Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Justice Department is releasing new guidelines on how long a terrorism suspect can be detained and interrogated prior to being given his Miranda warnings.

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions...

This is appears to be a change in policy and completely contrary to Obama's stated position while a candidate for President.

Do you think this is the Administration accepting the difference between idealism and reality or a cynical attempt to win back center right independants while thumbing a nose to his base?

I'm thinking reality is conflicting with idealism and reality is coming out ahead.

GMTom wrote:I'm thinking reality is conflicting with idealism and reality is coming out ahead.

I would imagine that getting a daily briefing on security threats will have an impact. I'm glad it does.

I agree, but it makes wishful thinking campaign promises a bit foolish. Why is it when Bush did the same things it was so horrible yet when the Obama does this it's not a broken promise but rather reality setting in?

You may be pigeonholing a lot of people. There may be some people like that, but I don't think it is substantial.

Different people respond to different styles. Also, people are more likely to accept a decision by someone who we feel is listening to us but disagreeing as opposed to someone who is not even listening. In summary: people are human.

Why is it that it conservatives go ape sh*t when Obama does the same things as Bush?

Perhaps it is the hypocrisy that angers so many.

I think that's reasonable and true; no doubt for others it is more insidious than that.

I see nothing "insidious" I simply see hypocrisy.
You have to at least question why it is not even an issue, not even a tiny one that those who backed Obama because of his stance on quite a few key issues like Guantanamo and such (Iraq, Afghanistan, then getting us into Libya? His promises to make things transparent, promises to work across the aisle, ...all completely ignored from day one) are completely silent on his complete lack of follow through on those promises. They were major issues that suddenly don't matter any more.

Nothing insidious, simply mind numbing partisanship that is blowing me away. The guys has gotten away with lie after lie and (aside from the conservative news/talk radio market) both MSM and Liberals seem to ignore it. These groups revel in exposing such shenanigans but seem to turning a blind eye when it comes from Obama, THAT seems more than odd to me.
Not insidious but rather incredulous.

Why is it that it conservatives go ape sh*t when Obama does the same things as Bush?

Because Liberals went ape sh*t over Bush, doesn't it only make sense to question why it suddenly doesn't matter? Hell, even Conservatives at least questioned or complained mildly about Bush on many/most issues, Obama has a free pass.

GMTom wrote:I see nothing "insidious" I simply see hypocrisy.
You have to at least question why it is not even an issue, not even a tiny one that those who backed Obama because of his stance on quite a few key issues like Guantanamo and such (Iraq, Afghanistan, then getting us into Libya? His promises to make things transparent, promises to work across the aisle, ...all completely ignored from day one) are completely silent on his complete lack of follow through on those promises. They were major issues that suddenly don't matter any more.

Nothing insidious, simply mind numbing partisanship that is blowing me away. The guys has gotten away with lie after lie and (aside from the conservative news/talk radio market) both MSM and Liberals seem to ignore it. These groups revel in exposing such shenanigans but seem to turning a blind eye when it comes from Obama, THAT seems more than odd to me.
Not insidious but rather incredulous.

Why is it that it conservatives go ape sh*t when Obama does the same things as Bush?

Because Liberals went ape sh*t over Bush, doesn't it only make sense to question why it suddenly doesn't matter? Hell, even Conservatives at least questioned or complained mildly about Bush on many/most issues, Obama has a free pass.

Tom I've bolded and underlined those presumptions of yours which don't seem true to me. In general, there are many liberals who are very upset about Obama's policies on Iraq, Guantanamo, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, health care, etc. I know that is true because many of them are friends of mine who are hopelessly misguided on these issues.

RJ - don't you see all those posts defending Obama? I counted 356 on this thread alone. He gets a free pass, and it's only rarely that someone like Tom or Steve get a word in edgeways.

Tom, to take your issues, from my point of view:
1) Guantanamo - it is disappointing that the US is still (in my view) bending the Constitution and wider human rights laws and treaties, and while there has been action to reduce the problem, clearly the promise has not been met.
2) Iraq - it's taking longer than everyone hoped to be able to pull out, and that's not something Obama or any President could do much about. He overpromised, for sure.
3) Afghanistan - I'm less sure about this one. My impression was that the idea was to get out of Iraq asap so we could deal with Afghanistan. It seems that things are improving against the Taliban in the field, although the future of the nation is not clear.
4) Libya - when Obama was reluctant, he was attacked for not doing enough, or quickly enough. When he moved ahead following the lead of other NATO partners, he's apparently too gung-ho. Personally, I have a lot of doubts about how noble the rebels will turn out to be, and what extent we are choosing sides as opposed to simply preventing attacks on civilians. The latter I have little problem with as part of an effort sanctioned by the UN (like Afghanistan, unlike Iraq) and with NATO. Still, I don't recall any candidate ever promising not to ever act militarily (would that be an automatic loss?)
5) Transparency - One of those promises that is easy in opposition, and easier said than done. It looks like it has been slow to start, but is moving in the right direction.
6) Working across the aisle - it takes two to tango.

Actually, it's not the promises that Bush made and didn't keep that provoked so much ire. I don't know how many there were, and care less, to be frank. It's about what he did when in power and how he did it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/04/guantanamo.tribunals/index.html?hpt=T2

More vindication of the Bush plan...

I guess the left will vilify the current President as much as the last one.

When AG Holder says that Congress restricted the Federal cases in NY, was he frustrated with the Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress at that time?

Does AG Holder have problems constitutionally with the balance of powers between executive/legislative/judicial branches?

Ray Jay wrote:Why is it that it conservatives go ape sh*t when Obama does the same things as Bush?

Is this precisely the way you meant to phrase that?

Excuse me guys, You claim Obama is being treated even remotely the same as Bush by those on the left? We can point o plenty of Conservatives who also lambasted Bush. You CLAIM Obama is facing similar situations ...and use redscape Conservatives postings as an example? How about a reality check, how many complaints do you really hear in the news from Liberals? I hear some noise from the left but it's just about as loud as the crickets, pretty deafening silence!

You can no doubt pull out a blog or two, but how about REAL complaints how about main stream media complaints? We had it daily with Bush, Ray Jay stated himself that Obama is doing the same thing ...why not the same coverage?

Neal Anderth wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Why is it that it conservatives go ape sh*t when Obama does the same things as Bush?

Is this precisely the way you meant to phrase that?

I think we both have issues with primate feces.

Tom, you appear to be putting words into my mouth yet again. Please try to resist the urge to do so.

For the record, I am very unhappy that military trials will be used. I don't differ from my views of the time when we discussed this before. It is clearly the case that cowardice by Congressional Democrats has led to legal restrictions on what the Executive can do, and the latter are not bending the rules. I guess there is a difference to the Bush years when Congress was more supine and the Executive did bend the law.

Mind you, a few years ago I remember being told on this site that hypocrisy was not a big deal. Can't quite remember which member it was, but it was in defence of the government of the day. I guess a change in power leads to a shifting of feet all over the place