Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Hillary Clinton refuses to sign the Freedom Pledge
Does anyone remember last week when Hillary Clinton went against her appearance as a power-grabber and said she would give up powers as president? Today in the New York Times, Bruce Fein, the Chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, said that Hillary refuses to sign the pledge.
What does the American Freedom pledge do? Well, here’s the letter:
Re “Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers” (news article, Oct. 24): The American Freedom Agenda, an organization of conservatives founded last March 20 to restore checks and balances and protections against government abuses, requested all presidential aspirants, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to sign an American Freedom Pledge.
They were asked to renounce the following powers if elected: torture; presidential signing statements; indefinite detentions of American citizens as enemy combatants; military commissions that combine judge, jury and prosecutor; spying on American citizens in contravention of federal statutes on the president’s say-so alone; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing suspected terrorists abroad; executive privilege to shield the executive branch from Congressional oversight; prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act for exposing national security abuses; listing organizations as terrorist groups based on secret evidence; suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the conflict with international terrorism; and invoking the state secrets privilege to deny victims of constitutional wrongdoing any judicial remedy. Senator Clinton has balked at signing the pledge, as have all other candidates except Representative Ron Paul.
Bruce Fein
Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Washington, Oct. 24, 2007
Filed under: Hillary Clinton | Tagged: 2008, clinton, communist, fascist, hillary, powers, presidency
Everyone refused to sign it… why single Hillary out?
Obama signed it too.
Ron Paul signed it
Scott:
PROVE that Ron Paul signed it. NYT says he did not.
NYT says he did..
There seem to be some overreaching in this pledge:
1) Does the ban on signing statements include political & rhetorical signing statements? Because those are pretty reasonable, and have a long history.
2) Military Commissions ban: would that military tribunals for things like desertion or other crimes by soldiers? Because that could be a very big change from precedent.
3) Kidnapping criminals abroad so they can face an American court has been done for a long time.
With statements as vague as these, no wonder she’s not signing it.
we are fucked.
hillary clinton claims that she is being gang-banged, but she is really doing it to herself!
Of course Ron Paul signed it. He fucking WROTE it.
If Obama actually signed it, then I hate him slightly less than I did before.
I’d be pretty surprised if Kucinich and Gravel didn’t sign. And Dodd seems to be showing some cojones recently…
But Ron Paul is still the fucking MAN.
We, the people, refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any leader who refuses to sign such a pledge. We stand for the constitution and swear to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
This is stupid. It’s a typical example of proposed legislation so narrow as to pigeon hole everyone who refuses to sign it as someone who is anit-everything the author proiposes. It’s not realistic and is nothing more than political posturing.
“This is stupid” ? Really? Which of the following powers do you feel are in keeping with the traditions of The United States of America and should be retained? Just pick them, and state your reasons:
torture;
presidential signing statements; indefinite detentions of American citizens as enemy combatants;
military commissions that combine judge, jury and prosecutor;
spying on American citizens in contravention of federal statutes on the president’s say-so alone;
kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing suspected terrorists abroad;
executive privilege to shield the executive branch from Congressional oversight;
prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act for exposing national security abuses;
listing organizations as terrorist groups based on secret evidence;
suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the conflict with international terrorism;
and invoking the state secrets privilege to deny victims of constitutional wrongdoing any judicial remedy.
Signing statements, in my opinion, are fine. The president can write a comment, but since it was not passed by Congress, it should not be part of the law, its merely an opinion. Just because the president writes “I think its ok to torture certain people” does not make him unaccountable for those acts. The rest of the stuff is highly important, but, as recent events show, how do you define torture? To some, solitary confinement is torture…
So, I don’t care if a candidate signs or doesn’t sign the pledge…its nonbinding anyway - remember the Republican “Contract with America” - they signed for term limits…we didn’t boot some of them til 2006, some are still there.
So the whole issue is worthless and I will stop writing now…
A signing statement is fine? What is a signing statement? We are supposed to be a nation of laws, where no one, regardless of their station in life, is above the law. This was meant to be in contradistinction to the royalty-run countries of Europe, where the aristocracy could do whatever they liked and get away with it.
A signing statement is where Congress passes a law —and the President states that he won’t be following that law! That’s totally anti-American.
As for “How do you define torture?” here’s one way: at the end of World War II, there were Japanese convicted of war crimes for torture—because they used the cruel and unusual technique of… waterboarding. So, if it was torture when the Japanese did it, it’s torture when America does it. Another test of what’s acceptable is to realize that if it’s “lawful” for Americans to impose waterboarding, stress postitions, extreme heat and cold, sleep deprivation, etc., on “enemy combatants,” then it should be acceptible if our opponents in a conflict treat captured American soldiers the same way. Would we be okay with our soldiers being waterboarded, and all the rest of it?
Here’s the page at Downsize DC about Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act” –
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2007/oct/25/support_ron_pauls_american_freedom_agenda_act
Hillary’s campaign manager is on the Blackwater payroll, same as Giuliani’s and Romney’s campaign finance guy. Go look it up!
Blackwater has made over $1B off the war that we know about. Go look it up!
You can be 100% sure that any canidates Blackwater finances and manages will not end the war.
Is anyone at all surprised that Hillary refused to repudiate Neo-Con positions? Hillary IS a neo-con.
Neo-con = new swindle.
I don’t think she should sign it. She is in the position she is in to make life and death decisions. Why should she have rules and regulations that only give the terrorists more power on our soil. If someone is associating with a terrorist, they should be interrogated. The government needs to be trusted somehow. If she isn’t trusted before putting a foot into the office, there are going to be problems. We have many global problems, but do we want to give our enemies confidence that they will hardly be punished. Also, shouldn’t the CIA and FBI be able to work unmolested? If your not personally affected by this dilemma, why make a big deal about it?
Seem’s to me you all need to demand the nut bag in office sign and then impeach, jail and sieze all his asset’s for all his crime’s…..No point in even entertaining what the candidate’s will or won’t do untill we get closer to the election..That is ofcourse assuming we are going to be able to vote, if Cheney has his way that may not be the case…..BTW ,regarding Ron Paul, every one need’s to give a hard look at his record, keep in mind he is running on the republican ticket and is an extreme libertarian..Just some thought’s.
“Senator Clinton has balked at signing the pledge, as have all other candidates except Representative Ron Paul.”
that is from the New York Times article linked to above.
[...] The Political InquirerNovember 2, 2007 [...]
So, I should make up some goofy pledge and then throw a hissyfit if candidates didn’t sign it? Bruce Fein didn’t sign my pledge not to indulge his overinflated ego. Pfui.
Considering the president was given these powers because of a war many of these same conservatives support no candidate should sign this until the exact same conservatives who drafted it ALSO speak out to stop the war in Iraq and to stop the War on Terror thereby negating the need for these powers.
I find that this pledge from them illuminates one of two scenarios:
1) they are tacidly admitting the president never needed these powers in the first place to execute the war or
2) they are purposefully trying to hamper the next president’s ability to do so,
Would a president need any of these powers we are asking Hillary to give up in order to get back what we lost under Bush’s reign? Is the whole strategery behind this proposition to preserve the radical changes Bush made while he was dictator?
I say, beware of this insidious government. Elect a president who will purge government of its fascist elements and the fascist coterie who
sustain them.
Supreme Court has not expressed any concern with military tribunals for non citizens / non residents / who are not on U.S. soil.
Perhaps the document was just poorly and vaguely written.
I agree with the comments above - why single one person out? Any candidate with a reasonable chance of winning would be an idiot to sign this, at least as it is expressed in the post above.