Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[Makalakumu]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html

President-Elect Obama's advisers feared in 2008 that authorities would oust him in a coup and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obama's top transition advisers.


University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., above, the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama's administration, revealed the team's thinking on Sept. 2 in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall). Edley was seeking to explain Obama's "look forward" policy on suspected Bush-era law-breaking that the president-elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009.


But Edley's rationale implies that Obama, or at least his team, feared the military/national security forces that the president is supposed be commanding -- and that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even after voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history.


Edley responded to my request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears. Edley said that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a coup.

 

[Makalakumu]

If this is true, who is in charge of the US?

 

[Twin Fist]

this is not true, this is a classic piece of mis-information released to try and win back the far left that has turned its back on obama


IMO

 

[granfire]

If this is true, who is in charge of the US?

Not the President...

 

[David43515]

It seems a pretty unrealistic fear if you ask me. We Americans rant and rave when our government does something unpopular, but we have rule of law. And to suggest that our military would forcibly oust a sitting president is not only "out there", but dammned insulting IMO.
Nice to know what kind of people we put in charge.

 

[granfire]

It seems a pretty unrealistic fear if you ask me. We Americans rant and rave when our government does something unpopular, but we have rule of law. And to suggest that our military would forcibly oust a sitting president is not only "out there", but dammned insulting IMO.
Nice to know what kind of people we put in charge.

then again, they are sworn to combat any enemy, foreign or domestic....

 

[David43515]

then again, they are sworn to combat any enemy, foreign or domestic....

And some of the politicions we`ve had on both sides of the aisle in the last few years might qualify....but like I said, we follow the rule of law. We`ve always had a legal meathod in place to remove someone who isn`t doing their job or is doing it in ways most of us don`t agree with. No matter how bad our political disagreements have gotten, you don`t see tanks in the streets in the US. We either vote them out, ***** and moan until they stop, or prosecute them for doing what we hate. I`ve known alot of military personel who didn`t like their commander in cheif, but I`ve never met one who would gve serious thought to trying to remove him from power. (Thank heaven for a system of checks and balances. I just wish they`d stop chipping away at it.)

 

[Twin Fist]

cant you see? this is the obama team saying "we wanted to, but we didnt cause we were afraid of like...riots and stuff....."

its crap (since it could never happen here)
and it is a weak *** lie (which is ok, the far far left falls for weak lies all the time, IE the "truthers")

 

[WC_lun]

While I don't think this would have happened, think for a minute. Obama was the first "black" president. A large percentage of the right wing believed him to be not American, Muslim, and/or militant anti-white. Any prosecution of previous administration members for war crimes would have fed those misconceptions greatly. Is it such a stretch to think that even in the US there would have been people in the military and government that would have acted to stop Obama in an unlawful fashion? While I think our laws and cooler heads would have prevailed, look around at the animousity in politics and tell me there isn't a possibility of the scenario playing out. Now also understand that the transition team was also super sensitive to all of this and were working to diminish any upheaval. It isn't a stretch by any means to think they honestly believed what Edley has stated.

 

[punisher73]

I guess more importantly would have been what "war crimes" are they talking about and if they really existed than the general public would probably back the decision as well.

 

[Empty Hands]

I guess more importantly would have been what "war crimes" are they talking about and if they really existed than the general public would probably back the decision as well.

Sadly, the war crimes we are talking about haven't created much of a stir with the public. Unlawful torture sanctioned at the highest levels of government, unlawful warrantless surveillance. The public knows, and the public doesn't much care.

So much for the "rule of law nation."

 

[granfire]

Sadly, the war crimes we are talking about haven't created much of a stir with the public. Unlawful torture sanctioned at the highest levels of government, unlawful warrantless surveillance. The public knows, and the public doesn't much care.

So much for the "rule of law nation."

I guess it's different when the other side is the bad guy....

 

[Buka]

The other guy is always the Infidel.

 

[granfire]

The other guy is always the Infidel.

no, I mean my war crimes are not as bad as yours.

 

[Touch Of Death]

If this is true, who is in charge of the US?

The voters.

 

[granfire]

The voters.

:lfao:

 

[MPC1257]

I guess "war crimes" would apply if we were fighting a conventional war where both sides adhered to the "rules of engagement". Since this is a war on terror that was brought to a much higher level on 9/11, I have no problem with our "war crimes". That's my opinion and possibly many other people's opinions also.

 

[billc]

Mpc1257, I agree with you. Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."

I have to say the guy who said they were afraid of a coup should never have been near any administration. He is obviously desperately in need of counseling for paranoid delusions.

 

[Touch Of Death]

:lfao:

I see you think we don't matter, but the guy with the majority vote generally wins. Sure the electoral college can over ride it, but we had a Reagan Era because the voter's were voting for him and not Carter.
sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Mpc1257, I agree with you. Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."

I have to say the guy who said they were afraid of a coup should never have been near any administration. He is obviously desperately in need of counseling for paranoid delusions.

Thinking a coup will never happen is a sure way to get coup-ed. LOL