Wow, what a bunch of suckers here. The guy hasn't done anything yet except give us a speech promising us the moon and the stars – and probably 98% of that speech came from his speech writers. Nothing new here folks .
(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
In the public interest? Sounds like a loophole you could drive a Clinton through!
I had high hopes for this Executive Order when I heard he was issuing it. Though it is a good start it does not go nearly far enough. For one thing it should also apply to direct family members of the appointee. There are many people who work in government that have spouses and adult kids that are (or were) lobbyists such as Tom Daschle. Even though Daschle would not be in violation of this order (his wife does aerospace lobbying) the point is still valid. Even Biden has some lobbyist ties in his family.
Let's not forget Obama's own words in 2007:
One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.
1) He is doing something about lobbyists. 2) Appointees have to sign an actual document. 3) The ban applies to both before and after they serve.
Here is what I find bad:
1) Does not account for family members who lobby. 2) Has a waiver/loophole.
What I am unclear on:
What is the date of appointment? Is it when the appointee accepts the offer or when s/he is approved by Congress? IOW: Will this apply to ALL appointees or have some managed to avoid this by being nominated and approved prior to January 20, 2009.
Wow, what a bunch of suckers here. The guy hasn't done anything yet except give us a speech promising us the moon and the stars – and probably 98% of that speech came from his speech writers. Nothing new here folks .
In the public interest? Sounds like a loophole you could drive a Clinton through!
As long as the waiver is public, I don't give a shit at least it will be out in the open. There are a SHIT ton of qualified people who are lobbyists or are considered lobbyists (a lot of political figures become lobbyists after a run in an office due to their contacts). I want the most qualified person for the job, if they make the waiver public, who gives a shit.
Just for the record, saying that something is in the "public interest" and saying that it's "public" are two separate things.
I suspect any such waiver would have to be a matter of public record, but I really don't know.
Yea, I know that. As in a highly qualified person for a job is "in the public interest" and making it clear and known the person is a lobbyist is "making it public" which is what I was saying :-p
I'm cool with Steve bringing up each day what the president does and asking about different points about it, it gives me something to respond to and think about :-p
I was trying to bite my tongue, but I agree with Cremlian. Steve is making points about Obama. Whether or not you think they are valid, they are most certainly topically appropriate.
Isn't asking HMTKSteve to stop complaining about Obama pointless? And if so, then did you spam? ;-)
Then isn't you bitching about Joe bitching about Steve bitching about Obama spam?
Wait, wouldn't that make me bitching about Kilarney bitching about Joe bitching about Steve bitching about Obama spam? And then if someone bitches about this post, it'd be someone bitching about me bitching about Kilarney bitching about Joe bitching about Steve bitching about Obama... GAH! Brain cramp!
If true, that's really too bad. Compromising your values in less than two days... ugh. Not quite the "change" I was believing in. I also wonder why he didn't go with Bill Clinton's five year ban? That worked - so why be weaker on ethics? At least Obama's order covers more people.
PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.
Foundthis. PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.
Sweet! now we can much more easily visualize his trustworthiness. I'm glad there are 0 broken promises so far, but it has only been 2 days.
US President Barack Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention centres for terror suspects.
Well my day has been made. This was the one thing that I was truly ashamed of. The only annoying thing is that while he has put a one year time line on closing Guantanamo Bay, there has been no statement about how long it will take to close the rest of the torture camps.
From the BBC US President Barack Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention centres for terror suspects.
Well my day has been made. This was the one thing that I was truly ashamed of. The only annoying thing is that while he has put a one year time line on closing Guantanamo Bay, there has been no statement about how long it will take to close the rest of the torture camps. Or the tricky part of closing such places, such as what will we do with all the prisoners? But hey, he gets an A for effort.
They list No 240 as kept. Too bad they used what is on his campaign site now as opposed to what he said last year when he said no lobbyists would work for him. I would not rate this as a promise kept because he added the waiver system to his Executive Order. I would rate it as 75% kept at best.
From the BBC US President Barack Obama has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention centres for terror suspects.
Well my day has been made. This was the one thing that I was truly ashamed of. The only annoying thing is that while he has put a one year time line on closing Guantanamo Bay, there has been no statement about how long it will take to close the rest of the torture camps.Well, that's refreshing. Keep track of it for a year and make sure it actually happens.
I'm sure the rest will close eventually. The fact that he's even taken this step is very promising.
Looks like a basic Executive Order to create a group to deal with the detention issue of enemy combatants and such. Nothing wrong with the order as written. The membership looks good. Does not appear to be a group that would have its meetings sealed due to national security issues but no mention is made in the order about that either.
I see nothing alarming in here and give it a thumbs up.
I see nothing alarming in here and give it a thumbs up.
I'm sure Obama will be pleased that someone who thinks a rape kit is an actual kit people carry with them approves of his order.
Seriously, are you going to alert us about your assessment of every single action Obama takes? How many times did he use the 'loo today? Did the particular movements meet with your approval, or did he screw them up?
I found one typo where they used the word "bases" instead of "basis" in the text. I'm sure they will fix that and I hope that typo did not exist on the signed copy and that it is just a transcription mistake.
It looks like the people selected to review the current prisoners are the same as those selected for the Task Force mentioned above. Seems kind of strange that he would issue an Executive Order creating the task force to decide what to do with enemy combatants while at the same time creating this Executive Order which says Gitmo gets closed no matter what. I guess it's just his way of saying, "Gitmo is not an option" to the members of the Task Force.
There is a clause dealing with prosecution of detainees but it has plenty of wiggle room in it. This is followed by a catch-all clause for what to do with those who can not be transferred or prosecuted. The catch-all clause is a loophole, it basically says, "if we can't ship them to a foreign country, prosecute them or put them in our prisons we'll do something else with them." That something else could be a special prison within the US (Gitmo on the Hudson) or who knows what. We wont know until after the committee decides.
The order goes on to indicate that the Geneva Convention will be followed in regards to these prisoners. It does not change the status of those designated as "enemy combatants" to POWs or any other status instead it merely says to afford them the protections of article 3 of the Geneva convention.
Trials are also put on hold until the review period is complete.
I have long believed that those held in Gitmo should be treated as POWs not as criminals. I don't think they should be prosecuted in our legal system unless they performed the actions for which they were captured on American soil. The framework set forth in this order looks good but that is all it is (and all it should be). Nothing final other than the closing of Gitmo is set forth in this order.
What to do with the people currently in Gitmo falls under the previous order (REVIEW OF DETENTION POLICY OPTIONS) and this one. The only notable exception is that the Director of the CIA is not explicitly named as part of the committee in this order while he is named in the previous order. There is the catch-all "other people as needed" clause in regards to the people who will be reviewing the prisoners and deciding what to do with them.
My main problem with this order is that I view these prisoners as POWs and not as criminals. As such I believe they should be held as POWs until the war is over. However, because the war is not against a state there is no clear way to decide when the war is over. I have not yet figured out a way to reconcile these two issues.
Considering that the order allows for prisoners to be transferred to other countries I have some cause for concern. I do not like the idea of transferring prisoners to other countries so that they may do our dirty work for us. If these people are so dangerous that they must remain locked up then we should keep them and not farm out their detention.
I like the review process put in place and I can't really comment more on this order until the review process ends and we see what the final decision will be.
Comments
Wow, what a bunch of suckers here. The guy hasn't done anything yet except give us a speech promising us the moon and the stars – and probably 98% of that speech came from his speech writers. Nothing new here folks .
I had high hopes for this Executive Order when I heard he was issuing it. Though it is a good start it does not go nearly far enough. For one thing it should also apply to direct family members of the appointee. There are many people who work in government that have spouses and adult kids that are (or were) lobbyists such as Tom Daschle. Even though Daschle would not be in violation of this order (his wife does aerospace lobbying) the point is still valid. Even Biden has some lobbyist ties in his family.
Let's not forget Obama's own words in 2007: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In This is what the same page looked like last year. Damn that Internet archive, eh?
Here is what I find good:
1) He is doing something about lobbyists.
2) Appointees have to sign an actual document.
3) The ban applies to both before and after they serve.
Here is what I find bad:
1) Does not account for family members who lobby.
2) Has a waiver/loophole.
What I am unclear on:
What is the date of appointment? Is it when the appointee accepts the offer or when s/he is approved by Congress? IOW: Will this apply to ALL appointees or have some managed to avoid this by being nominated and approved prior to January 20, 2009.
I suspect any such waiver would have to be a matter of public record, but I really don't know.
Wait, wouldn't that make me bitching about Kilarney bitching about Joe bitching about Steve bitching about Obama spam?
And then if someone bitches about this post, it'd be someone bitching about me bitching about Kilarney bitching about Joe bitching about Steve bitching about Obama... GAH! Brain cramp!
I find nothing wrong with this order. It rescinds the Executive Order Bush wrote that allowed records to be sealed (effectively) forever.
Nope, no complaints here.
Still wondering why the whitehouse.gov site is not being updated in a timely manner.
At least one waiver has already been granted.
Edit: Found that.
Or the tricky part of closing such places, such as what will we do with all the prisoners? But hey, he gets an A for effort.
I'm sure the rest will close eventually. The fact that he's even taken this step is very promising.
EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW OF DETENTION POLICY OPTIONS
Looks like a basic Executive Order to create a group to deal with the detention issue of enemy combatants and such. Nothing wrong with the order as written. The membership looks good. Does not appear to be a group that would have its meetings sealed due to national security issues but no mention is made in the order about that either.
I see nothing alarming in here and give it a thumbs up.
Seriously, are you going to alert us about your assessment of every single action Obama takes? How many times did he use the 'loo today? Did the particular movements meet with your approval, or did he screw them up?
I found one typo where they used the word "bases" instead of "basis" in the text. I'm sure they will fix that and I hope that typo did not exist on the signed copy and that it is just a transcription mistake.
It looks like the people selected to review the current prisoners are the same as those selected for the Task Force mentioned above. Seems kind of strange that he would issue an Executive Order creating the task force to decide what to do with enemy combatants while at the same time creating this Executive Order which says Gitmo gets closed no matter what. I guess it's just his way of saying, "Gitmo is not an option" to the members of the Task Force.
There is a clause dealing with prosecution of detainees but it has plenty of wiggle room in it. This is followed by a catch-all clause for what to do with those who can not be transferred or prosecuted. The catch-all clause is a loophole, it basically says, "if we can't ship them to a foreign country, prosecute them or put them in our prisons we'll do something else with them." That something else could be a special prison within the US (Gitmo on the Hudson) or who knows what. We wont know until after the committee decides.
The order goes on to indicate that the Geneva Convention will be followed in regards to these prisoners. It does not change the status of those designated as "enemy combatants" to POWs or any other status instead it merely says to afford them the protections of article 3 of the Geneva convention.
Trials are also put on hold until the review period is complete.
I have long believed that those held in Gitmo should be treated as POWs not as criminals. I don't think they should be prosecuted in our legal system unless they performed the actions for which they were captured on American soil. The framework set forth in this order looks good but that is all it is (and all it should be). Nothing final other than the closing of Gitmo is set forth in this order.
What to do with the people currently in Gitmo falls under the previous order (REVIEW OF DETENTION POLICY OPTIONS) and this one. The only notable exception is that the Director of the CIA is not explicitly named as part of the committee in this order while he is named in the previous order. There is the catch-all "other people as needed" clause in regards to the people who will be reviewing the prisoners and deciding what to do with them.
My main problem with this order is that I view these prisoners as POWs and not as criminals. As such I believe they should be held as POWs until the war is over. However, because the war is not against a state there is no clear way to decide when the war is over. I have not yet figured out a way to reconcile these two issues.
Considering that the order allows for prisoners to be transferred to other countries I have some cause for concern. I do not like the idea of transferring prisoners to other countries so that they may do our dirty work for us. If these people are so dangerous that they must remain locked up then we should keep them and not farm out their detention.
I like the review process put in place and I can't really comment more on this order until the review process ends and we see what the final decision will be.