The U.S. Department of the Treasury had warned Fischer beforehand that his participation was illegal as it violated President George H. W. Bush's Executive Order 12810 that implemented United Nations sanctions against engaging in economic activities in Yugoslavia. In front of the international press, Fischer was filmed spitting on the U.S. order forbidding him to play. Following the match, the Department obtained an arrest warrant for him. Fischer remained wanted by the United States government for the rest of his life and never returned to the United States.

(Wikipedia)

I think it's a crime what they did to him.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^jonny:
So why the hell haven't you reversed the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research yet?!
He's been working on economic stuff. His administration has said that he will be reversing the ban "soon".

They said the same thing during the transition period, i.e., that it would be one of the first things he did. It's an executive order, it would take ten minutes. It's not some complex legislation they need to craft. An L.A. Times article from a couple of days ago suggests that he's going to wait for Congress. Passing well crafted legislation on the issue is great, but in the meantime, he really needs to sign the damn executive order reversing Bush's policy.

The faith based initiative stuff mentioned in that article is also pretty alarming.

I know the guy has a lot on his plate at the moment, but there are a number of things like this that could be done quickly to reverse really bad policy set through executive orders by Bush, and they wouldn't have to distract from the "big" issues.

I disagree with her that retroactive immunity was given because it was a revenue stream for telecom firms, it was given because Bush pushed for it, issuing an executive order post 9/11 that mandated that the NSA, bypass FISC approval under FISA to start wire tapping. If you are a US based telecom firm, how exactly do you say no to the NSA when it comes with orders from Bush, at the time of large terrorism fears and general public support to do pretty much anything?

The blame is thus with the abuse of executive powers as envisioned by Cheney and the rest of the Nixon gang that believed that the President has the ultimate authority to do anything he likes. Also as I recall there was one single telecom firm that refused to abide by this and thus was mired in legal issues. I do however concede that there is alot of American technology helping China impose a surveillance society everyone from Microsoft to Yahoo to Google is involved there.

America needs civics education programs in schools from Elementary level. If you don't know your rights as a citizen, being free is a moot point.

Third executive order is to release the calling birds

Second executive order is to declare a galactic EMPIRE of United States and finally there will be peace.

First executive order is to close Guantanamo Bay? Cool. That's a step in the right direction.

Wright has the dates WAY off, and BillO didn't correct him on the year (at least he got the month, August, right). From Wikipedia:

"The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare"

I personally don't agree with Wright's POV on this, but there are plenty of others who argue that the nuclear bombings were ethically wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings

Finally, I'm a little surprised at how restrained BillO is in this clip.

>> ^jdbates:
So when he says bring all the planes down, I think he meant grounding them, But if there were orders to shoot down a civilian plane that was going to hit the pentagon 20 miles out does'nt seem like much time for a jet to either get to it and take it out. Consider how many planes were still in the air and if a military fighter pilot wouldn't think twice before firing on one. If I were a fighter pilot, I would have to be pretty sure about it!


Do you know how many jets where scrambled that day? (Not a sarcastic question I really would like to know.)

They scrambled 2 fast movers from the air national guard base near Dallas, those jets went super sonic about a minute after take off.

The report from CBS2 is there were dozens of planes from all over the country.

If they are scrambled out of any number of the air bases in the DC area, they could intercept in less then 3 minutes, maybe even less.

When you get an executive order, by law you have to follow it. However, it is your duty to question the order should you perceive it to be unlawful.

But Fighter pilots are all alone up there without the benefit of other viewpoints.

I will not relax until Obama has taken office. Don't you guys remember that Executive Order where Bush gave himself ultimate power? Can't find a reference at the moment... But basically all he has to do is find an excuse to declare an emergency, then he would take direct control of all government agencies. I wouldn't put it past him to postpone Obama's inauguration indefinitely after that.

I'm no conspiracy nut, anybody can see what that Executive Order is setting up.

Favourites

1) Spring
2) Beijing, China
3) Mike Mulligan and his Steam Shovel
4) South Park
5) Knemidokoptes
6) Beauty and the Beast
7) Don't know
Snakes
9) The French Revolution
10)Not sure

Which one?

11) Dog
12) Sweet
13) Cereal
14) Tan
15) Barefoot
16) Laptop
17) Walk
18) Drama
19) Food
20) Futurama

The Sift

21) Duck Amuck
22) "* promote" - various vids
23) blankfist
24) Fjnbk
25) Comedy, but I don't spend any time looking at single channels.
26) Everything I've done here
27) mlx's
28) YouTube
29) Some
30) Non-charters get to choose handle colors

About you

31) Michigan
32) Non-smoker
33) Right handed
34) Black
35) Single
36) 5' something
37) No
38) No
39) All of me
40) Brilliantly stupid, humbly narcissistic

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) John Lennon
42) Red Cross
43) Kevin Trudeau
44) 9th grade
45) Telepathy
46) Albert Einstein's last words
47) Umm...
48) Ban teaching of creationism and intelligent design by executive order.
49) The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Terrible time.
50) Win a Nobel Prize

*quality

^ I'm hoping he expresses his entire platform in this format in the coming weeks.

I'm going to say his positions are as follows:

National sovereignty: We aren't giving it up. We make our own choices about our country's actions, but we should cooperate with international bodies on things we think are important.

Border security: We need to improve it, but we should have a path to citizenship for those who're already here illegally, and should crack down on businesses that hire "undocumented workers". More here.

Checks and Balances: He wants to restore them (no specifics, other than he's going not going to follow Bush's policy of subverting/ignoring them).

Executive orders that bypass the Constituion: He's made a definite commitment that one of his first acts as President would be to order a review of all standing executive orders, so he can rescind any that violate the bounds of the Constitution (or law).

On putting in preventative safeguards he hasn't said much, though Biden has been making comments about following through with the extant investigations into wrongdoings committed by the Bush administration.

That last bit is a key issue for us netroots people too, and there's already been a lot of vigorous agreement that we're not content to "let bygones be bygones".

I'd like to hear his views and ideas on national sovereignty, border security, checks and balances in the government, reversing executive orders that bypass the Constitution, complete senate and judicial departmental reform and installing safeguards and standardization to prevent election fraud in the future.

Vagina monologue alert! Kidding. But seriously, I never said I was for vouchers, DFT. It seems you're repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth, or more accurately claim certain policies to be mine that I never laid claim to. Let's stick to what I say when grouping me with other political opinions, please.

Just like marriage, religion and other areas of free choice, I believe education to be something the federal government should not manage. Furthermore, they have no constitutional right to do so. I want every child to have a decent education, because it sounds good and right, and it makes me feel good to say and believe in that. It still doesn't make it right to extend the federal government in such a way to forcefully (and arguably unconstitutionally) take money from everyone to pay for a welfare program. To do so means the government is entitled to your money, therefore owns you.

Pardon my tangent: This sort of overreach is why presidents like JFK have been entitled to write Executive Orders extending their powers, especially in the name of doing good with it when the time comes. JFK wrote EOs giving him the right to seize communications in the media, electric power and fuel, transportation (seaports, highways, airports, airspace, etc); seize all health, education and welfare facilities; force registration of all men, women and child; seize all housing and finance authorities to establish "Relocation Designated Areas"; force abandonment of property and areas; and (the most egregious of all) seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the gov. sees fit.

You can argue the president would never use this sort of power unless a national crisis necessitated it, but that's too much power for a ruling body to have, especially one that is supposed to be a limited branch. This is why I think it's important to ensure we don't allow our government to overstep their limited power, lest we suffer martial law (see Katrina) or worse a complete loss of Rights. Even if it makes you feel good, that doesn't mean it's right. I care about people individually, and I've given thousands for AIDS projects here in LA, but I do it because I choose to do it, and I wouldn't think it fair to force my neighbor to do it even if I think it's the right thing to do. [/vagina monologue]

I'm pissed about the Democrats in Congress too, because they haven't fought for their platform tooth and nail like the Republicans have. In other circumstances, I'd call that a positive, but right now we need them to fight, not try to rise above the fray.

Doesn't mean I'm going to stay home on election day, or toss my lot in with Nader or the Greens, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican.

It does mean that my soul-searching was all over and done with after the primaries -- now it's just time to fight to win.

As for "professing the success of the surge", he's done no such thing. He'll concede that the increase in troops has brought greater security, and you're right, he's trying to make it sound like he never said it would make violence worse, but he is still saying it hasn't done what it was supposed to do in bringing political reconciliation. To me, that's all academic, because I'm firmly in the camp of believing that the strongest incentive for Iraqis to handle their own affairs would be us saying "we're leaving"...and the Iraqi leadership now agrees.

To be more honest, I'm less worried about when the troops are out, than having a clearly defined plan for what our goals are, and how we know when we've reached them, and how we determine whether or not it's worth continuing. Bush/McCain refuse to give us any of those, and just try to spread drama about how it's some sort of existential conflict, and it simply isn't.

As for economics, keep in mind that Bush inherited a budget surplus from that evil Democrat Bill Clinton...who'd come to office after 12 years of Republican deficit spending, and 8 years of Republican control has almost doubled the national debt. If you're concerned about debt, check this study of Obama and McCain's tax policies, and take particular note of which one results in the smaller deficit.

Also, there's quite the choir of economists now who're calling for more regulation of the market, and a government sponsored universal health care plan.

I'm much more worried about the Patriot act, and you should consider that McCain is 100% behind keeping it, while Obama wants to get rid of it, and has committed to a review of the Bush executive orders and expunge any that "trample on liberty".

I think if you're looking for a pro-civil-rights candidate, you should be looking at the guy who has a degree from Harvard in Constitutional Law, rather than the guy who graduated 894th of 899 from the Naval Academy (where I imagine there was more emphasis on national security than protecting the rights of the individual).

If I were in a situation where the Democrat was pro-torture, pro-wiretapping, and anti-4th amendment, and the Republican was in favor of adhering to the Constitution, I'd vote Republican for the first time, ever.

I don't envy the choice you're having to make in this election, I just hope you consider that defending our rights might be more important than seeing your economic philosophy promoted.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
NetRunner.. you say it's just Bush and the neocons that want us to stay there.. this is only partially true.. .the neoliberals are supporting the same agenda. Watch as bush sets us up for war with Iran which will be urged by Israel and the new Dems in office will say that we have no choice but to perpetuate the war as before... Now with unconstitutional executive orders available at their disposal should they need them.


Who are these neoliberals you speak of? What's neoliberalism? Wikipedia covers the topic, and cites Reagan as a prime example of a neoliberal. Based on their definition, neither Clinton or Obama, or really any Democrat is a neoliberal. Ironically, the economic policies of Neoconservatives are neoliberal.

If you want to say that the Democrats will continue to push the war in Iraq as vital, and move on to war in Iran, you're more cynical than I am.

I'm less concerned with getting 100% of our troops out of Iraq than I am with us pursuing a strategy that isn't just a military occupation whose purpose is simply to quell all dissent with our puppet government there (and the puppet government here, but I digress).

Right now, permanent occupation is the goal. With Democrats, I firmly expect the goal to be exit from the country with the least amount of damage.

That said, I'm used to being disappointed by politicians -- but I don't think people will stand for it if it turns out the Democrats are just as happy as Republicans to torture, shred the constitution, and wage war for fun & profit.

I still believe voting matters, and that changing which political party has power will make a difference. To quote my favorite candidate for President:

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.