Profile

unixronin: Galen the technomage, from Babylon 5: Crusade (Default)
Unixronin

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Thursday, October 1st, 2009 04:03 pm

Remember how everyone was up in arms about Bush II having “terrorism suspects” detained indefinitely at Guantanamo without trial or charges?

Remember how the Obama campaign promised us “Change we could believe in” and was going to undo all that bad shit the Bush administration did?

Well, you’ll doubtless be relieved to hear, then, that the bad old days when George W. Bush got Congress to let him detain terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges or trial are gone forever.  Now, it’s Barack Obama, who’s bypassing Congress to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges or trial.

Feel the hope! See the change!

Yes, that’s “change” as in “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Tags:
Thursday, October 1st, 2009 09:21 pm (UTC)
pretty much as soon as i realized he was backing extraordinary rendition last winter i knew it was going to be ugly...
Thursday, October 1st, 2009 10:03 pm (UTC)
Hmm. It seems that the MORE things change, the MORE they stay the SAME. Looks like Obama has pulled enough wool over the American eyes to keep the Australian Wool industry going for a decade.
Edited 2009-10-01 10:03 pm (UTC)
Thursday, October 1st, 2009 10:12 pm (UTC)
. . . . and you're surprised - why? You know as well as I do that the only difference between the Dems & the Reps is where they want to spend your money.
Friday, October 2nd, 2009 01:09 am (UTC)
I don't recall saying at any point that I was surprised. ;)
Friday, October 2nd, 2009 12:42 pm (UTC)
Were you up in arms when Shrub started having terrorism suspects detained indefinitely at Gitmo?

Or were you okay with that?
Friday, October 2nd, 2009 12:59 pm (UTC)
I think detaining anyone indefinitely without trial — especially the idea that they're too guilty to ever go free, but too innocent to actually be able to charge them with anything, and doubly so when they're presumed guilty if accused and have no right to even know the accusations against them — is wrong whoever is doing it. But there seems to be a certain subset of people out there who believe that when George Bush did something, it was Bad, but if Obama does the exact same thing under the exact same claims of authority, well, that's different, because it's Obama doing it, not Bush.


(Actually, I'm kind of surprised that after all this time, you even had to ask. You don't know how I think YET?)
Edited 2009-10-02 01:00 pm (UTC)