Happy Face

He's had ample opportunity to state that there are problems with Bush's legacy laws even if he admitted he coudn't change them - instead he has defended, strengthened and extended them - I don't see how citing the power of the institution of government is any excuse. Which ones did you have specifically in mind? I admit to no detailed knowledge (as ever) but I understood he introduced the one where he can order an assassination of anyone including US citizens based on intelligence with no due legal process. He's strengthened every one of them that he's defended and used. By virtue of the fact that these methods are no longer used by one party and opposed by the other. They are now embraced across the political spectrum in the US. There's no alternative party who we can hope will restore civil liberties when they get in. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a report called "America Unrestored" detailing where Obama had failed to act as required.... http://www.aclu.org/files/pages/americaunr...11_20100119.pdf The condensed result was...

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010...t-report-whole/

Contenders on religion.... http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12559 Is it even an issue?

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything. It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though. I'm not so sure it is since the stink that would create in the military would be huge. Essentially a national security threat (from the other leaked documents) being let off by the white House would make Obama look like the terrorist in disguise the far-right try to portray him as. I do accept your fundamental point that this is a huge injustice as its about holding the military to account. Without that accountability (and this case will deter others from whistle-blowing), then the war is just a form of terrorism itslelf. In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

As much of a heed the baal as he is, I can't see anythng there to disagree with regarding inhabitants of the Bigg Market on a Friday neet. "Harry Roberts is our friend" etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_env...nt/10534960.stm In tomorrows world we'll all fly to the supermarket and won't need petrol to do it. Just need bigger car parks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10180564.stm Wonder if any straight foreign folk will see an opportunity to deceive the system following this ruling.

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything. It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though.

They've announced a £10k reward. Apparently some Tory MP is putting it on his expenses to have Moat cleaned out.

Not just democrats. A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line. Aye, most republicans defend it now as they did when Bush was doing it. Michael Steele used the occupation for party political petty point scoring against Obama, which no-one in Washington wants. A consensus has been reached that the endless war will continue so both parties have rounded on him. The illusion of opposition between the parties will only be restricted to the economy, health and other domestic issues. The most embarrassing thing about the episode is that the DNC responded with a statement saying how Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" and that it was "unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops". It reads like something Karl Rove wrote a few years back whenever some democrat had a similar pop at Bush. You said the same thing about healthcare legislation, as if Obama wields no power whatsoever. It's not like he'd like to see investigations but his hands are tied. He's said ""I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards". He has no interest in prosecuting war crimes but has a vested interest in prosecuting those that reveal them. His DOJ is not prosecuting war crimes but is prosecuting those that reveal them. If you think his DOJ appointees (Eric Holder direct from the Obama campaign team as attorney general for example) is not acting in Obama's interests you're pretty naive. It was more a general point that those in power use the law and those not in power find it hard to use the law. And as you point out, everyone in power has to keep the war strategy on track as they all have to support it. The point is always to counter the supposition that Obama wields all the power, which is equally naive. You think he controls the US? Corporations control the US. This soldier has leaked massive amounts classified information too, not just the footage. The charges againt him were brought under the military code of justice and could result in a trial by court-martial. I wasnt aware that Obama's people were driving that? New information to me so link me up, happy to accept i was naive thinking it wasnt, just going on the fact that i read Manning was charged by the military. I was right about healthcare legislation too as i explained many times the process of bringing legislation to the statute is bi-partisan. Going to cost a lot of money, provide economic stimulus (by the back door) and improve outcomes. There are already big changes being implemented in US healthcare which are improving access to care for millons of citizens (we have just launched a new Prostate cancer drug in US). I claim complete vindication for my support of Obama on that issue. I'm not arguing that the soldier shouldn't face a court....I'm arguing that terrorists and war criminals should too, but that Obama, The White house, the Democrats, corporate executives (whichever individual or collective body you want to interpret as wielding the ultimate power...usually defined as being the president) won't allow that, it's not a justice department implementation of law. ...and there was no bi-partisanship in the healthcare reform act that was passed. They didn't get a single Republican vote. Not sure how Obama could be powerless on Healthcare and could only watch events unfold in the house, but also have vindicated your support in how he shaped the final result. Surely it can't be both.

Even when the department of Justice go out and do something constitutional (like giving an accused terrorists a proper trial) Obama's white house just overule it if there's any political fallout as a result.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Not just democrats. A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line. Aye, most republicans defend it now as they did when Bush was doing it. Michael Steele used the occupation for party political petty point scoring against Obama, which no-one in Washington wants. A consensus has been reached that the endless war will continue so both parties have rounded on him. The illusion of opposition between the parties will only be restricted to the economy, health and other domestic issues. The most embarrassing thing about the episode is that the DNC responded with a statement saying how Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" and that it was "unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops". It reads like something Karl Rove wrote a few years back whenever some democrat had a similar pop at Bush. You said the same thing about healthcare legislation, as if Obama wields no power whatsoever. It's not like he'd like to see investigations but his hands are tied. He's said ""I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards". He has no interest in prosecuting war crimes but has a vested interest in prosecuting those that reveal them. His DOJ is not prosecuting war crimes but is prosecuting those that reveal them. If you think his DOJ appointees (Eric Holder direct from the Obama campaign team as attorney general for example) is not acting in Obama's interests you're pretty naive.

That's exactly the point. Why would anyone be surprised that there's a war going on and that people get killed? No-one's surprised things like this happen because the people in the helicopter were just following orders. Not sure what your last question means, but the outrage is not that these soldiers did this. The killings (while sad) are just a drop in the ocean of hundreds of thousands (millions?) killed, part of the statistic. The outrage in this story is that the people giving the orders, the people ultimately responsible for murder, torture and cover-up receive immunity from investigation but the people that reveal the truth of it face decades of imprisonment from a government trying to scare anyone else thinking about coming forward with other evidence of the truth of the war.

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue. There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it. Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

Have you never seen Rambo: First Blood?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../law/index.html

Hardly a cutting edge theory from JB then.

Kay Burley's arrived in Rothbury. Would it be to much to ask for say, ONE stray bullet? Hey? Just one? Kay Burley: "We are 25 miles north east of Newcastle." That would have you standing on the North Sea pet. Shame. Fifth top in trending topics. Just a couple of spots behind Moat himself.

Tweets in the last couple of minutes... Kay Burley "the man known as Raoul Moat" he's know as that because it's his name. KAY BURLEY: "If he (Raoul Moat) is on the move, he could be anywhere couldn't he?" - Cutting edge. Sky have a handwriting analyst on to look at Raoul Moat's letter, to gain clues. After that, Gillian McKeith's going to examine his turds. Handwriting expert on Sky says Raoul Moat's handwriting shows he "does not feel comfortable". I imagine not. Kay Burley's outside. I bet Kay Burley will let Raoul Moat finish a fucking sentence if she ever gets to interview him. Note to Raoul Moat: "There's a ginger woman from Sky News near you. I heard her call you 'a little b*tch'. I'm just saying."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10521326.stm

Trying to lure him out into action with a constant stream of people grassing him up in the media.

I'd be surprised if they pay that much. In the 77 days since the spill (11 weeks) it's only cost them $3 billion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10505423.stm 7 days after the explosion first quarter (12 week) profits announced were almost double that - $5.6 billion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise The law suits ain't started yet bro. The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, yielded $1 billion in restoration and restitution costs, although Exxon Mobil Corp. estimates it has so far spent $3.5 billion and faces an additional $2.5 billion in criminal penalties. Can't see BP getting hammered for almost 7 times that amount, especially if they manage to pin the blame on Deepwater Horizon. It's also set up a 20 billion reserve legal fund. This ain't like the exxon thing, the oil has been gushing for weeks and at a massive rate, not sure it still isn't actually. The impact will be massive and ongoing for generations. Plenty of legal action to come. Trust me. It's going to be gushing into August. I wish i shared your confidence in corporate responsibility. BP have been turning people's heads with cash offers all over the coast...on condition of waivers being signed on any future pay-out. Lot's of people that have lost their livlihood get offered work assisting in the clean-up, on similar conditions. Of course, a lot of it's covered by insurance too. The rig owners insured it for $560 million, of which they've already received $401m back to cover their loss of earnings. Insurers and reinsurers are likely to be have to pay about $1.4 billion in connection with the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the Insurance Information Institute (BestWire, May 5, 2010). So BP's liability looks like half what's actually been paid out so far.

I'd be surprised if they pay that much. In the 77 days since the spill (11 weeks) it's only cost them $3 billion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10505423.stm 7 days after the explosion first quarter (12 week) profits announced were almost double that - $5.6 billion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise The law suits ain't started yet bro. The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, yielded $1 billion in restoration and restitution costs, although Exxon Mobil Corp. estimates it has so far spent $3.5 billion and faces an additional $2.5 billion in criminal penalties. Can't see BP getting hammered for almost 7 times that amount, especially if they manage to pin the blame on Deepwater Horizon.

I'd be surprised if they pay that much. In the 77 days since the spill (11 weeks) it's only cost them $3 billion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10505423.stm 7 days after the explosion first quarter (12 week) profits announced were almost double that - $5.6 billion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oil-prices-rise

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...5/bp/index.html Department of Homeland Security? This wouldn't be anti-terror laws being used outside of it's purported intent, would it?