Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum
In his three years as President, Obama gave to us:
Friends around the world
Jobs and care for veterans
End of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Reformed student lending
Fair pay for women
Rescue of Detroit
Soldiers home from Iraq
Affordable healthcare
Middle class tax cuts
Nuclear arms control
Wall Street reform
And a Recovery Act that's saved our economy!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And thd worst economy for the 99% in a lifetime.
Yummy peas... mmmm...
unblock
(52,817 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Specifics appreciated.
unblock
(52,817 posts)but as your post was so short, i think it's safe to say "pretty much everything".
well, i'll grant you that the economy is pretty sucky for most of us, but other than that, i can't abide by anything in your post.
WheelWalker
(8,975 posts)what they call snark?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)how I wish we could truly claim that.
On edit: If you were to add the addendum "for some", it wouldn't bother me.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:
Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.
Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.
Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
Eric Holder got the message.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1
As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/
This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.
Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.
But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.
“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading & Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return {"refouler"} or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
...
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)I would like to see any of the hardcore Obama defenders here taking a stab at it.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)They all seem to develop selective glaucoma when it comes to this.
Maybe if Obama would spend more time going after torturers instead of medical marijuana...
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)with a professionally administered series of shock treatments.
But I might be wrong. 
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)were deceptively labeled as "technicians" (using pay level instead of job description) under indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts held by the State Department.
Does that count as "professional?"
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)Though I was thinking more along the lines of professional bankers and lawmakers administering the shocks required to wake the most deeply entranced personality cult members.
CBHagman
(17,014 posts)...than they were in the Bush administration. I'll never forget the much-vaunted check mailing of the summer of 2001. I wound up spending the whole amount (I think it was $250, but it might have been more or less) on wholly unexpected medical expenses, and in the spring of 2002 I learned that I owed the federal government about $250. Call it the Dollar Dance.
As for the current state of the economy, it didn't take three years to get the way it is. I don't recall weeping from the GOP when rents and home prices skyrocketed and wages didn't, and many people were shut out of buying a home (Still the case, of course, for many).
On health care: I recently heard Barney Frank talk about how people still don't really understand that there weren't enough votes to pass a public option. This is from BARNEY FRANK, who has decades of experience in Congress.
So I accept that change is incremental, especially in health care (Especially when people are throwing hissy fits about modest changes).
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)is worth throwing a "hissy fit" over. No? It bothers me that so many pre-existers (I was a compliant patient who never had issues before my insurance dumped me) are treated as whiners for not being impressed with mandated health insurance that is still unaffordable to those who need it most.
Thank you for listening.
CBHagman
(17,014 posts)I'm thinking of the people who are trying to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is being described as "government-run health care" by foes. I'm talking about the people (Michele Bachmann, THIS MEANS YOU) who want the market to set prices, as though chemotherapy was something you shopped for. I'm talking about the crazies who speak of death panels.
I figure that the combined efforts of Fox News and the GOP, with a large dollop of ignorance and fear, keep many people nervous about any changes in the health care system, even small ones, even changes that might benefit young adults or those with pre-existing conditions, or women, who of course have been subject to discriminatory pricing.
So no, ScreamingMeemie, I wasn't talking about you.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)To see MORE of what President Obama has done just CLICK on the LINK in my signature line down below
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)Friends around the world - NOT (do you ever read the foreign news?)
Fair pay for women - NOT, unless you call inching towards a laughably low $24,000/year Median US income fair (not per capita GDP, which is a hugely misleading stat)
Rescue of Detroit - BAHAHAHAHA (Unless you mean rescue by bulldozing vast tracts of the city and eventually having it go under bankruptcy receivership)
Soldiers home from Iraq - Partially correct (except for the 10's of thousands of merc contractors still there plus the State Department's 17,000 personel at the world's biggest emabssy) Also, you migh want to note that Obama pressured the Iraqis HARD to NOT have the withdrawl - (a withdrawl signed by the horrific W Bush´in 2008, btw), but the Iraqis refused to grant immunity from prosecution for the troops, so the WH folded and now are pulling them.
Affordable healthcare - You must live here in Sweden
Middle class tax cuts - Most came at the expense of the SS/Medicare programmes, where FICA payroll taxes have gutted contributions (and just wait till 2013, when there is are massive tax increases coming into effec
Nuclear arms control - How is that reset relationship with Russia going?
Wall Street reform- Probably the biggest lie on this list, there is less reform for the systemic controllers at the top than most can imagine, they now steal with open impunity (MF Global for ex.)
And a Recovery Act that's saved our economy! - The stimulus act had very little impact, all of it transitory, and the underlying mid-to-long fundamentals are horrid and getting worse.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)and we got the shitty end of the stick..
Maybe some are happy being tossed the occasional bone but their has been no meat.
everything was a half measure. everything was a five away to the cons.
You can put perfume on a pig but it's still a pig.