General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: How extremism is normalized: Obama's Radical Interpretation of The Bill of Rights
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/30-13Published on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 by Salon.com
How Extremism is Normalized: Obama's Radical Interpretation of The Bill of Rights
by Glenn Greenwald
There is one important passage from yesterdays big New York Times article on President Obamas personal issuance of secret, due-process-free death sentences that I failed to highlight despite twice writing about that article. The fact that I did not even bother to highlight it among all the other passages I wrote about is itself significant, as it reflects how rapidly true extremism becomes normalized:
That record, and Mr. Awlakis calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?
The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendments guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.
Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.
Please just re-read that bolded part. This is something that we already knew. The New York Times Charlie Savage had previously reported that Obama OLC lawyers David Barron and Marty Lederman had authored a secret document that provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war (The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal). Attorney General Eric Holder then publicly claimed: Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process. Both of those episodes sparked controversy, because of how radical of a claim it is (Stephen Colbert brutally mocked Holders speech: Due Process just means: theres a process that you do).
more...
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)He was a legitimate military target in an ongoing war.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)barred from seeing the evidence against him that would allow for his assassination.
Oh there is a leak here and a leak there, and outrage over his anti-American speeches (which is protected political speech, by the way.) Hell, it appears that Yemenis barely knew who he was until the CIA put a target on his back.
Youve reported on the death of Anwar al-Awlakis 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, just two weeks after his father. What did you find out about who he was and what was so controversial about the circumstances surrounding his death?
Michelle Shephard
Awlaki had fascinated me for years. In the summer of 2009, I tried to find Anwar al-Awlaki, who was relatively unknown then this was pre-Fort Hood & Dec. 25 failed bombing attempt but whose name was a footnote in various domestic cases, including one in Canada. I was amazed to discover that almost no one in Yemen had heard of him, including those who tracked AQAP closely. This later made me question assertions that he had a key operational role in the organization (although few would dispute his influence online and appeal to Western youths).
The situation was of course different after news broke about his involvement in high-profile cases and then the publicity surrounding his inclusion on the list of CIA-sanctioned killings, given his American citizenship.
Going back this year following his death, I didnt find many in Yemen mourning his demise but there was concern about the death of his son. By all accounts, Abdulrahman had been living quite a normal teenage life since his father cut off contact and went into hiding in 2009. The 16-year-old had run away purportedly to find his father, but was in the wrong part of the country when Anwar al-Awlaki was killed. It is unclear who was the target of the drone attack that killed him shortly after, but Yemenis are still waiting for answers. Some of the youths who brought down President Ali Abdullah Saleh during 2011 protests also demonstrated about his death.
Has the U.S. government commented at all on his death?
Not on Abdulrahmans death, not as far I know.
Charles Schmitz
Yemenis also question the basis upon which people are being targeted. When President Obama signed the order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Yemenis asked what court has convicted him of a crime? What did he do besides give some speeches? And when Al-Awlakis 16-year-old son was killed by a drone, Yemenis were outraged. The U.S. claimed he was in the company of a target, but such arguments are not convincing in Yemen. It appears to Yemenis that the U.S. is judge, jury, and executioner without any recourse to law for Yemenis.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/understanding-yemens-al-qaeda-threat/
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And this ongoing talking point that "Well, we don't REALLY know if he did anything!" is bullshit. Besides his openly broadcast exhortations to murder, his conviction in Yemen for conspiracy to commit murder in the death of a French citizen, and his open claims of responsibility in several attempted attacks, it's asinine to continue trying to claim that "it's only cuz the Evil Big Gubmint says he was bad!"
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it's violent speech...a call to action to commit political assassination.
should those american citizens also be drone targets?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that hasn't resulted in strategic drone attacks.
Hell, Ann Coulter suggested that terrorists take out the NY Times! Oh no. Not protected speech at all.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it happens, not necessarily to them, but to someone. We've taken the first awful step in the wrong direction. Now the next one has been taken, drones in the skies of the US. Step by step is how it happens.
Now that we have followed the Bush administration down that dark path, nothing would surprise me, and depending on which party goes there first, it will be defended by the followers of the party in power. For some, as we saw during the Bush years, so long as it was their guy doing it, they turned a blind eye and we slammed them, rightfully, for their blind allegiance.
Thankfully it is really just a few on the 'Left' who have flipped to now support these egregious Bush policies. I am grateful for the many, many voices raised in defense of what all of our elected officials swore to defend, the laws of this country.
Once this country gets back on the right track, History will not be kind to those who veered into the territory we are now heading towards. You would think they would consider their legacies at least, if not their oaths of office. This is a very bad period in our history with now, both parties refusing to stand up for what this country is really all about. Terrorists, who needs them when we throw away our freedoms without any help at all. All for political purposes, the worst kind of excuse.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)well, unless the endgame is to have perpetual war.
seems like those of us who're liberal in the traditional meaning of the word, have spent years discussing how little "sense" our party displays. they're obviously serving someone's interest...most likely their own...so, these non-sensical policies really do have reason behind them. it just seems irrational to those who assume our interests align, while our interests obviously don't align.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)None that I heard of. And advocating killing of THAT American seems to go unchallenged. So, again, his guilt was decided by an Executive branch fiat. And his conviction (in absentia) in a Yemeni court is laughable. Do have the slightest clue as to how corrupt and decidedly un-American the Yemeni judicial system is? Next thing you know, you'll be lauding the North Korean judicial system! And if everything the Evil Big Gubmint (unclear as to why you decided to use baby talk in an otherwise adult conversation) says is true, then the place to make that case is, transparently, in a court of law. Not with little dribbles of leaked info and authoritarian sayso.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Are you going to argue that that guy was unlawfully executed because they should have given him a trial while he was eating another man's face? A violent criminal resisting arrest by the police has the options to either surrender, or likely get themselves killed. That's hardly the new and terrifying precedent you're trying to make it out to be, and in fact you have to rewrite a lot of circumstances of the case in order to claim that it is, like pretending that he was just some random guy minding his own business and not a self-declared attempted murderer.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)based on a photo and a file.
b/c, i don't see the connection.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)to, um, putting Manson on trial and convicting him of directing murders.
I don't have to rewrite a thing.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There have been thousands of drone strikes and none of them, not one, involved someone either eating a US citizens face off or pointing a gun at anyone in the US.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The OP centers on Awlaki as he was an American citizen and presumably protected under the Bill of Rights. The "thousands of drone strikes" were against foreigners. Any Americans caught in those strikes would be "incidental."
Awlaki, OTOH, was deliberately targeted. The debate is whether an America, who by his own public admission, is waging war on the US is entitled to the rights afforded him under the BoR. Some say no, Mr Greenwald seems to say regardless it sets a dangerous precedent.
I trust Obama but he won't be president forever. I'm genuinely ambivalent.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)from any particular President and the Presidency. Power granted to one is freely given to all, there is not so much as an iota of sequestration. If you wouldn't trust power in the hands of Nixon, Reagan, or BushCo (arguable all the same effective entity) then you don't trust Obama, Carter, or Kennedy with the power because if you do you surely give it with the same hands to the crew that cannot be trusted.
Getting caught up in the individuals is not rational or is following a set of rules that do not actually exist in the real world.
History indicates more potential for harm will always be created than good because more harmful hands will hold it and abuse their stewardship. This is why good people that agreed deeply with FDR didn't support him on stacking the bench, the precedent would be too dangerous and absurd.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Throughout our history, several American citizens have called for the death of various Americans, and have suffered no legal penalty for their speech. Here is but the latest example. Sure, sure, he is suffering some embarrassment and negative publicity, but that's certainly better than a drone dropping one on you.
So what's the difference? One is a radical Muslim, the other is a radical Christian Can we start using drones to attack radical Christians in Kansas? After all, they're calling for the death of Americans.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)This wasn't a matter of being punished for a previous crime. Awlaki was a leader in an ongoing conflict. That made him a legitimate military target.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Some Government official unilaterally declared Alwaki was a target and you accept that without challenge.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hundreds of innocent lives have been lost by these targeted killings.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)drone assassination campaigns. Nothing. It exposes only your inability to defend your position without resorting to arguments of deflection.
Handwaver?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You seem to think the war on terror is as a legitimate war as WWII. The war on terror, as designed and defined by bush and carried on by Obama is not the same as WWII. The war on terror is more akin to the war on drugs. It is a fiction propagated by fear.
Once you realize that, you can open your eyes and distinguish civilians deaths.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Congress passed it, and Obama is obligated to carry it out.
As long as you keep your eyes shut about that basic fact, we won't be getting anywhere.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It was a blank check for open-ended, ill-defined, anywhere in the world war on US terms. It was written by REPUBLICANS for BUSH!
If you are comfortable embracing that, go for it. I remember when Democrats and liberals stood against the AUMF and the Patriot Act and unilateral strikes in foreign countries. Now, we are all for it, huh?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You remember things differently from me. I remember most of America, Democrats and Republicans, supporting action against Al Qaeda. Fucking it up in Afghanistan and then invading Iran wasn't supported by Democrats, myself included. I definitely remember demonstrating against the Iraq invasion back when that was happening.
But the AUMF? No, that's real. Time for you to deal.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Like I said, if that is where you hang your hat, you are stuck in stale ginned up fear. Obama is using it as a giant loophole to carry out covert wars without any oversight. That is the problem.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)"without any oversight." That's bullshit.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Look into the history of it with the Supreme Court and Congress trying to save it. It is a mess and full of potential constitutional violations. Honestly, if someone could claim standing, I believe the Supreme Court would rule against Obama on his tactics, particularly in regard to American citizens.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)FTFY.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)you can't wage war on a tactic. Declaring war on terror is a little akin to declaring war on tanks - both may give you a little (cheap) catharsis, but your enemy in either case cannot surrender.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)is called on you.
Unfortunately it'll be too late then.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)and we're laying one hell of a claim to the low ground.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)We may pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan after two more years of killing and being killed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that he'll stop the drone strikes. In fact, it seems that they are the weapon of choice. It's such a more sanitized way to kill, don't you think?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Whether the AUMF is repealed by then remains to be seen. I certainly think there's a case to be made for it. Why don't we make it and get the AUMF repealed?
Yes, drone attacks are a more sanitized way of killing compared to sending in troops, napalming, nuclear weapons, etc.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Drone strikes are carried out by a unitary executive, which was the desired way of Cheney. Cheney would be proud of Obama, taking his mantle. Carrying out long term bombing campaigns in countries of the Executive's choice without oversight of Congress. They hardly even acknowledge what they have done or are doing.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You use "unitary executive" in a scary way. I don't think you understand what that means.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)A good case could be made that the US brought this on itself. That's what happens when you are an imperial super power throwing your weight around. You piss people off and they figure out a way to fight back.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I disagree with you on that.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Malcolm X spoke of it, as did King, among so many others. How we have treated the other people on this planet that we all share has been shameful, disgusting, murderous even. And sooner or later somebody was bound to strike back. Justified or not, I mean damn, it was obvious as hell that it was going to happen.
You reap what you sow, and we have sowed death and destruction around the world. Sooner or later we were going to have to bring home that bitter harvest.
Now that we have, perhaps we should learn a lesson from all of this, and change our ways. Otherwise we're simply going to continue to harvest the same bitter crop. Drones and bombs won't end terrorism, it creates terrorists, people who are simply pissed off enough to act. Kindness and compassion, that would produce a much more bountiful harvest of peace.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)to make him a friend."
Words we would do well to heed.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)to think of it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)We're going to have a substanial presence in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.
We're going to keep on creating new radicalized recruits to fight against us. Then they will attack us, so we will have to attack them, and, hey, it's the perfect game. Perpetual, sel-generating war on terror. Yay.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We've killed over one million human beings, don't you think we've killed enough people, the vast majority of them civilians, men, women and a disturbing number of beautiful, innocent children. Would you like to see some photos of the 'terrorists' we've been killing? Bush policies, there was not a single one that was not an egregious violation of the US Constitution and International law, including the AUMF, which as pushed through Congress based on LIES. Unbelievable to see these horrendous policies defended now when for eight years they opposed, and Glenn Greenwald who throughout the Bush years was a hero to the Left, is saying now exactly what he was saying then, AFTER he realized the lies they told.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I demonstrated against it as a matter of fact.
And Glenn Greenwald was not a hero to the Left throughout the Bush years. In fact, Greenwald supported the Iraq invasion and occupation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Americans, could not conceive of a President lying to them about something as important as war, so he believed the lies. But then, when he learned the facts did not remain silent about what he discovered. The MSM however, and all their 'respected journalists' remained silent even after the lies became obvious. Those who did not, were fired and had their careers destroyed, like Ashley Banfield eg. It was more advantageous on a personal level at that time, to keep on pretending to believe the lies. I'm sure we'll never see him on the MSM. Being too willing to tell the truth is a career ender sadly. Ask Dan Rather, or Donohue. So yes, it took guts to stand up back then and it was people like him who made it easier for others over time, to finally speak out.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)In March 2006, Senator Russ Feingold quoted Greenwald's comments in Unclaimed Territory on the floor of the U.S. Senate when he introduced Senate Resolution 398, to censure President Bush.[42]
In April 2006, Unclaimed Territory received the 2005 Koufax Award for "Best New Blog".[1]
In February 2008, during a debate over the FISA and Telecom Immunity bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate broadcast on C-Span, Senator Chris Dodd quoted Greenwald's comments posted in Unclaimed Territory.[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Unclaimed_Territory
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)who have died prematurely from violence occasioned by the US invasion and occupation, there are 2 million Iraqis who have been wounded (many horribly disfigured) and another 2 million Iraqis who have been displaced either internally or made refugees externally to Jordan.
Total: 5 million Iraqs or about 20% of the pre-war population of 25 million.
Take that 20% statistic and apply it to America and you would be looking at 45-50 million Americans killed, wounded or displaced.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from the sanctions before the invasion. Also the future generations being born with birth defects from the chemicals rained down on their country.
We never get news from Iraq, but there have been demonstrations there against the policies of the puppet government, Iraqis joining Egyptians and Tunisians, and were met with force also, in the 'democracy' we created, 29 killed by the government, they were unarmed, peaceful, like the others, while hundreds were arrested and taken away to who knows what fate.
I don't know if any effort has been made to help those millions who were displaced to return to their homes. Dahr Jamail has written about them, living in refugee camps, and photographed that part of the disaster. But we don't talk about those things. My cousin had visited Iraq before the invasion. He loved the people, who he said were very welcoming to visitors. He returned about a year ago and said the country is destroyed. It was crime of massive proportions and the perpetrators need to be prosecuted. Maybe some day.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)in the Arab world, second only to Israel in the entire Middle East.
What we have done to that country will ring ignominy upon us down through the ages. That's after we're done escaping the ignominy rained down upon us for what we did in Southeast Asia, 1945-75. And after we've escaped the ignominy of what we did in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and other Latin American states from 1981-90.
We have as a people incurred a huge karmic debt.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Thanks for your input.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'll have to call the police on you.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Please get your facts straight.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)but he was killed in total secrecy with no oversight. that's the point.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)No, you don't, neither do I. That's the problem with this whole sad fucking farce, the only people who do know aren't talking, and these are our democratically elected leaders in what is supposed to be an open government process.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Because the administration isn't talking. They don't talk at all about this program, that's the whole damn point. The only knowledge that we have are anonymous sources, people who know people, and nothing from a true, honest source. It could just as easily be that al-Banna was collateral damage and Alwaki's son was indeed the real target. Get it, we simply don't know, and that is the problem. Extra-judicial trial and execution, in secret, with no oversight. That's not only undemocratic, that's UnAmerican.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)No, just me for saying it was Al-Banna. OK, good to know.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Anyway, I'm not chiding you for saying Al-Banna was the target, what I am pointing out is that we simply don't know. What, you don't know basic conversational English? What part of "It could just as easily be that al-Banna was collateral damage and Alwaki's son was indeed the real target. Get it, we simply don't know, and that is the problem." don't you understand?
Or is this your new sneaky strawman plan, sticking words in my mouth?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Dude, you might as well be pissing on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Own your words!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You know, you can get help for that.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Good to know.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)similar proceeding).
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)WILL NOT REVEAL THE TARGET OR SPEAK OF KILLING A 16 YEAR OLD U.S. CITIZEN.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)So you are not a US citizen, Luminous? OK, good to know.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Whenever you are presented with damning facts that you can't deny, poof, you pull out another strawman. It would be entertaining in a bad-magician-at-work sort of way except that it is so damn annoying, and so very predictable.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It's something I didn't know. Now I do.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Your own government. My own government. Our own government.
What a weird conclusion to draw to try to make a gotchya.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)If I'm speaking to someone I know to be an American and we're discussing the government, I don't even think about word choice. I say "our government" or "the government." It wouldn't occur to me to say "your own government" because it's my government, too.
If you are a US citizen, then I apologize. It was a weird word choice for you to make in that case, but whatever.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Can you at least state that?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)It's certainly not worth all the hemming and hawing you're giving it. You either are or you aren't.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What's next, you've got a list of Communists hidden up your sleeve?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'm just asking a simple question. No harm, no foul.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Prove to me that you are a U.S. citizen. You either are or you aren't.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I don't have a copy of my birth announcement on the Internet.
I'm not asking you to prove you're an American citizen. I'm asking if you are or if you aren't. I'm quite willing to take your word for it either way.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and can't be President of the U.S. Perhaps I am Canadian like SidDithers and a respected member of this co
Why do you need to know?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I don't need to know, I'm just interested. Is it a crime to be interested in fellow DU members?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts).
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)apologize." Implication is, "If I didn't offend anyone, well I don't apologize because I wasn't really doing anything wrong or for which I feel any remorse."
Pathetic and predictable.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Luminous Animal is not an American and that therefore LA's opinion is somewhat suspect.
That's known in logicians' circles as the ad hominem attack.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)What you did is what's known as projection in psychiatric terms. You can get help for that.
Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #175)
Post removed
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Kindly refrain.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)BB isn't here for a serious discussion, or even an honest gotcha. He's here to stir the shitstorm and hope something falls his way. Thus, once he is confronted with facts, he starts pulling out the most bizarre strawmen, or acting like he's insulted and injured. It's a sad spectacle, one I've seen for ten years now. There's nothing to be gained by playing his game, so time better spent if you just drop it and go on.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)I'm off to bed, it's coming up on midnight here. Have a good evening and a better tomorrow.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)That's the second time you've said this. Have we met before in the September 11 forum?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The supposed endless, borderless, worldwide "war on terror" is no justification for anything.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)But you knew that.
And perhaps you didn't know, but his son wasn't targeted.
upi402
(16,854 posts)just askin....
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)just answerin...
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)disguised as a child. But our drones are smart enough to suss out the clever disguises the evil-doers use.
(in case it's needed)
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Most everyone here knows where you really stand.
PB
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Only in your mind.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Especially when it comes to this issue. That's what we're talking about.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Go find the articles that talk about the process and get back to me.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)during a Romney presidency
what "ongoing war" against what country are we talking about here?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)In another post on another thread. Sorry about that.
The AUMF is the authorization for this war. It's against the groups and allies who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Awlaki was a leader in the allied group of Al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula. He was a legitimate military target in that war.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)being waged against non-state actors around the world that's being used to degrade/eliminate "those freedoms" they allegedly hate us for.
thanks for clearing that up. Of course I already understood that you meant the Afghan AUMF that led to the war of aggression in Afghanistan. Like the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq under international law, and our own as well, since the Taliban posed no imminent threat the War Powers Act of 1973 addressed, which that AUMF is grounded on, I didn't support it either as a domestic law matter. That's simply how it was turned into a military campaign as opposed to criminal law matter.
"As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president - any president - with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20113962-503544.html
Like I said, enjoy the contents of this Pandora's box under a Romney presidency.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)The AUMF isn't against "terrorism".
The first thing Romney would do is start stuffing Guantanamo full of prisoners again.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)if that's what you "think" you "know"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This is precisely why the drone strike justifications in some cases http://www.cfr.org/somalia/al-shabaab/p18650 are debatable based on that AUMF.
Afghanistan was considered "a nation" that "harbored" the "terrorists", therefore justifying the invasion/war.
The problem with this narrative is that the claim that the Taliban had stubbornly refused to turn over bin Laden is not true.
CNN reported on September 21, 2001,
The Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last weeks attacks on the United States. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an insult to Islam. (emphasis added)
CNN also provided an explanation for the Talibans refusal, reporting: Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.
So the Taliban were not really refusing to turn him over but rather were demanding certain conditions be satisfied before they did so. That is not unusual. Governments routinely have evidentiary standards that must be met before they grant an extradition request. Bush, however, was not in a diplomatic mood, and he told the Taliban the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion.
(which is why I wrote, a criminal matter involving an extradition request was turned into a military adventure, and the "WOT" has been little more than a continuation of exploitation of that AUMF.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Further questions were raised regarding the U.S. governments charges against Osama bin Laden by the FBIs Most Wanted Terrorists webpage. While the page mentioned bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as terrorist acts for which bin Laden was wanted, it made no mention of the 9/11 attacks. When the FBI was asked about this conspicuous omission, Rex Tomb, the Bureaus chief of investigative publicity replied: The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
So, the U.S. governments case against Osama bin Laden was not good enough to take to court, but it was good enough to take the country to war, a war that has killed or maimed countless people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The anger arising from the invasion and occupation of the country has created a perpetual supply of terrorist recruits, enabling U.S. officials to use the never-ending war on terror to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. And we now have a president who asserts the authority to kill off any person he deems a threat. I submit that this claim of unaccountable power represents a far greater threat to the peace and security of the country than any terrorist or group of terrorists could ever pose.
Surveying the evidence, it is clear the Bush administration did not even come close to exhausting its diplomatic options in the fall of 2001 and that some other route could have been chosen to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan did not even succeed in its principal goal: the capturing or killing of Osama bin Laden. According to the U.S. government, that mission was accomplished almost ten years later by a team of Navy Seals in an operation lasting only a few hours in neighboring Pakistan.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110l.asp
Agree or disagree with the assessment I made more than a decade ago this material supports regarding the Afghan War, and maintain your pov regarding the death of the American "terrorist" that prompted this "debate" if you wish, but let's not pretend that those that feel otherwise have no foundation for their fears and objections to the slippery slope it puts us farther down and closer to the kinda tyranny this country was formed over to deny wouldbe kings.
Once it becomes normalized and accepted, much like the militarization of our police forces, etc, or say, the abuses seen outta the "WOT's" precursor, the "war on drugs" that no doubt has a role in that militarization, (and as seen in the language of the recent NDAA http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/ on indefinite detention issue) we'll all get what we deserve.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Otherwise known as the Future of Freedom Foundation. From its "About Us" page:
If that's your idea of convincing rhetoric, stupidicus, I'm not a bit surprised.
Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #211)
Post removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)At Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
That is a lovely source you have there in fff.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=751007
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
obviously the implication of this posters remark was an unambiguous and intended insult to my intelligence, with the only "surprise" being that your jurors saw fit to punish the retaliation for it, while leaving it undisturbed and intact.
Obviously the poster sought to attribute to me a sharing of ALL the povs of the org that posted the work of the author in the course of tacitly conceding their impotence in the face of it with the dishonest subject change their effort was, and their "I'm not a bit surprised" line was nothing more or less than an expression of the disdain they had for them, and me by association.
Their response was NOTHING BUT an assault on and an insult to me, other than being what I described it as -- a classic dodge commonly used by the incapable in the form of "attacking the source".
As the provocateur, I'd ask that their post be similarly treated in the pursuit and interest of, "fair play". They have no business whatsoever in claiming, directly or by implication, that I subscribe to the stuff the stuff they quoted in lieu and because of their inability to substantively address the issues I raised and the points I made with them.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:34 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I was going to hide for calling another person "stupidicus", then I realized that was the other poster's actual DU name. Other than that, there is nothing hideworthy. Not being happy at someone else's argument is not a reason to hide it. The alerted on post is 99% a copy/paste from an actual source in question.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Impeaching the credibility of a listed source with their own words is fair game.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Rhiannon12866
(206,601 posts)Number 2 made me LOL...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Glad it made you laugh. The whole thing seemed pretty funny to me.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)".....Not only that, Greenwald always conveniently avoids the fact that al-Awlaki was granted judicial process in the form of a trial in Yemen, which he refused to show up for.
But then, Greenwald has a special affinity for criminals who refuse to show up for their day in court. See, today, the British high court handed down a ruling, dismissing Julian Assange's challenge to extradition to Sweden, to face charges of sexual abuse. The extradition was sought by a Swedish prosecutor, whom the British high court held was a proper judicial authority under the terms of the European extradition treaty. So that's good right? This is a British court of law, dealing with a request from an officer of another court (yes, prosecutors are officers of the court), and making a decision. Judicial review granted, judicial process followed. Glenn Greenwald must be ecstatic that at least the Europeans are following the judicial process that our country so lacks in his view.
Not so fast. The decision from the British court went against Greenwald's soulmate, of course, and Glenn is not happy about that. The court is horrible! They're just enabling the executive snatching of power to rule over the ordinary people ("ordinary" people, like, you know, the WikiLeaks leaker in chief). On Democracy Now, Greenwald spoke out with gusto:....."
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/05/glenn-cial-logic-judicial-process-good.html
What a fucking front running phoney.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Awlaki was an American citizen. Are we at war with America now? Are we at war with American citizens? Who are we at war with?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)"those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Awlaki was a military commander in one of those organizations associated with Al Qaeda.
Lots of American citizens were killed in the Civil War. If Obama is bad, Lincoln was millions of time worse by your logic.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)That vastly expanded presidential powers into very dangerous waters. You were against that, as we all were at the time, and justifiably so. It is nothing but a naked power grab and you know it.
But hey, now it's a president with a D behind his name, and all is good. Kill and murder American citizens, do away with privacy, tap everybody, do it all now, it's all good because there is a president with a D behind his name and we can truuuuuuuust him.
Let me tell you why the hell this sort of stupid, insane attitude is killing this country. Even if we can trust a president with a D behind his name(and that is a big, big, if), the problem is that this expands the power of the office itself, and sooner or later, if not Romney then some other Republican is going to get into office and have full use of those powers that Obama so conveniently expanded. Now thing of Rick Santorum, or Paul Ryan, or some other RW whack job using those powers to go after others. People who aren't terrorist, but are on their shit list(or like Nixon, an enemy list).
Now, do you really think that is a wise idea to expand those powers? To lay down that precedent? Especially when the term "terrorist" is such an amorphous one?
Think.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)No, I haven't. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You're not very good at it. Stick to explaining your point of view. I'll explain mine. Thanks.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And I wasn't putting words in your mouth. Please, stick with explaining your point of view rather than erecting strawmen to hide behind.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)of building straw men.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You are trying to steer the discussion to what I allegedly said, instead of sticking on the topic we were discussing. Why is that, and are you going to go back to that topic, or simply continue to act offended and offer up diversionary strawman after diversionary strawman?
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)and then goes on to accuse me of erecting straw men, I kind of get wary of discussing things with this person and start looking for an apology.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And once again we see when Bolo Boffin knows that the game is up and that it is time to bail from the discussion because the facts are hitting your ass hard. Start putting up strawmen, act innocent, and if all else fails, demand an apology for your poor hurt little feelings.
Geez dude, I've been around here as long as you have, and I've seen you do your thing year in, year out, and the schtick is getting old. Old, tired and sad, because it simply goes to show that you can't handle the back and forth of an honest debate and have to resort to middle school tricks instead. Don't you get tired of that? Don't you get tired of not having the adequate knowledge base to back your happy ass up with? Don't you get tired of the same old tactic, time and again, around and around, and nobody takes you seriously? Have some dignity, learn some things, educate yourself so that you can hold an honest to God debate without falling apart like a kindergartner.
So since it is obvious that you are no longer going to hold an honest conversation on this topic, I've going on. Do your thing, get your last bit of drama and angst in, and call it a night.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)and when you get called on it, blaming me for changing the subject, straw men, whatever.
I feel no need to defend things I didn't say. When you go off talking about things I never said or would say, I'm kind of at a loss as to where to take the discussion. An honest discussion demands calling people on their bullshit, which is what I did to you. And now you're blaming me for it. Whatever, dude. If I could make up my opponents' viewpoints in good conscience, I probably would. But I can't. Sue me.
Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #1)
Octafish This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)The Constitution is seeming more and more like a "Goddamned piece of paper"....
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)The AUMF isn't either of those things.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Says me.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"He was a legitimate military target in an ongoing war."
Who the hell said he was a legitimate target?
You sure wouldn't be taking this attitude if you were unfairly picked as a target for summary execution. And I know you have no response for that.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)As horrific as this is, it probably isn't abused under Obama. Not really. But with someone like, say Orly Taitz or any of the other pinheaded possibilities, one can only guess what could or would happen.
We really don't want to go there. I mean, we really don't want to be here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Obama is called a Muslim because he's not as gung ho as Bush, McCain and Romney. Since Obama is following the 'police action' policy of Clinton, he is not doing enough like Bush as they want. Plain and simple.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)That's sort of the same thing. It's what we founded this country in order to avoid.
I could see some humor coming out of who Mittens would "off", even if it's a serious subject. But that part about the judge and jury being decided by someone in the Oval Office had me wondering about Orly Taitz. Things could get way out of hand rather quickly in the wrong hands. I'm sure Jon Steward could do this justice.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Coming soon to a town near you. Or in which you live. The standard now to be applied is the principle of efficiency, and if you're in the vicinity of a suspected terrorist (whether you know it or not), it's because you're probably up to no good yourself. And that's good enough for you to be red-misted by sudden death raining down from above. That's called "due process" nowadays in the United States.
I sincerely doubt that would be recognized as such by those who first penned those words.
Before summary execution is carried out, where is the presentation of evidence? Who are the witnesses? Who examines the evidence and the witnesses, and is the accused allowed to know and cast doubt on the evidence presented against him? Is the accused left with only the right to a speedy death, but not a speedy trial?
That may be many things, but it's not the Constitution. Without the Constitution, there is no United States of America. That's why the Chief Executive swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not the people, not the United States, not business interests, not even his own life.
This brave new chapter in jurisprudence will be among the most shameful in American history.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I think they could cut any right wing argument with little hesitation.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)intended to protect against: a king issuing death warrants by fiat.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Where is the due process? This sounds more like a Star Chamber operation to me.
How far behind the drones starting to spy on us in this country now, will the executions of "Terrorists" or "Dissidents" or other trouble makers in this country begin? How many of us can look forward to being red misted because we were home when the "bad guy", read trouble maker, in the house next door was taken out by a drone?
It is not a good thing when the people are afraid of the government, instead of the government being afraid of the people.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I do not recognize my country anymore.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)this into an OP of its own. Powerful stuff.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)that's all fine and good when we have a fine and good president who would never use drone assassination in a manner that would be untoward.
but what about the next president after Obama? Is it going to be okay with you if, say, Jeb Bush uses his new powers of "due process" to assassinate whoever he pleases?
And, what about mission creep? If it's okay to assassinate US citizens on foreign soil (using the due process of thinking about while walking the dog), then, what's stopping the next GOP POTUS from using these powers on US soil...say, in North Carolina.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)And he's right about this. It is not possible to honestly suggest we'd trust Bush or any other Republican with the power to execute an American citizen based on the utterly nonsensical notion that "due process" can mean "the President thought about it."
Therefore, it's not okay when Obama does it, unless you contend he's President for Life.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)is correlated with their perceived lack of power.
for example, do people feel so powerless these days that the only way they can feel secure is to imbue their leaders with increasingly absurd levels of lethal authority?
it seems we are turning into medieval rabble feverishly chanting "off with their heads," at whomever the king holds up as a "threat to the realm."
Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)or, that someone wrote about it?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I heard it on the intertubes!
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #43)
Post removed
Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)My children were never that fucking stupid.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Typical.
PB
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)for suspicion.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Whew. That's a relief.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)the killing of anyone (including a US citizen) anywhere in the world at any time with only the consultation of people who work FOR HIM, then how is he supposed to protect us? I'm with you, I don't see what the big deal is. This is clearly a gray area in the constitution and one needs to be a constitutional scholar to figure out such a complex and confusing issue. Why would the founding fathers have had an issue with the President being able to order the assassination of anyone, anywhere in the world after consulting in secret with a few of the advisers who work for him?
In the end, it's not really about government taking away our rights and shredding the constitution, they're going to do that anyway. I just want it done by the people I voted for. I'll wait until a repuke is president to get all up in arms about this, and hopefully that's a long way away. Until then, if anyone brings it up, I'm just going to blame Bush and changed the subject.
La, la, la, la, la... I can't hear you, la, la, la, la, la.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the US government treats gay people unjustly in immigration issues. It gets old seeing that used against him, I have personally posted to you in the past the fact that he is American and an ex-pat due to bigoted US laws. Yet you persist in calling him Brazilian. Do you consider that ethical, decent or honest?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Washington Post | By Craig Whitlock | Published: October 22, 2011
One week after a U.S. military airstrike killed a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen, no one in the Obama administration, Pentagon or Congress has taken responsibility for his death, or even publicly acknowledged that it happened.
The absence of official accountability for the demise of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a Denver native and the son of an al-Qaeda member, deepens the legal and ethical murkiness of the Obama administrations campaign to kill alleged enemies of the state outside of traditional war zones.
Unlike the secretive U.S. airstrikes that have killed hundreds of foreigners in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, this case involved an American teenager. He was killed by the U.S. military in a country with which Washington is not at war.
Officials throughout the U.S. government, however, have refused to answer questions for the record about how or why Awlaki was killed Oct. 14 in a remote part of Yemen, along with eight other people.
link
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)That's a particularly disturbing part of the continuation and expansion of Bush-era Constitutional pretzel making. The theory is apparently that these are ultra-secret missions that cannot legally be acknowledged.
But that only holds true for some extrajudicial killings. Those that strike the administration as more P.R.-friendly are trumpeted from the rooftops.
It's horrific policy. We all know it. It deepens and extends anti-American sentiment and undermines any claim to moral legitimacy for the U.S.
And this is what it looks like with a fundamentally decent President running it. Imagine what the next Republican will do with this power.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...who agrees with the idea that memos from the Office of Legal Counsel and/or advice from National Security Advisors constitutes ''due process of law'' (which assures: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property....''), as provided for in the US Constitution is either an idiot or a coward, or both.
- And as I recall, we said so here at DU quite adamantly and quite clearly with no ambiguousness whatsoever, when George W. Bush did this when he was President.....
~President Dwight D. Eisenhower
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)and, ultimately it attempts to undermine judicial authority by seating "due process" in the Executive Branch.
it's as radical as anything Alberto Gonzales asserting during the Bush administration.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)That was Bush's game, and it was a bad one. We must do better.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)an artitcle, God Forgive, if the Billionaires get into the White House, when World War Three starts, and them sending our children to fight their wars for profits huh?
Death List will be here in the US and jails open for anyone who disagrees with the Billionaires, cause y'know Mittens will be another puppet. No more middle class, and a lot more people living the streets. Y'think the Catholic church will help, nope, they are more concerned about women's private parts. Education will only be available for the upper class, child labor laws will be overturned, it will be 1800s all over again. They will probably take voting rights away except for the upper class.
The Constitution will be ignored and it wouldn't surprise me if it comes up missing. American's basic rights, no more. So please, stop ths bullshit.
Also, Awlaki wanted Americans killed, if they a shot at him, go for it. He gave up the right of citizenship when he declared war on America.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)No such law or regulation or provision. Just an authoritarians fantasy. Nor did he "declare war" on America. He may have advocated violence, but so does Rush Limbaugh. It is well-established that anti-government or anti-American speech is protected speech.
You seem to suggest that Greenwald is allowed to write merely based on the whim of the Executive branch of government. Groovy. You just substantiated Greenwald's argument.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and you wouldn't neither, especially if they bombed the shit out your family huh?
Pakistan was never a friend of the US, period. The rebels love America right now in Libya and now Syria hoping for the mighty US to help.
The RW has already called Greenwald and others communist, shit if they get in YES they will do their best to stop him writing.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)enriching the 1% and leaving most of the rest of the population in poverty. It seems like they care that they were sanctioned out of basic necessities for not toeing the West's lines. (Iraq: 500,000 dead children during the Clinton admin. Albright: It was worth it.) Afghanistan and Iraq, 100s of thousands killed. Millions displaced. Infrastructure destroyed... electricity, water, bridged, schools...
Me living in the U.S. dying from a foreign terrorist attack? Less than being struck by lighting. Me, if I were living in the Middle East dying from disease or deprivation or military attack perpetrated by the West? 100,000 times plus.
So yes, I care about people being bombed "the shit out of". It doesn't have to be my family to care.
(And, for what it is worth, you don't know squat about what is going on in either Syria or Libya - oh, they love our weapons alright but then again, so did Saddam and the Mujahideen.)
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)then a GOP POTUS will be elected, who will use the powers asserted by the Dem President...and that would be apocalyptic.
here's the problem with your reasoning (well, one among many). chances are there will be a GOP POTUS at some point in time in the future.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but it also appears to be counter-productive given the civilian losses, which will likely create more than they ever kill that way
US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter. File Photo by Reuters
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK: The outgoing US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. Munter, found the drone strike-driven American policy unacceptable and complained to his colleagues that he didnt realise his main job was to kill people, a colleague told The New York Times.
An extensive report in Tuesdays newspaper says that President Barack Obama has taken personal responsibility for drone attacks. He approves every name on the target list, reviewing their biographies and the evidence against them, and then authorises lethal action without hand-wringing.
The report says that Mr Obamas focus on drone strikes has made it impossible to forge the new relationship with the Muslim world that he promised in his June 2009 speech in Cairo.
http://dawn.com/2012/05/30/munter-found-drone-strikes-unacceptable/
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)a citizenry to not fight back? Wouldn't you if foreign drones were threatening you on a regular basis?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)imagine if the Iranians sought retaliation with MEK supporters in this country.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)From statements made in February by the families of victims and survivors of a March 17, 2011, drone attack in the village of Datta Khel in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan. The statements were collected by the British human rights group Reprieve and were included in their lawsuit challenging the legal right of the British government to aid the United States in its drone campaign. More than half of all deaths from U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan have occurred in North Waziristan. Translated from the Pashto.
(snip)
The first time I saw a drone in the sky was about eight years ago, when I was thirteen. I have counted six or seven drone strikes in my village since the beginning of 2012. There were sixty or seventy primary schools in and around my village, but only a few remain today. Few children attend school because they fear for their lives walking to and from their homes. I am mostly illiterate. I stopped going to school because we were all very afraid that we would be killed. I am twenty-one years old. My time has passed. I cannot learn how to read or write so that I can better my life. But I very much wish my children to grow up without these killer drones hovering above, so that they may get the education and life I was denied.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And I would like to see someone argue that it is not.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that more can't understand the counter-productive nature of their use.
Hell, even the martyrdom of the likes of Al-alwaki does more for their cause than his loss prevents.
what you posted illustrates that point as well as anything -- a generation of people growing up blaming us collectively for the life we've deprived their oftentimes completely innocent loved ones of, and them the fruits of life like an education.
it reads more like a deliberate plan to perpetuate war, not end it
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)so, attacking these children is the war racket's long-term investment. it's the future they need to create to be profitable.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)you'd think that lesson would have been learned by all after the Iraq fiasco
You'd think it would be equally obvious today from the way the rightwingnuts in DC in particular are trying so desperately hard to protect the DoD budget.
It certainly isn't solely because they are pants/bedwetting nincompoops
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Madmiddle
(459 posts)should have been around when George HW Bush put to death over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi children with his stinkin' boycotts. And then HW's fucking boy declared war, without Congress sayin' so on a country that had nothin' to do with 9/11. Now the rightwing of this country has has started another undeclared war on the citizen of this country because Barack Obama's a black man. You sons abitchin so called reporters ought to grow some balls and speak up for the workingclass of this country instead of writing bullshit stories that you can sell to make a name for yourself. I ain't following this shit Greenwald's got to say. Like Greenwalds some kinda guru we all should listen to. Why don't he report on the wrought that's goin' on in Washington Dc, how we got a so called supreme court that's bought and paid for by the republican billionaires. Kiss my ass Greenwald you ain't a reported you're just an idiot.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it". And I think Greenwald was like 20-23 years old then. He was around but I'm pretty sure he was not up to writing a daily column on Salon.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Amazon reader review: 237 of 249 people found the following review helpful
Common Sense May 23, 2006
By Theo Theodopolous
How Would A Patriot Act? is, primarily, about the radical claims of total presidential authority made by the Bush Administration's radical lawyers, with the ostensible aim of fighting terrorism and the effect of discarding the Constitution.
As Greenwald clearly sets out, America defeated the Communist threat from the Soviet Union without losing sight of the Constitution; fewer sacrifices will be necessary to defeat a few disorganized Islamists.
So why has Bush's Administration been allowed to get away with torturing prisoners to death, "disappearing" and detaining American citizens without trial, and Big Brother-like surveillance of telephone calls and internet traffic (in violation of countless laws and the 4th Amendment?) Why has the Republican controlled Congress failed to assert its powers of oversight?
At the core of these failures, Greenwald argues, is fear. While Franklin Roosevelt told us "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Republican leaders have stoked our fear of another 9/11, in part out of cowardice, and in part for political expediency.
This book will fortify the spine of the American people, so that we can elect leaders who will emphatically restore Constitutional government, instead of the current batch of corrupt Republican cowards.
In sum, "How Would a Patriot Act?" is both timely and relevant, cutting through the noise of traditional media sources. (The latest NSA phone records scandal took place after the book was printed, but up-to-the-minute discussion can be found at Glenn's blog Unclaimed Territory.) It's squarely in the tradition of great pamphlets; buy it, read it and pass it along to your friends.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Is a damned fool.
Trust Obama all you want, but the precedent that 5th amendment rights can be satisfied by secret deliberation by the President is FUCKING SCARY.
What are you going to say when a Republican you don't like claims the same thing.
For example, protesters screaming "Down with Wall Street" represent a threat to the security of this country.
Fools.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)side doing it.
Jeesh, the intellectual gymnastics people engage in here to justify moral depravity staggers the mind.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)US citizens have been assassinated for all of my adult life...and the CIA or their many branches did it right in this country...
They used the mafia and biker gangs to do the job....
And I know this because I have known some dark people in my life....and I saw a biker dude go out to a car with a guy and the guy gave him a kilo of cocaine...I asked a guy about it and he said it was a CIA man paying off a job....this was at the time when the CIA was flying down to Nicaragua to arm the rebels...and flying back blow to drop on the inner cities of this country...that is how they did it....I mean why fly a plane back empty?
Kill lots of birds with one stone....
Now that opens me up to criticism I know...because I have no proof and could never prove it...I only know what I saw and was told by people that never lied to me before...and were not the type to spin tails to impress people with...take if for what it is worth.
And I feel we need to consider that the PTB have a lot more power than we think they do...and consider that what they have done for years is slip us into accepting things like this to "keep us safe" and to prosecute the "war on terror",,,and they "need the tools" to do it effectively....and we bought into it because all of your TV shows said it was true...that we had to torture maim and kill to "keep us safe".
They trained us just like they train a soldier for war...a constant barrage of propaganda and group think intimidation.
And now they want us to accept assassination of anyone out side of the group think group because they want to terrorize us.
Yep it is a slippery slope....but we got on it long ago and we need to remember.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)A name I will NEVER forget.
Hasenfus was a former Marine from Marinette, Wisconsin, who had been an unemployed construction worker, at the time when he secured work, alleged by Sandinistas to be as a cargo handler for the CIA. This was stated by Hasenfus himself,[1] who later retracted that statement.[2]
Hasenfus was aboard the Fairchild C-123 cargo plane, N4410F,[3] formerly USAF 54-679, (c/n 20128), shot down over Nicaragua on October 5, 1986, while delivering supplies to the Nicaraguan Contras. During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, it was established that the aircraft was shot down while participating in a covert operation devised and approved by elements of the United States government. The two pilots and a radio operator died in the crash, but Hasenfus was able to parachute to safety, having disobeyed orders[citation needed] by wearing a parachute on the mission. He was captured by Nicaraguan government forces, tried, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. In December 1986, at the request of U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, he was pardoned and released by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.
Hasenfus' capture and detention helped uncover and publicize the Iran-Contra Affair. A black book of phone numbers in the wreckage tied the plane to an operation run out of Ilopango airbase in El Salvador, supported by anti-Castro exile Felix Rodriguez. Press speculation focused on retired Major General Jack Singlaub as the sponsor; this was encouraged by Oliver North to divert attention from the true head: Richard Secord.
Hasenfus subsequently sued Secord, Albert Hakim, Southern Air Transport and Corporate Air Services over issues relating to Hasenfus' capture and trial.[4]
[edit]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And how it got swept under the rug...
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Sure freedom of religion, assembly, speech and the rights involving court are all good. But what about freedom from hunger and the right to a roof over your head? How about freedom to organize a union? Who really cares about freedom of the press when the majority of the press outlets are owned by millionaires and billionaires?
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)There's your due process.
Banksters and thugs. Thugs and banksters.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)economy of brutality (or maybe brutal economy).
These are dark times we live in.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I still do for the most part. But not on this issue.
When Bush was president, Republicans cheered every infringement of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror, while Democrats were outraged and opposed.
Now that Obama is president, Republicans are still cheering every action in the war on terror. But now Democrats are too.
It's a sad, sad spectacle.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And it's reassuring to see it discussed so thoughtfully.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it is heartening to see a reasonable discussion of this.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Obama keeps fine company. When the US uses the same methods of extrajudicial execution as some of the planet's worst human rights abusers, you know that America is in serious trouble. The era of Rule of Law, or the effort to maintain appearances, is drawing to a close.
How can we now hold ourselves out as anything but a more powerful, technologically advanced version of a Third-World despotism?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)wait, there is no bright side.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The armed drone, it's his idea. No wonder this is working so-o-o-o well.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)works for explaining corporate strategy too.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)dumb responses but predictable....
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)This pile of hyperbole he penned just makes me want to wretch.
Being progressive does not require lies and hyperbole, something Mr. Greenwald fails to understand.