FYI, DADT is a law. Obama can't "sign it away". He is not a King. Congress has to do it.

:popcorn:

I believe that Congress has nothing to do with this. It's not a law, simply an Executive policy.

I'm wrong.

:shrug:

that must be repealed to change the policy. Obama could suspend enforcement through executive order but that is a questionable tactic especially for somebody who professes to respect the rule of law.

I seem to remember that torture is against the law too. But he "has the backs" of anyone who tortured at the CIA as long as they were within the "four corners" of the executive policy at the time. If Bush can legalize torture without congressional approval, how is it that Obama can't do anything about modifying DADT?

You know damn well, you can't compare the two.

He went to the CIA and told the toturers he "had their backs". Not Bush, President Barack Hussein Obama said that. If he can have the backs of the torturers, why can he not have the backs of the oppressed?

You are correct about his position on torture and the CIA, but that doesn't mean he should act like a king and ignore laws passed by Congress.

We are talking about defending basic human rights. I'm not sure why he can find his way clear to defend torturers, but he can't find a way to defend basic human rights. I mean, he went to the CIA and told the torturers he "had their backs".

.. who worked at Abu Ghraib, or Gitmo be prosecuted? These interrogation techniques were taught to them, and they were instructed to use them. It's one thing to go after those who went way outside the realm of the parameters set up by the torture memo's, but another to go after everyone who participated in interrogations. I think it is likely that some members of the military/CIA are very likely to fall on their swords for excessive use of torture. We certainly need someone to hang, and it might as well be them.

I dunno. I'm dubious. I'd hazard a guess that most of these EIT were conducted by a very narrow group of people. It's probably going to be hard to prove in a court of law (ya know the kind the tortured were never going to see). The CIA has already destroyed some evidence and I suspect they may be in the process of destroying more right now. But I'm surely not going to defend them choosing to do these things. I suspect the folks they did convict were probably the LEAST deserving of being prosecuted.

that they are going over all of the incidents as we speak. even if Obama says he will not go after people following orders, i wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ went ahead and prosecuted a small group of serious abusers, if they do exist.

The forces eager to excuse torture, to offer a Chief Executive permanent imprisonment of suspects without charges, or the power to order wiretaps with only the thinnest veneer of "national security" excuses, ought not to have palpitations over an Executive Order even temporarily halting discharges of troops with crucial skills. Some perspective is in order.

We are also within our rights to expect strong leadership from a president in this matter. Obama ought to be able to shame Congress into signing off on the necessary paperwork, or to light a figurative fire under federal judges when a victim chooses to fight.

This is change we need.

it's a travesty that it remains, but i'm not sure shaming would get it the necessary votes, heck the stimulus with lots and lots of pressure and no reference to civil rights for gays almost didn't make it.

despite the Nixon and Bush belief that "if the president does it it is NOT illegal"....well...yes. it still IS illegal. The president is not able to simply overturn a law simply because he doesn't like it.

Kinda like this...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html
Money quote: "Writing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law meant that no new President can eliminate the ban without first convincing a majority of Congress to go along — a far higher hurdle than Clinton faced."

...or this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
(Note: Remove the \ in front of the ' DU keeps putting the fucking things in, fouling up the link.)

"Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation."

...or this...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces



For those confused, "policy" means something a little different within a legal framework than it does within a plain English framework.

Obama is in possession of a magic wand that COULD turn this country into a progressive utopia but he chooses not to because he's a big poophead!

which would effectively neuter DADT.

Then repeal it at a later date.

He has the power as CIC to stop the discharges.

Can't have facts interrupting a perfectly good rant.

as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, a stroke of the pen can SUSPEND the enforcement of this 'law'. That simple.

doesn't sound simple, but legally questionable

Being Commander in Chief doesn't give the President the power to suspend the enforcement of duly enacted laws, even those relating to the military. Indeed, Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the President/Commander in Chief, the power to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.

attack Obama because he isn't a god.