

[RollWithIt]

94. Less than five months into his presidency... I find it easy to defend him...

Sad that you choose to jump the shark.

[leftofthedial]

97. oh noes the poutrage jumping the shark epic fail --

what an articulate argument.

[RollWithIt]

98. And you have presented an articulate argument?

Where? Point that out?

[leftofthedial]

104. articulate, specific thesis:

"it must be getting *really* hard to keep defending Obama. Especially on civil liberties, anything involving the DOJ, human rights, "defense" issues . . ."

[ChiciB1]

86. Well You Won't Get ME Defending Him Much Anymore!! I'm Almost Sure Now

that I Got FORKED!!! What I voted for, isn't what I'm seeing! AND I DON'T CARE WHO says it ONE MORE TIME... it's too early, give it MORE TIME!!!

As I see it, with MORE TIME, comes MORE disappointment!! Sorry, as I said... got stuck and am FORKED!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. Well, according to Gallup, 67% of us disagree with you & the o.p.

And I don't think he needs defending by you. Those of us who supported him all along, knew exactly what we were voting for. That you, and a handful of extreme leftists are upset, doesn't really count for much.

[Fire1]

127. +25!!!

[Teaser]

99. Greatest parody post ever

you really do a good job of imitating the doofuses. Nailed them.

[Honeycombe8]

102. So, what you're really saying is, "I'm tired of people disagreeing with me!!!"

That's what your post is saying, really. Some people disagree with you. They think it's not Obama's place to make those decisions (altho I guess we all know he has enough influence to force the issue).

Not even everyone agrees that there should be a third party investigation on the issue, much less a prosecution.

[jeanpalmer]

109. He has aligned himself with the torturers

Kept them in the employ of the government. Fk him.

[Fire1]

110. Really? Wow! 'Fuck Obama.'

[jeanpalmer]

113. You're too hung up on him

He's just a servant, who isn't doing his job. When you have someone who isn't doing his job, you fire him. Lying unprincipled politicians are a dime a dozen. Get over him. We'll get a new one in 2012. Someone who has the political balls and principle to get us out of the wars.

[Fire1]

123. I don't know where you've been but Obama has been talking

about going into Afghanistan ALL DURING HIS CAMPAIGN!!! Now, maybe you have SELECTIVE HEARING or MEMORY but you can link to any number of his speeches on the campaign trail to get confirmation. Indeed, he also said we would be coming out of Iraq, as far as war time is concerned but would still have military stationed there for security reasons, which we've done in many other countries
over the years. In Obama's words, 'Afghanistan is where we should have been in the first place following 9/11.' No, I'm not going to 'get over' him and frankly, I don't think any other candidate could do any better.

[firedupdem]

111. how about a fuck you! n/t

[jeanpalmer]

115. How about you pull your head out

No one gets my vote automatically. Or my son's or daughter's. He has to earn it. If 2012 rolls around and we're still not out of Iraq and Afghanistan lock stock and barrel, and hasn't figured out how to reduce military spending and devote that money to health care and other things that help the people, he'll be out of a job. Then you'll be able to send some time figuring out why it happened and how it would have been so easy to accommodate the people who voted for him. I'm done suffering lying fools.

[firedupdem]

116. buh bye!!

I'm not considering 2012, 6 months into a fucking swamp pit of problems. If you're saying fuck him already, then you weren't on board in the beginning. You've already counted the administration OUT!

[jeanpalmer]

118. You're making it far too complicated

It doesn't take 4 months to get us out of war. More like 4 days, for anyone who is principled and has the balls to take on the right wing. Your starry-eyed sycophancy is disgusting. He's taking advantage of you, calculating you'll support him no matter what while he sucks up to the torturers and the military. Well, he's calculated correctly, with regard to you, but not me. He has miscalculated with regard to me, and others I know. He's not thinking straight, like a real Democrat. And he'd better get his act together.

[firedupdem]

119. You seem confused.

Obama isn't doing anything now that he didn't state during the campaign. I'm sure you were saying fuck him then too. Additional troops would be sent to Afghanistan and we would be out of Iraq in 16 mos. or so. How in the hell is he "sucking up to torturers"? Because there are no prosecutions as of yet? Nobody takes advantage of me, and I'm not a bullshitter either. I voted for him and he'll be a great President. 67% of Americans agree that he's doing a good job. So take your outrage elsewhere. There is a general support rule on this board and it doesn't sound like you have it, or ever have. He never stated we would be out of the war as soon as he stepped into office. I know who I voted for, and others I know are very happy with the President. So, it looks as if I'll continue my support and you can keep running around saying "fuck him".

And as far as you stating I have "starry-eyed sycophancy"....sounds like you're suffering "miserable hate filled rage" that he is really the President!

Deal with it!

Peace!

[jeanpalmer]

128. No you're confused

We're not going to be out of Iraq in 16 months, don't try to spread lies like that, you're bullshitting no one. We're going to have 50,000 troops still there, minimum. That's not ending the war. That was his con, but it's not true.

I don't care what he said about Afghanistan. If he doesn't have the brains or common sense or principle to get us out of there, I'm against him. To hell with his promises. I won't vot5e again for fast-talking con man. And I don't give a damn if he has a small d or capital D behind his name. It's time for the Democrats to step up. Cut off the funds just like they posed they were going to do with W. I won't accept anything less. They can get someone else's vote, because they won't be getting mine. I'll sit it out. What they're doing is bullshit nothing.

[firedupdem]

130. Fast talking con-man?

Sounds like you have some personal issues with the President. Based on that description of him, I doubt that anything he does will find acceptance in your eyes. I won't waste my time talking to you. You and the 20% that hate him can carry on.

[jeanpalmer]

131. That's not true

If he were to end those wars tomorrow, he would have my full support. That would show some real political courage and some real insight into how our country has to drastically change, away from militarism to peace. He's bankrupting us, in many ways, with his continuation of these wars. And the failure to rid us of these torturers.

From what I've seen so far, he counts on the fact that he'll have a solid group of blind supporters like you who will stand by him no matter what. So as a result he doesn't have to do anything important. And we don't get much of anything we want. He takes us for granted. Just have a D behind his name. The only way to get him to do something, I see now, is to threaten his political survival. That might motivate him. He has lost my vote. He has to regain it. Does he want it or not?

Four years from, we'll still be in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you'll still be here making excuses for him. And he's counting on you.

[Fire1]

132. Your criticism is not constructive nor accurate by any means and

no doubt that was your intention. To openly say, 'fuck him' and refer to him as a 'con man,' I seriously don't see why you waste your time on this site other than to start flame wars and stir up controversey (shit), iow.

[jeanpalmer]

134. Constructive criticism, whatever you mean by that,

gets you nowhere. Try to constructively criticize the war, see where that gets you. Will it get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is counting on the constructive criticizers like you who will support him no matter what. That way he doesn't have do much, and he hasn't. And that's why we'll keep getting more of the same.

The best thing for him and the party would be a revolt. To show him he has to stop those wars. To show him that rhetoric without doing anything is not acceptable.

Your devotion to personality, and not much else, is doing our party a disservice.

[HughMoran]

136. 80% of Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing

So, maybe you're the one doing the party a disservice :rofl:

[HughMoran]

135. Not cool.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

133. Sucks that we don't have 100% agreement on every issue, huh?

I swear, every time I see a post with a silly subject (such as this one), I have to carefully read the post to ensure that it isn't tongue-in-cheek.

[akbacchus_BC]

137. What you want President Obama to do in less than five freaking

months? He inherited shit and shit needs to be cleaned up first! Well, I drank the cool aid and I am in Canada and I wish you all can clone him and send him to me in BC. Speaking for myself. For shits sake, where was your voice during the Bush/Cheney 8 years of dumbing down America.

Oh, on a side note, 7 million people live in gaited communities across America, make that 9 million, 2 million are in prisons.

The darn new President is trying to juggle what is most important to the American people. Makes me sad to see these kinds of posts!

Have a happy life and peace.

[winyanstaz]

138. If it was wrong when Bush did it..it is still wrong now.