Â
Obama Administration Accused Again of Concealing Bush-Era Crimes
by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
President Obama promised to usher in a new era of government transparency when he was sworn into office nine months ago.
On January 21, Obama signed an executive order instructing all federal agencies and departments to "adopt a presumption in favor" of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and promised to make the federal government more transparent.
"The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears," Obama's order said. "In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public."
But since that time, the Obama administration has sought to conceal information in several high-profile court cases, in an effort that civil libertarians say amounts to covering up crimes committed by the Bush administration.
Last week, in a federal courthouse in New York, Obama's Justice Department attorneys again argued in favor of secrecy. The case involved 23 lawyers representing detainees at Guantánamo Bay who alleged in court papers that they were targets of the Bush administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program(TSP), an initiative operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) that Obama called "unlawful and unconstitutional" during his presidential campaign in 2007.
Read the rest of the story HERE:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 93
Can you show me anyplace where Linda ever denied Bush Administration crimes? It seems to me you're making it up . .
The rule of law should applied regardless. This protection and cover up breeds more corruption and tyranny. Tell me it ain't so, Joe - tell me it ain't so...
No, but I have a thing for bringing criminals to justice. I thought that's what you were advocating with your' name thingy . .
Hey, where's all this "Change" he promised?
One further note, I am only "all but dissertation." I never got the PhD. Thus I am just plain Mr. Larry. But thanks for thinking I was a PhD. I'm flattered. :-)
So, you are advocating the cover up of major crimes . . . ?
Please remember that my solution makes such crimes impossible and removes the temptation as well. So you see I am far more opposed to these crimes than those who just want to punish and blame and not change the circumstances that produce the crimes in the first place.
I hope you are one who wants the crimes eliminated rather than just punish people.
You are doing your credibility a great disservice, I think. Any dope can see that exposing major criminal behavior by the people at the top of the present system, would vastly increase the chance that an idea like yours would be looked at more seriously . . . If you can't figure that out, it becomes kinda hard to accept that you could figure out how to make such crimes impossible, ya know what mean?
Major crimes and swindles and government oppression have been going on for centuries. Do you know of anyone else who has suggested changing the nature of the money we use to prevent such things? Do you know of anyone who even thinks it possible? Do you know of anyone who understands that the fact that our money is or represents physical objects is the essence of why it is the root of so much evil?
So why would you think that exposing more major criminal behavior would make them know or accept or even investigate changing the nature of their money? The idea, the concept, the possibility will simply never occur to them. It certainly never occurred to me until I stumbled on the solution completely by accident. In fact, I worked with it for months, years even, before I really understood and I am quite open to new ideas.
Well, how's this for a new idea; No system will make crime impossible, if crimes are not investigated when they occur . . . ?
With our current form of money there is no way to remove the motivation to take other people's money. There is no way to prevent people from attempting to use force (libertarian definition) to gain other people's money. Even when people are confined in prison they still commit crimes to get money while there.
So whether or not there are investigations there will still be crime. Investigations occur in only a tiny fraction of crimes as things now stand. In my system, since there are far fewer crimes, a much higher proportion would be investigated. Thus my system is better in both aspects.
"Thus my system is better in both aspects."
Assuming the people that control the system are virtuous . .
The millions of people who control the system are controlled by the general pubic. They cannot escape the public and must live among them at the lowest levels. The first shall be last. Thus the people who control will have to be virtuous whether they like it or not. Also, their power, though real, is not power over individuals but power over what is accomplished.
Sue,
It controls with rewards, not threats of punishment. It entices, it does not coerce. Anyone who wants power in my system can become one of the controllers.
You are just making things up rather than understanding in any way how my system works. Libertarians who understand my system love it, for example.
For you both, please understand before labeling and criticizing. Your understanding of my system is shaped by the current system. They are not the same at all. My system has true, free markets, for example.
That doesn't work well with me because you are saying your system is fair while you are displaying the height of unfairness. It's like a doctor who is fat and smokes asking you to read his book on a cure for cancer. I have finally come to the conclusion that since everything you write on this site in earnest revolves around that system, and you cannot explain it more succintly than you did in that clutter of a sci-fi story, it's useless to even try to have a discussion unless someone is willing to pore through it. Isn't it so?
I don't think that is so.
I have here on Gather placed quite a few posts concerning the nature of money as we know it. I have also included a number of posts contrasting how my system works in comparison.
I am happy to explain how my system works by exchange of comments, posts, or messages. But my system is strikingly different from any money that has ever before existed and as a consequence, people often attribute things to it which are not the case. It is quite natural to do so and that is why I spent 18 months writing the book. I want it to be easy and pleasant to understand my system.
If you want the shortest of brief explanations, I can say my system is based on rewards, three truly free markets, and three party interaction / transactions. My system has no coercion, no punishments, no laws, no person giving orders to anyone else. People cooperate because the situation rewards them for cooperating. The more they help others the more they, themselves, benefit.
I know that sounds impossible because we all assume the relationships that our current money creates. But when you change the nature of our money everything else changes, too.
I am surprised that you feel that my comments / writing in any way coerces you. That was certainly not my intent. I would prefer to entice you into reading my posts and understanding what I have to offer. :-)
You are correct. I should have addressed that comment to Sue. My apologies to you both.
Sue,
You go to a car store (lot) and choose some vehicle you like. If you have the purchase price you are able to buy it if the owner is willing to sell it to you. Whether to sell is the owner's choice, of course.
The owner would want to know your driving history and, perhaps, your work history to get an idea of whether you are a responsible person or not. It is your choice as to whether to allow that information to be displayed to the owner of the car. But if you choose to not have the information displayed, there is a good chance the owner would refuse to sell to you. It is completely up to the owner, of course.
The current owner cares whether you are a responsible driver because if you have a wreck, that will reduce the income of the former owner and everyone who contributed to the production of that car and every previous owner of that car. In this way, you can be sure that the previous owners and those who participated in the building of the car took great pains to be sure it would operate safely. It also means that if the current owner gives / sells cars to many irresponsible drivers that person will not be given more cars to sell because owners will not be willing to risk it.
Assuming for this hypothetical case, that the owner believes you to be a good risk, you buy the car by having the amount of the purchase price deducted from your account and the ownership of the car transferred to you with the consent of the former owner. You now own the car. You are now responsible for the car. You may do whatever you like with the car. If you use it to benefit others, you will increase your income. If your use of the car harms others you will reduce the income you might otherwise have acquired.
The former owner of the car does NOT receive any of the money that was deducted from your account. That is just gone. It no longer exists in any form. But, since the car was considered / designated as a luxury (no one pays for necessities) your purchase of the car will result in an increase in income for all those who participated in its production. (Probably thousands of people.) Since the benefit for having produced the car is considered to have been realized at the moment of purchase, they get only the one, lump sum. That amount is related to but not controlled by the amount you paid. In gross terms, it might be roughly one third of the purchase price. (This proportion will be greater as more luxuries are available for purchase and less if the proportion of luxuries available is reduced.)
From your point of view as the buyer, if the car owner already knows you it's as simple to buy the car as buying a pair of shoes is today. There is no car loan (because there is no credit at all). There is no insurance. There are no laws concerning how the car is to be built or what features it may have. There is no law concerning pollution controls nor taxes on the sale or ownership. There is no requirement that you have a driver's license nor a license for the car.
As you can see, it is really simple for the buyer but understanding all that other stuff takes a while. I have given you only the point of view of the buyer and a little of the point of view of the seller and didn't really deal with the other party who is involved in the sale (even though they might not be present at all). Now all this sounds quite complicated. But try explaining buying a car in our current economy to some native of New Guinea who has lived a hunting and gathering existence and knows nothing at all about money. You would have to explain not only about money but also about taxes, insurance, laws, and licenses and lawsuits and so forth. My system is actually quite simple in comparison.
How's that? :-)
Honest, it's smoke an mirrors to me. Somebody has got to program and update whatever system is established, and so somebody, can rig it. No matter how tricky you make it sound, it's not. Besides, to get to that point, there has to be immense power in the hands of some group, so as to make this plan the official plan worldwide . . . so, obviously, that same group could just say "Screw that crap, let's be Kings of the world!"
The thing you are just plain ignoring, I say, is that there are people on this planet with IMMENSE wealth and power. They already do live as the Kings of the world, and they are not gonna just sit there while you depose them. If we had honest democratic type rule of law, we wouldn't be commenting on a post like this one, and we wouldn't need a system like yours . .
The owner of the car may decide on any basis he or she chooses. The car is his property. Would you have the state or some other agency take away the owner's property rights?
No one gives the owner authority. The authority comes as an aspect of ownership.
No one requires anything of the owner so far as whether to sell the car to you. The owner does not have to be responsible. But if the owner is responsible in his dealings with others, the owner will gain far more money than if the owner is irresponsible. Responsible owners get lots of help from others. (It's their choice whether to help or not.) Irresponsible people find that others choose not to help them. Human nature at work. People want to get money and you get more money working with responsible people.
Anyone who likes may come to their own conclusion as to whether the owner was fair. What difference does their judgment make? It may affect how they deal with the owner but they have no right to deny the owner's property rights.
you are quite correct when you point out the immense wealth and power of those who are trying today to be kings of the world. But, you see, they have problems too. Their wealth can be taken away from them in any number of ways. Their families must be protected from those who would profit by their harm (kidnappers?) or who just hate the rich. They know that even their most trusted associates might betray them for money. They know that they live in a web of lies. They are under constant threat from others. They must isolate themselves to feel safe.
In my system they would have no such problems.
The system can be adopted by any moderate sized nation. Doing so would give that nation huge advantages in international trade. (A roughly 25% increase in production of useful goods and services the first year.) They would be immune to the economic problems of the world. None could compete with them.
I am in the computer business as a system administrator. I have a pretty good idea what computers can do and how they can be hacked. One beauty of the system is that cheating on a large scale is almost impossible to hide and the guilty parties identify themselves. It cannot be rigged. You will need to understand the system much better to see why that is so and you should not trust my word on this matter. If it is worth it to you I invite you to read the book and other writings at www.nopom.info. I think it will be obvious to you why the system cannot be rigged.
I quite understand your disbelief. If I had been presented with the information you have been given so far 40 years ago I would have believed it to be impossible as well. You are right to be suspicious.
"I quite understand your disbelief."
No, I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't be here down-playing the importance of holding leaders accountable for their behavior. You would be vehemently supporting the investigation and any appropriate prosecution, of the very sorts people that make instituting better "systems" as your's might be, utterly impossible. Those in power have ZERO incentive to relinquish the tremendous advantages they have, BECAUSE the system of things now, is corruptible. That's how they LIKE it, they do not want "fair" and civil.
It's like you were thinking lions and tigers . . in a jungle filled with T-Rexes and King Kongs . . . Think Al Capone, think Joseph Stalin, think megalomaniac narcissists . . . Think Evil.
If they refuse to sell to certain people they are costing themselves money. The free market will make sure that someone will be willing to sell to almost everyone unless the product is potentially dangerous (like cars and guns).
The owner who discriminates against someone is not penalized by any particular person but by the forces of the market. They produce less net benefit to others and therefore earn less money. Those who deal fairly with customers make more money and are therefore given more products to sell. Those who are discriminating unfairly get less and less to sell. No one has to do anything to punish them for being unfair.
I think I do understand better than you think. You see my system does hold everyone accountable, especially leaders. I contend that our present system not only produces the very illegalities and immoral behavior that you wish to see eliminated but it makes it almost impossible to hold them accountable.
Im my system, those who benefit others gain power. Those who harm others lose power quickly. But you see, greed on the part of those currently in power will tempt them into benefiting others through the exercise of their power. They will do anything to gain power and wealth even to being good to other people. By changing their situation to one in which they can only retain power and gain wealth by helping others we produce selfish, greedy people who do all sorts of wonderful things for others.
So your system rewards people for doing wonderful things for others because of their lust for power and wealth. They are inspired to do good not because they wish to do good, but out of greed and lust? So you think people are basically base and need to have a system that caters to their worst instincts so the greediest cannot fail?
No, no, no. The money to spend is with the rich. The money to earn is with the payers, those who can increase the amount of money in a producer's account. If you don't sell to a responsible person, then someone else will because there are lots of people who are willing to sell cars. (Just like today.) But almost everybody has money because anyone can earn money by doing things that benefit others. Taking care of your children would earn you money, for example.
Also, today you have to be able to show that you can pay off your car loan before they will sell you the car. What if all the car dealers became elitist and refused to sell cars to anyone not of their class? Doesn't sound likely does it.
My system rewards people for doing wonderful things for others regardless of their motive for doing so. Those who pay for net benefits don't really care what your motive is for being a good citizen. They can never actually find out what that is anyway.
Based on what people do today would you say people are basically base and need to have a system that encourages them to do better? Look at the poverty, unemployment, and needless suffering around you today. That happens now. Wouldn't things be better if everyone could be rewarded for doing good things for others and could not benefit (monetarily) by doing things that harmed others?
Besides, what difference does it make what I think people are like if my idea will improve things for mankind? Do you really care that Isaac Newton was an alchemist with strange religious beliefs if his description of the laws of motion works?
Actually I think people are basically selfish (look at three year olds for example) and have to learn to be unselfish. Some never manage it.
Maybe people are bascially selfish, but your model only serves to condone and exacerbate the condition.
I apologize for the disregard. I was working in a narrow window and didn't see the second comment until I had already answered the first.
Whose mind is controlled and by whom?
Do you really want people to be rewarded for good works only if they have the right attitude? That sure sounds like mind control to me. "Think my way or do without."
If immoral and unethical behavior hurts no one how is it immoral or unethical? If behavior benefits other people, how is it immoral or unethical?
How does rewarding good behavior destroy humanitarian good will? I should think that was how you taught your children to do good works. Do you want people to be kind to each other only if they don't get any other reward for those actions? I really don't understand your point if view in this comment, Sue, and that is rare for me. Usually I think I understand your viewpoint and agree with it in the main.
You said, "by changing their situation to one in which they can only retain power and gain wealth by helping others we produce selfish, greedy people who do all sorts of wonderful things for others." It is the system itself that is controlling by changing it to one in which you admit is actually producing selfish and greedy people who by the nature of the system are coerced into making their selfish and greedy endeavors good deeds. To my way of thinking, that is also very undermining to someone's intelligence.
Divorcing the "qualitative" nature of the impact on human beings, that one's activity has, in favor of maximizing activity for activities sake, would result in a society of very busy people, perhaps, but not busy doing what actually was good for anyone but themselves, in a materialistic sense, I feel. One might reduce "poverty and unemployment" . . . but so do ant colonies ; )
In my system if you do not deal honestly with others you will soon find that others will not deal with you at all. That will greatly reduce any future income. If you have no integrity in your relations with others, they will not cooperate with you. Therefore, the greedy, the selfish, those unconcerned with the well being of others will quickly learn to act just like those who do have integrity. Their behavior will become honest. They will become dependable because that is the only way to satisfy their greed. That is the only way to get what they selfishly want. It teaches people to have integrity in just the same way that good parents teach their children.
Behavior which benefits others is commendable and that is the only behavior that is rewarded.
Everyone begins life selfish and greedy. Some learn to be otherwise. My system rewards those people and encourages everyone to behave in that fashion.
You have the situation in my system backward. One is rewarded in my system only for the actual good that comes from some action, not for the actors intentions or whether the behavior fits some standard for legality or morality. Each person receives pay based on the actual consequences of their actions (as well as those consequences can be determined by people). Those actions which harm others reduce the pay that one would otherwise attain.
The qualitative nature of the impact on others is the most important thing to gaining pay in my system. If one can generate a lot of benefits to others and reduce the labor needed at the same time, the rewards increase.
In the Gather example, with my system a post with distresses others would reduce the points one might otherwise have received from beneficial posts. Which is not at all how Gather works today.
There are pholosophical theories that I think are theoretically moral and very worthwhile, but they fail in praciticality. What I see with your system is a paradox. You have created a system that has some practical merit, but the theory that is behind it is amoral and controlling for reasons I have already stated.
I had often wondered why you chose to present your system in the form of a fictional story. I am sure that within that context you were able to make quite a good case for it by telling a tale of how it unfolds with a chosen ficticious scenario that makes the system seem workable.
As a work of fiction, if you like that kind of story, it may be interesting to some but, every time I see someone make a point on this site, you revert to the system's premise as the panacea for a variety of complex political, social, and economic problems.
There is a guy on this site that has also written his book about his ideas of God or GOD or God, and he has created what he would like others to believe is the system for universal understanding and truth or TRUTH or Truth.
I'm not putting you or him down because you have written such things because they provide some food for thought, but when you take these ideas and try to make them something they are not as in your case, the system being THE answer to the woes of every other economic system, or in his case, THE answer to what he sees as the ills of every other religious belief, the ideas become ridiculous because you are both taking very complicated issues and reduciing them to simplistic analyses. This cheapens your efforts to make any point at all.
I have given you my assessment in my comments throughout with a synopsis at the beginning of this comment in the first two paragraphs. Take my opinion for what you worth it, but it is as I see it.
First I want to thank you for your great kindness in taking such time with me and my ideas. I must think well of you and of your generosity for what you have tried to do for such a stubborn and opinionated person as myself. It speaks well of you and your ideals.
I quite agree that by writing the story I, as the author, can make the characters do whatever I want and thus present a completely inaccurate picture of how people using my system would behave. To put one's faith in such a system merely because the story had a happy ending would be foolish at best. Any sensible person would require far more support before having confidence that such a system could be practical.
I am working on providing such support. I cannot say whether I will be successful in that attempt since it is early yet. But I do have hopes.
If you are willing to continue this thread, however, I would ask how our current money relates to human greed and selfishness? Does our current money not allow greed and selfishness to preclude a positive outcome? That is, can someone in our present economy do something for purely selfish motives with only his own profit as his goal and yet have other people greatly benefit?
You see, Sue, the whole basis of the philosophy of capitalism and the free market maintains that by each individual striving to meet his own purely selfish needs and wants, the greater good is achieved for everyone. By each person paying as little as possible for the things they buy and by each seller gaining the highest price they can manage in the market everyone benefits and the most efficient use is made of the human and material resources available to that economy.
Now if you disagree with that philosophy I will not in any way be offended. But that philosophy is the dominant approach of the conservative movement in the U.S. Based on your rejection of socialism, I would have expected you to support such a philosophy. I am surprised (not for the first time) that you are so different from other conservative Americans in this regard.
Wow! Thank you very much. You are so kind to me.
Of course, there are so many other aspects of capitalism that are important like money that is worth more than a green piece of paper that I can print from anywhere. Money that isn't worth anything is useless in any economic model.
Once again we see things the same way. Theoretical socialism and theoretical capitalism are almost opposites. But what we get tends to be the worst of both worlds. Whether it is the government dominating the businesses or the businesses dominating the government, the result is the same.
This is one of the main reasons I have hope for my system because it has no means of coercive control. All influence is reward based. In fact, the only control that is part of the system is that cooperation in doing good things for others gets more rewards because it is more effective and does more good. Therefore, people choose to "obey" some other people because those other people have been right in the past about what works.
How could I rest easy, when my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren must live in the world I leave behind, if I did not do all I could to make things better for them?
It is keeping me busy but it has led me to "meet" lots of interesting and good people along the way.
"Would you like it that Obama were to exercise the same executive over reach of Bush and Cheney?"
Not at all, but he is doing just that, I'm afraid. I know of nothing at all that has been done to undo the situation put in place by the earlier crew, and in some cases, the current crew is going further down that path.
It seems that many have the idea that something like that is not possible, regardless of how obvious it becomes that it is happening. Somehow, the concept that only one Party at a time can be corrupted, has gotten into the heads of many Americans, and they can't seem get it out. long enough to take a serious look at these things . . .
How dare they! This is what it has come to. The switchboard AT Congress should be neutral! I again protested when I reached my state Senator's office. I believe I was JUST as upset at the commercial as I was about them passing the Obamacare-power grab!!!!
IMO there are 2 elements to the Obama Admins reaction to Bush era crime: First, I believe that the extent of Bush/Cheney horrors is quite beyond what any of us suspect, even in our worst imaginings. Opening that pandora's box would define his Pres, harden partisan divides deeper than already extent and let loose a storm of retribution that would quickly divide the nation to very perilous and uncertain ends, nationally and internationally. Remember Bush operated on the notion of a "permanent" Repub majority and was flank by those who thought Nixon unfairly treated because "if the President does it, it is legal."
THe 2nd is IMO, Bush and Cheney would welcome a tide of investigation which would land in the Roberts SCOTUS. He and Alitio were picked just for this purpose. With Thomas and Scalia and the wavering Kennedy the seperation of powers might be seriously damaged until another, more sane court could preside. If Kennedy and Ginsburg resign and moderate/liberal judges assume the bench the power base shifts and Obama could risk a COnstitutional test that would verify the traditional seperation.
I agree that justice must be done. History, I am certain, will flay the Bush Admin AND THEIR ENABLERS in the electorate as it has the Civil War secessionists and Civil Rights obstructionists. But we are too near the incredible morass of the Bush Admin to fully bring it to light. Every fiber of my being longs to mete out to these bastards all the fury American promises broken, but I see the wisdom and patriotim of Obama's thinking.
"I am not certain what you consider Obama's over reach. I do not see it. However, that is not my point."
How 'bout them getting in the way of investigating major crimes against the people of this nation? How 'bout them deciding for us, that looking into the wrongs that happened, is wrong? How 'bout them acting like dictators, instead of our servants?
The big boys club must be broken up one of these days.