[stevew]

What's he going to arrest Bush for? Obama does the same ****.

boo!

 

[Pesqueeb]

How so? I call that efficency, utilizing the core concept of economy of force. If some nipplehead at Creech/Indian Springs can take out a AQ operative with a drone strike vs. storming a bunker and losing a bunch of 19 year olds in the process, I say score 1 for the good guys.
Keep in mind that I am 1) A very liberal cat and 2) A 20 year + veteran of the armed services.

Well, lets keep in mind that in the combat/pill box scenario, the fact that there might be someone with a US citizenship fighting back probably is an unknown. He dies in open combat thats one thing, because hes 1. not specifically targeted, and 2. most likely no one knew he was there. When you take your fancy gizmo RC plane and go actively hunt/execute someone you know is a citizen, no matter how horrible, without due process, you might as well toss the constitution IMO. Like silver says, the next step is President Bristol Palin using a drone to zap your ass in the Walmart parking lot because you called her mom a moron on teh interwebz. Slippery slope and all that.

IMHO, stooping to such steps, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, the patriot act, extra judicial executions, water boarding etc, etc, etc, means we've lost the war of ideas, and morals. Instead of convincing the "axis of evil" that they should be more like us, we have resorted to being more like them.

We've entered what I feel like is the first stages of some sort of Orwellian police state nightmare. Civil rights be damned, somewhere out there is a bogey man, you want to be safe don't you?!?!?

BOO!

 

[dante]

Well, lets keep in mind that in the combat/pill box scenario, the fact that there might be someone with a US citizenship fighting back probably is an unknown. He dies in open combat thats one thing, because hes 1. not specifically targeted, and 2. most likely no one knew he was there. When you take your fancy gizmo RC plane and go actively hunt/execute someone you know is a citizen, no matter how horrible, without due process, you might as well toss the constitution IMO. Like silver says, the next step is President Bristol Palin using a drone to zap your ass in the Walmart parking lot because you called her mom a moron on teh interwebz. Slippery slope and all that.

IMHO, stooping to such steps, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, the patriot act, extra judicial executions, water boarding etc, etc, etc, means we've lost the war of ideas, and morals. Instead of convincing the "axis of evil" that they should be more like us, we have resorted to being more like them.

We've entered what I feel like is the first stages of some sort of Orwellian police state nightmare. Civil rights be damned, somewhere out there is a bogey man, you want to be safe don't you?!?!?

BOO!

Uhhh, no. US citizens are protected under the US Constitution until they take up arms in a foreign country against the United States. Then they are protected by (or dealt with by actions under) the Geneva Convention. As long as you haven't declared war on Americans/America, you're perfectly safe from drone strikes in the Walmart parking lot. Furthermore, enemy combatants overseas are dealt with through military tribunals as opposed to US law. When those people are brought to or captured on US soil, they go through the US court system instead (see: Richard Reid).

Sorry, it's pretty cut and dry, and there isn't a slippery slope. It's only when you start to claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply because of things such as "they're not wearing a uniform", or "we never declared war against them", or any of the other right-wing BS that the former administration used to justify torture that you have your "slippery slope".

 

[Pesqueeb]

Uhhh, no. US citizens are protected under the US Constitution until they take up arms in a foreign country against the United States. Then they are protected by (or dealt with by actions under) the Geneva Convention. As long as you haven't declared war on Americans/America, you're perfectly safe from drone strikes in the Walmart parking lot. Furthermore, enemy combatants overseas are dealt with through military tribunals as opposed to US law. When those people are brought to or captured on US soil, they go through the US court system instead (see: Richard Reid).

Sorry, it's pretty cut and dry, and there isn't a slippery slope. It's only when you start to claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply because of things such as "they're not wearing a uniform", or "we never declared war against them", or any of the other right-wing BS that the former administration used to justify torture that you have your "slippery slope".

Geneva Convention? You mean the one we've been violating for at least the last 10 years? The military Tribunals where defendants are never charged with anything, held for FSM knows how long, and not given access to the "evidence" being used against them? Brought to the US? As opposed to just up and vanishing only to wind up in Gitmo (if they are lucky) or Eygpt or Yemen where some "contractor" shoves a broom handle up their ass?

 

[dante]

Well, aside from the fact that none of those things have anything to do with the drone strikes being discussed, I'll respond anyway:

Geneva Convention? You mean the one we've been violating for at least the last 10 years? Obama's only been president for 3 of those.
The military Tribunals where defendants are never charged with anything, held for FSM knows how long, and not given access to the "evidence" being used against them? Discussed in post #16

Brought to the US? As opposed to just up and vanishing only to wind up in Gitmo (if they are lucky) or Eygpt or Yemen where some "contractor" shoves a broom handle up their ass? Proof that this is still going on, or are you just conflating Obama with Bush again?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well, aside from the fact that none of those things have anything to do with the drone strikes being discussed, I'll respond anyway:

The point I'm making is that we've been selling our souls for a long time. That doesn't make it okay to continue down the path. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the argument that Shrub did xxxxxx so that makes it okay for Obama to do xxxxx. Especially when the promise/implication of an Obama presidency was to not be a third Bush term and a continued wallowing in moral relevancy.

 

[dante]

I'll ask it again:

Proof that this is still going on, or are you just conflating Obama with Bush again?

Do you have proof that the worst offenses that occurred under the Bush administration are still occurring under Obama? I'm talking torture, diverting suspects to Yemen/Egypt/etc to avoid US law, etc? Because all I've seen in this thread is that we disagree whether drone strikes are kosher or not, Congress has blocked Obama from closing Gitmo/charging suspects in federal courts, and you are claiming that Obama is still continuing in some of the worst offenses of the Bush years....

 

[Pesqueeb]

U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight - NYTimes.com

But I'm sure all the bad stuff is being closely monitored and regulated. You know, just like banking, foreclosure processing, coal mining, and deep water drilling.

*edit: and to be clear, I'm not placing all of this on Obama solely, my greater issue is the entire moral bankruptcy of this country as a whole. Its simplistic to pin it on one person entirely.

 

[dante]

Let's see, from the article you posted:

In January, the president ordered secret prisons run by the C.I.A. to be shut down.

...unlike the Bush administration, they would operate more openly and give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

...no detainees would be sent to countries known to conduct abusive interrogations.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said the new interrogation policy represented a significant step toward more humane treatment, though he expressed dismay that administration officials failed to impose stricter limits on rendition.

But he praised the Obama administration’s overall approach to difficult counterterrorism issues, saying the government had adopted “some of the most transparent rules against abuse of any democratic country.”

Riiiiiiight, Obama's just like Bush....

 

[Pesqueeb]

Riiiiiiight, Obama's just like Bush....

Do you really believe that were capturing/kidnapping people in order to send them to other countries and nothing shady happens?

Less bad then Bush /= Chocolate Jeebus. I still take issue with the way this administration behaves in regards to human and civil rights if were still pretending like the constitution is more than toilet paper.

 

[RaindogT]

--- Not to mention that the article is over 2 years old. You would have a valid point if this was discussed 2 years ago-- But as of right now, it looks to me like the article is laying out the way things are going to be.

I haven't read a whole lot today that says that the points of this article have been discarded.

From the get-go, Obama has left the door open to 'more aggressive' counter terror approaches-- as the need arises. (IMHO-- just lip service to try and counter all of the 'He's soft on terror' BS)-- but has yet to deviate from Geneva Conventions.

I am not entirely pleased with his approach to human/ civil rights-- but I also wear my own tin foil-- and attribute many of the lacking aspects to be in the name of bi-partisan-ism. He HAS to leave many of the Bush policies in place to appease the fearful.

 

[stevew]

Do you really believe that were capturing/kidnapping people in order to send them to other countries and nothing shady happens?

Less bad then Bush /= Chocolate Jeebus. I still take issue with the way this administration behaves in regards to human and civil rights if were still pretending like the constitution is more than toilet paper.

dante...you're either with him or against him.

 

[Pesqueeb]

--- Not to mention that the article is over 2 years old. You would have a valid point if this was discussed 2 years ago-- But as of right now, it looks to me like the article is laying out the way things are going to be.

I haven't read a whole lot today that says that the points of this article have been discarded.

From the get-go, Obama has left the door open to 'more aggressive' counter terror approaches-- as the need arises. (IMHO-- just lip service to try and counter all of the 'He's soft on terror' BS)-- but has yet to deviate from Geneva Conventions.

I am not entirely pleased with his approach to human/ civil rights-- but I also wear my own tin foil-- and attribute many of the lacking aspects to be in the name of bi-partisan-ism. He HAS to leave many of the Bush policies in place to appease the fearful.

Like I said. Never mind the encroaching Orwellian police state and the erosion of personal freedom, something wicked this way comes and you should be very afraid.

I know its over two years old. The point, was that moral relevancy continues unabashed.

 

[Pesqueeb]

*Cough*


Passed last night 93-7. I'll hold my breath.

 

[?????]

Obama approved of the execution without trial of Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaida’s YouTube preacher, based entirely on the unproven assertion that Awlaki was dangerous. Awlaki was an American citizen. So Obama thinks he has the right to kill Americans the government says are terrorists, but he doesn’t want the military to lock them up forever without trial. OK then.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), tried to persuade skeptics that the bill wasn’t so bad. His pitch? “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” he said on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill would just let the government detain a citizen in military custody, not force it to do that. Reassured yet?

Civil libertarians aren’t. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it “denigrates the very foundations of this country.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “it puts every single American citizen at risk.”

but... Rand Paul is the bad guy, right?

 

[Pesqueeb]

A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
- George Orwell

 

[Pesqueeb]

20 Ways the Obama Administration Has Intruded on Your Rights | Civil Liberties | AlterNet

 

[dante]

Yup, that article was about as biased and meaningless as I would have expected from "alternet"... Blaming Obama because there are prisoners in Solitary Confinement in prisons across the country? Really?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well by all means dismiss the entire article then.

 

[dante]

Way ahead of you there, buddy...

 

[Pesqueeb]

Did I say Veto? My bad.

In order to satisfy the administration and other opponents’ concerns, the final legislation states that nothing in it may be “construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” The Supreme Court has said U.S. citizens can be held by the military as enemy combatants, but the law is unclear on whether that includes those captured inside the United States and the issue is hotly disputed.
Obama’s decision to drop the veto threat disappointed and angered civil-liberties and human rights groups who had been urging him to block the legislation. Amnesty International’s Tom Parker said the bill “enshrines the war paradigm that has eroded the United States’ human rights record and served it so poorly over the past decade as the country’s primary counterterrorism tool,” adding that the president “has abandoned yet another principled position with little or nothing to show for it.”

 

[dante]

Did I say Veto? My bad.

In order to satisfy the administration and other opponents’ concerns, the final legislation states that nothing in it may be “construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little...

 

[Pesqueeb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html?ref=homepage

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story

 

[Pesqueeb]

Walking a fine line IMHO.

HONOLULU — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

In response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned this past week that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf waterway. U.S. officials say that while they take all threats from Iran seriously, they view this latest warning as little more than saber rattling because disrupting the waterway would harm Iran's economy.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html

 

[dante]

Oh man, here's another example of Obama being *literally* exactly like Bush Jr... Except instead of using the recess appointment to pick a conservative right-wing asshole who hated the UN to be our UN representative, he used a recess appointment to pick Corday as head of Consumer Protection Bureau.

Damn Obama, sticking up for the little guy and bypassing Republican obstructionism...

 

[rockofullr]

Yeah I loled when I saw that one.

 

[dante]

Apparently the US Chamber of Commerce is thinking about taking it to court. I can only hope and PRAY that they do so, since a nice long protracted legal battle highlighting Republican obstructionism and anti-consumer protection should coalesce nicely with Obama's reelection campaign.

 

[zdubyadubya]

wait a minute.... i thought he was a socialist?

Romney calls Obama more names that don't make sense

best way to highlight your tenuous grasp of the english language? use terms that you REALLY have no clue what they mean...

 

[rockofullr]

He's a capitalist, socialist, fascist, Nazi!

I hate that guy, and you should too.

 

[Pesqueeb]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/three-lessons-obama-drone-lies