Slashdot Mirror
Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case
palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.
That's a very misleading way to state it. What happened, was, the Obama people asked for a stay of the Judge's motion pending appeal.
It's not an endorsement, as you might think from the summary and linked article, of the policy. It's a procedural move.
I'm not saying that Obama doesn't or won't back Bush's view. Just that this particular filing doesn't support that conclusion in a meaningful way.
The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/alharamainobama.pdf
It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.
That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.
in this document? Does that look like his Attorney General's name to you? No, that's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, who served under Alberto Gonzales; Obama's AG hasn't been confirmed yet.
The US government didn't magically transform itself at the stroke of noon on Tuesday.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
My take: let's wait this out. It's very important to keep in line, but keep in mind that the AG and new justice dept. aren't even appointed.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Obama is blocking almost every policy matter still pending from Bush. This is just one of many issues being blocked until the Obama administration can get caught up and take an official stance on it. He may well "side with Bush", but he hasn't really done so yet.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
See http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1102577&cid=26579795 This isn't even worth of "this sucks". It's almost a non-story. I'm sure that Wired is getting tons of ad impressions, though.
Actually most developed nations with universal health care pay about HALF what we do per capita. Germany tops out the list at about 75%. I can't say that nationalizing would make it cheaper, but I can't imagine it possibly getting any worse.
Citing Health care In Canada
A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, "Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment...Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services."
emphasis mine. Canadian citizens are not allowed, by law, to spend their own money to receive medical treatment if they desire to, unless of course they go across the border into the United States. Which makes sense, because
According to a 2007 article from CTV News, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, "One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practising medicine in the United States... If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12."
The doctors themselves are leaving to work in the US.
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either
I guess you've never had to visit the ER.
I stated a fact. The bill of rights only protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't protect anyone else. That doesn't mean that foreigners should not have any protections, or that the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply. It doesn't and legislation would have to be made to make it apply. Although you would be correct in that I don't think all of it should apply. I am surprised you got modded up as "Insightful". I think a better modding would have been: "Inciteful".
You did NOT state a fact. You stated your personal belief. That does not make it a fact, no matter how hard you try. Tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says that it applies ONLY to U.S. Citizens?
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Did you see the word citizen in there? There was a reason why the founding fathers specifically used the word PEOPLE and not CITIZENS. If the Bill of Rights only applied to U.S. Citizens, then the Government could just strip away your citizenship and do whatever the hell it wanted to you.
In fact, if you read any of the Amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, you will not see the word citizen, but only people. Citizenship is not implied. As long as you are legally on U.S. soil, or are being held in the capacity of the U.S. Government, you have rights.
Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Again, please inform us where it ONLY applies to citizens?
Best "String" Ever!