Submitted without comment, for now, except to say that this ain't coming from Fox:

Quote
In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism.  At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list.  The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.

Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield.  I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind.  I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

edited to comply with quoting guidelines

So, are you supporting the terrorists now?  What was it Bush said, if your not with us....

P.S.  Weren't those laws passed by Republicans?  Yeah, thought so.  Where were you when all my left wing friends were decrying that stuff.  Oh yeah, thought so again.

A lot of assumptions you make there since I wasn't even posting here at the time.

As for when the "laws were passed" - these are not laws, they are EO's and policies that - according to the article - Bush never enacted or implemented.

Given that bush never did this, how is it that your left wing friends were decrying it?

Of course, the more relevant question is - where are they now when this needs decrying?

Funny how you managed to (predictably) work in a reply in which you managed to rip on Bush and yet not whisper a word of disapproval of the actions being described.

The irony that you think you are catching me in hypocrisy while displaying your own in bright neon colors is rich.

In any case, I'll refrain from being drawn further into a spitting match. I'd suggest the issue here is more important than that.

Assassination should never be the preferred action.  This is not just for a US citizen (which is what the article focuses on), but for anyone.  That said, if you are in a situation facing resistance, you may have no choice but to kill the person... and in a de facto sense, this person may just as well be off the list as on.  But still, the use of violence must remain conditional on the situation.

The ultimate flaw of the article is that it makes this authorization seem exceptional.  It isn't.  What Bush and Obama have done is merely extend to US citizens what the government has already been willing to do to Nigerians, Britons, and anyone else in the world.  They have shown a lack of mercy, but there is equal opportunity in that lack of mercy.  It is an arrogant attitude to think we US citizens are more deserving of due process than non-US citizens.

I dont think that the constitution is worth the ink it took to make the document. It has been trampled on and it is a flawed document that should have been tossed out soon after it wasd drafted. Every generation should have the right to write its own constitution.
As to the president being able to get you shot, so?....The only diferance with Obama is that he is being dumb enough to talk about it and write orders. They should keep it like they ussed to, on the sly and nice and quite.

QuoteThat said, if you are in a situation facing resistance, you may have no choice but to kill the person... and in a de facto sense, this person may just as well be off the list as on.  But still, the use of violence must remain conditional on the situation.

The world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.  Would justice be to reduce the Americans? Or since Americans have better weapons let them reduce the rest of the overpopulation?

---

Post Merge: April 08, 2010, 02:14:17 PM

---

"Every generation should have the right to write its own constitution. "
=============
If the majority wants it can have a Constitutional convention any time it wants.  The problems being no body today is any smarter than the founding fathers. But then education leaves a lot to be desired today.

Quote
The ultimate flaw of the article is that it makes this authorization seem exceptional.  It isn't.  What Bush and Obama have done is merely extend to US citizens what the government has already been willing to do to Nigerians, Britons, and anyone else in the world.  They have shown a lack of mercy, but there is equal opportunity in that lack of mercy.  It is an arrogant attitude to think we US citizens are more deserving of due process than non-US citizens.

Rather, it's simply a matter of the nature of our system of government. The first thing those who founded our country did was specify what the government may NOT do to it's citizens. It's a foundational principle of your government - protecting the citizen from the government.

There's no practical way to extend constitutional protections to those who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. (or heck, even illegal residents in almost every instance)

To say that it is hubris or arrogance to differentiate between Americans and non-Americans under the law is just silly. It's not about who "deserves" constitutional protections, it's about whether it's practically possible to apply them universally.

It's not. A reasonable distinction must be made.

What the old court room saying?  Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law?  Pretty much that. 

Obama is wrong in continuing these wars, not quite as wrong as Bush was in starting them, but if he keeps it up, he'll be joining Bush/Cheney there in hell.  I walked in every protest we had in SF against these overseas adventures.  That's part of my history going back to marching against the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War, nuclear weapons testing, and the intervention in Central America.  I'm pretty much anti-war no matter who is involved, no matter who is president.

So, to get this out of the way to begin with I'm sure that when Bush did it and he was being strong on national defense, and if Obama does it he's assassinating American citizens. And, if  Bush doesn't do it he's being fair to American citizens. Of Obama doesn't do it, he's soft on terror.  WTF? Doesn't constantly being inconsistent on your viewpoint get annoying after awhile?

But, it might be nice if you were at least right on the facts.  So, just to start with....Isn't it the president's job to make these kinds of decisions? Whether you like it or not, Congress made this legal back in 2001 as part of the PATRIOT Act (which I opposed, and still oppose).  I told my more conservative friends that they would rue the day they gave away this kind of power, because the people in power would change.  But they were still stroking themselves over their 'Permanent Republican Majority' wet dream and didn't listen.  So I ask, "How's that working out for you now, giving the executive so much power?"


Now first of all a) it's not an assassination deal, it's not a hit per se, it's a "capture or kill" order, not a "just kill him" order. I'm being consistent here. I'll criticize Obama all day long for Gitmo still being open. I'm not going to criticize him for authorizing US forces to go after a man actively involved in attacking the US.  I'm not going to do that because I don't think there is anything intrinsically immoral about an assassination, so long as the target is a brutal war criminal whose capture and trial would be likely to effect the deaths of many innocents at the hands of sympathizers attempting to blackmail and terrorize the public into releasing him.  Are you now so upset with Obama that you are taking the side of people who profess to want to destroy this country?  Has your hate and parinoria brought you to side with al-Qaeda at long last.  That as long as they hate Obama they can't be all bad?  Have you finally gone that far?

And, since he's linked with these dudes:Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec.25 it might be that the intel on him was correct.  As long as the information is accurate (and I haven't forgotten the 'slam dunk' that got us into Iraq) then sometimes people need killin' before they kill us.  This guy seems to be conclusively a dangerous target, and actively engaged in plotting the killing of Americans. I would prefer a lawful arrest, and would much rather catch this guy and put him on trial than just put a bullet through his skull - still, if you mess with the bull, you do get the horns..

Tell you what. If he surrenders peacefully, we'll give him a trial. If they manage to capture him, he gets a trial. If he is in our custody, then he does deserve a fair trial. If he is indeed engaged with US forces on the battlefield, then he fits the definition of an imminent threat and needs to be taken out.  So, if this guy is a conclusively a dangerous target, and actively engaged in plotting the killing of Americans. I would prefer a lawful arrest, but if he gets taken out, fark it, let it be.

This case would be interesting to think deeply about if the guy was simply a terrorist sympathizer but did not actively take part in the terrorist's activities. But it seems like he is, and even if he's not, we'd probably never know that, or we would find out about it 20 years from now when the records would be unsealed. So far, we've not seen any evidence to point out that he's simply a terrorist sympathizer but does not advocate terrorism. And I also have a hard time believing that the Obama administration would bother with targeting an American citizen if he wasn't a real threat. They seem to have their hands full with actual threats, so why would they go after this guy? But of course, the "black helicopter watchers" of the right believe that Obama is making secret FEMA death camps, so Obama targeting this guy because Obama is pure evil is perfectly understandable.

As a standard test of the ability to judge reality realistically, don't go being some anti-US religious fanatic in Yemen when the US is all warmongering. Your ass might just get blown off, no matter who is President..

As for the law...

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

I think homeboy meets the criteria, and while I don't like the fact that we've targeted an American citizen, but he definitely falls within the scope of the accepted process that we use for dealing with imminent terrorist threats.  I think it's unseemly, but if this guy was privateering for England, I have no doubt James Madison would have had no problem letting the navy fire on his frigate, if you know what I mean..


And, according to the law, he might not even be an American anymore...

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481),(which I'm sure you are familier with) as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

So yeah for Laura, and keep on with your fellow conservatives sticking up for the "rights" of a terrorist who wants to kill Americans. I'm sure that'll play well with your base come election time.

QuoteSo, to get this out of the way to begin with I'm sure that when Bush did it and he was being strong on national defense, and if Obama does it he's assassinating American citizens. And, if  Bush doesn't do it he's being fair to American citizens. Of Obama doesn't do it, he's soft on terror.  WTF? Doesn't constantly being inconsistent on your viewpoint get annoying after awhile?

Now i know why you are so arrogant.

It's easy to win every argument when you get to ascribe your opponent's position to them.

A bunch of silly inconsistencies makes people interesting, but inconsistency in values just makes them dangerous.

Why would Obama assassinate al-Awlaki?  I thought he(Obama) was a muslim communist terrorist who hated America?

Jeez.  Why can't the right wing get their stories straight. 

I think Obama is a lot like LBJ.  Similar pragmatist who wants to do something grand and transformative to the country that won't be appreciated in his prime.  Similar in that he's escalating a two wars that we shouldn't even be in because he lacks the political capitol to pull us out of the wars, and still accomplish the social changes he wants.

I'm also surprised to see the right refer to Al Awaki as a US citizen and not a terrorist given the connections he's had to pretty much every major terrorist attack we've had in the past 10 years.  I don't think anyone should be assassinated, but I find all of the inconsistencies in these arguements very frustrating to navigate.

I don't think we should be assassinating anyone whether they are American or not, and I find it offensive to make that distinction.  And I don't understand why the right is suddenly against assassinating someone who is actively working to kill Americans, given that it was 8 years of "bring them to me dead or alive" from Bush.  This is not ideaology we are discussing, this is politics dressed up in the skin of ideology.  There's nothing in the conservative position that has ever opposed such atrocities.

I guess this subject could also read "Obama authorizes the assassination of an Al Queda leader who was born in the US.

So, the right wing tore into the Obama administration as "Terrorist Sympathizers" because lawyers were given to some Gitmo detainees.

So, if we treat this Al Queda terrorist as a regular US Citizen will the right get super upset again?

I have mixed emotions about this whole situation. On the one hand it is a US citizen but on the other this is a leader in Al Queda who is actively recruiting terrorists to kill Americans. I can assure you, however, I would never make post about how terrible it is for this guy to be targeted by the Obama administration to be killed on site.

I don't think it's the fact that this is being done that bothers people, but that we're aware of it.  Just about everybody's passively aware that the US government routinely engages in this kind of action.

I'm not a right wing advocate, nor am I a left wing advocate because all radical views are by their nature based on omission of certain facts that don't fit their agenda.  I'm not even saying that I support this action, because I don't.  I'm just saying it's been going on forever, and people only care about when its explicitly brought to their attention.

Though I do think it's not as simple as a "right" or "wrong."  The military deals with complicated matters that go beyond what other fields do, the government deals with complicated self-contained issues too, as does the media, and so on.  It's the playing of these forces, sometimes with another and sometimes against each other that determines value.

The question should really be "Who are your sources?"  If the sources are verifiable, what are you going to do about it?  I'm Canadian, so nothing.  I have a funny feeling though, that in this day and age, the course of action isn't going to be "in depth investigative journalism carried out with honesty and integrity, with all of the relevant facts published in a responsible manner for mass consumption," or "social action based on these facts."

So, are your values personal safety no matter the cost?  Freedom no matter the cost?  Fair and balanced justice?  Arm chair liberalism?  Revenge?

With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

QuoteJeez.  Why can't the right wing get their stories straight. 

guess I missed the memo when Salon joined the vast right wing conspiracy.

Or maybe it's just easier to invoke the standard talking points ans to actually discuss something.

Congrats, ya'll - you verified my hypothesis.

You're always welcome to go on over to redstate.com or freerepublic and discuss your crossdressing with them, I'm sure they are hip to it.  They talk about it all the time.  They almost seem obsessed with it.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

I actually think about this a lot. Humanity will be redefined.

---

Post Merge: April 11, 2010, 07:51:45 AM

---

Quote from: tekla on April 10, 2010, 05:18:01 PM
You're always welcome to go on over to redstate.com or freerepublic and discuss your crossdressing with them, I'm sure they are hip to it.  They talk about it all the time.  They almost seem obsessed with it.

Redstate doesn't seem as openly transphobic but freerepublic? OMFG.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2471057/posts

QuoteThe world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.  Would justice be to reduce the Americans? Or since Americans have better weapons let them reduce the rest of the overpopulation?

There exists more alternatives to addressing the problems of overpopulation/resources than dealing with (alleged) violent criminals who are (alleged) to remain a serious threat.  Besides, overpopulation is more due to excessive reproduction in other countries (despite US population growing, women are reproducing below the replacement threshold)... although you can partly blame the likes of US missionaries who preach abstinence instead of teaching comprehensive sex education.

QuoteTo say that it is hubris or arrogance to differentiate between Americans and non-Americans under the law is just silly. It's not about who "deserves" constitutional protections, it's about whether it's practically possible to apply them universally.

I have not seen a convincing argument on this point.  Even on a practical level, we should be able to extend protections to citizens of any sufficiently-allied countries -- otherwise is a trivial matter for allied countries to do each other's dirty work to their respective citizens.

On the other side, I question whether such a specific protection is truly possible.  Even a born US citizen can transform themselves in such a way that they will be just as separated from the US as anyone from al Qaeda.  You can only get so far with a name, a DOB, and a social security number.

Quoteguess I missed the memo when Salon joined the vast right wing conspiracy.

Salon is not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 10, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
With 6.7 billion people on the planet life is cheap. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food. As long as the population keeps growing you have not even seen the beginnings of horror. We are now slaves and will be reduced to poor slaves in the future as long as we accept Government tyranny.

Actually, while government IS the problem - population is not. In the VAST majority of cases, when people suffer malnutrition and famine, it is because corrupt governments undermine the production and distribution of resources, not because there are not enough resources to go around.

---

Post Merge: April 24, 2010, 11:28:34 PM

---

Quote
Salon is not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.

I'd have to share your opinion of fox News to be impressed by that remark.

independent surveys do put Fox (speaking of news content here, not opinion) right of center, but much closer to the center than almost all of the major left of center outlets.

but it's all a matter of perspective.

If one is looking from a hard left position, Fox SEEMS far to the right just because the middle is so far to the right of where you stand.

But I don't want to get trapped into debating fox.

I'll only say that your point is a non-sequiter because Salon doesn't HAVE to be what Fox is or what Fox is perceived to be in order for my remakr that they are NOT a right of center source to be true.

Quote from: lisagurl on April 08, 2010, 02:11:39 PM
The world is overpopulated and Americans use more than their fair share of resources. 5000 children and 23000 adults die each day due to lack of clean water and food.

Finally I agree with you on something.

---

Post Merge: April 24, 2010, 09:59:59 PM

---

Laura, FOX is, in a very uniquely American way, hardcore right-wing; it's a terrible stinking witches' brew of John Birch Society-style conspiracy theoretics, Family Research Council-style "the gays are coming!" 'phobe rhetoric, cafeteria pop-libertarianism, NRA theatrics, "clash of civilizations"-type "the mozlems are coming!," militaristic pot-banging, anti-intellectualism, and on and on and on. Just because theyre not marching around in berets and jackboots does not make them "fair and balanced."

I don't mind educated libertarians and conservatives, and perhaps wouldn't mind a powerful network that was strongly biased towards thoughtful libertarian and conservative content: stories from a free market/neoliberal perspective, analysis by Francis Fukuyama, et cetera - a sort of Democracy Now for conservatives.

It's this sort of ridiculousness to which I object:


What kind of civil society can we really expect when one of the nation's most followed and watched political commentators not only spends all his time frothing at the mouth about Evil Communists (o noes, they're flouridatin' the drinkin' waterz!), but he can't even spell the word "oligarch" on national television.

Politics as a disconnected, discombobulated, illiterate spectacle of lip-chewing, eye-widening fear, an enormous frothing broth of paranoia shoveled into the willingly opened mouths of one of the largest audiences in the country - that's what FOX sells, and it concerns me enormously.