Bush, Obama Separated at Birth on State Secrets

[Senator]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aaCm2JmPzeeA#">Commentary by Ann Woolner

The Air Force got away with the cover-up for the same reason that modern day national security claims can hide the government’s smoking guns. Ruling in the B-29 case in 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said judges can trust the government’s national security claims.

The problem, of course, is that they can’t.

The so-called state secret privilege got a good workout during the Bush administration, which persuaded judges to throw out entire lawsuits on national security grounds without so much as a judicial peek behind the locked door.

The privilege helped kill lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of helping the National Security Agency spy on customers. (The cases that survived died when Congress granted immunity to the companies.)

The privilege has been invoked time and again in cases alleging torture.

And now, the man who as presidential candidate complained about Bush’s easy reliance on the need for secrecy has invoked the same claim at least three times now that he is in the White House.

--

[FLAprogressive]

1. Shhh....we're supposed to look at the puppies and stay quiet.

[Jackeens]

2. Now you're just being silly FLAprogressive

But if you insist:



:toast:

[lib2DaBone]

3. LOL... good post

This..OK



This NOT OK

[Divine Discontent]

4. there has been a steady amount of people, both paid (papers, tv) & unpaid (like us) who have

complained about the similarities that are too uncomfortable to be ignored between the administrations. We are critizized for discussing it, but frankly, the 40%-50% of people that just think everything is fully different than *'s presidency can gripe about our complaints all they want - but we're grounded in the facts - and the truth is all I care about.

I want Obama to succeed - but only when it's progressive advancements - not in doing the same thing as *!

[babylonsister]

6. Sure you do.

:thumbsdown:

Was it this POS? If so, do tell. I bet you don't respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=459651&mesg_id=459651

[ThomCat]

7. So, noticing early that he was making bad choices and

breaking his progressive promises means that someone never wanted him to succeed as a progressive to begin with? That's bad logic even for you.

And you're keeping a list of old posts you didn't like? Is that like an enemies list?

Not everyone can be an obsessive cheerleader... :eyes:

[babylonsister]

8. Do post the progressive promises Obam has denied you. Please!

I'm waiting.

[ThomCat]

9. How about his promises to the LGBT community.

:eyes:

You'd have to be blind, deaf and stupid to not know about the broken promises there.

[Divine Discontent]

11. thank you, much!

That DUer is a good one, however, if we're not going to be on board that what the admin. has done is a-ok, we're gonna be attacked as not really being Democrats (that's sure how her comment read). I posted an article by some guy that I found by searching google news for Obama and Gay, and read it, agreed with about 3/4 or more of it, and thought it was worth reading, but because the title written by the editor or the writer to get views said "failing" (not failed, mind you), I got "shot" at, literally in the comments by a few, for being the messenger of an opinion piece, that if read in its entirety mostly sums up how I feel - and yet - voicing any kind of consternation about abuse photos, bank bailouts, continued buildup in Afghanistan, watered down environmental bills, DADT being active and costing dozens of service personnel their military careers (which apparently doesn't seem to bother his sleep at night I guess???), get you yelled at as a neocon or repub.

Silliness... Thanks again ThomCat for your post! :)

[Divine Discontent]

10. what is with you BabylonSister? The comments in that writer's comments are nearly all lib/progressv

he is a Democrat, he is for Gay marriage, and who knows if an editor wrote his incendiary title, but the the article itself speaks what about half of DU has complained about since he got into office.

Many people are upset over the banking bailouts, warfare increasing in Afghanistan as B*sh too was starting the pullout in Iraq & would have continued listening to the warmongers in the War Machine Dept and increased spending in Afghanistan, Gays being promised he'd end DADT and could have done it months ago so honorable service men and women weren't fired for their great work for being Gay sending them into unemployment and a horrible situation in their lives, gov't legal arguments refusing openness regarding torture photos & detainee decisions, as * too wanted Guantanamo closed - it seems the more Cheney griped the more President Obama followed Dick's ideas).

And before you attacked me with your, "Sure you do." smart alec dig, how about you review my journal so you comprehend your comment is silly and without warrant (big shock).

Just because YOU may think he's doing great, doesn't mean we all feel that way. I agree when Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or Rachel Maddow criticize him, as they have several times recently - because I expect a lot from the presidential candidate I have given more money & time to getting elected. This isn't a cheerleader forum - he gets applauded when great things happen, and he gets negative comments when there is a lack of action or a push for policies that resemble Der Fuhrer's own a tad bit too much. I believe some are too sensitive when complaints about him not doing so well are spoken - well, as long as they aren't making personal attacks, people are gonna complain when they feel they're being ignored (GLBT) or when the banks are getting better treatment than their employers (GM).


You lost your bet.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Woolner obviously doesn't play chess

Besides, it's only been 100 days 4 months 5 months!

[quickesst]

12. I guess I can count it....

...as some small comfort that if/when a republican takes the white house in 2012, that I can honestly say I had no part in it. I would count that as a bad thing, but I now understand that many on the left are happiest when they perceive themselves as the perpetual victim. "Poor me." Thanks.
quickesst

[Senator]

13. Well, I prefer to count it...

...as some small comfort that I had no part in allowing the shredding of the Constitution.

And I would suggest that it is those more concerned with the perpetual next election that are really the "perpetual victims."

--