Author Topic: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.  (Read 2849 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2012, 08:14:05 AM »
Krauthammer: Obama Denounced Enhanced Interrogation; Now He's Judge, Jury And Executioner

there's a big difference between torture, which is against geneva...

and a president choosing which of the high valued targets - all universally accepted as guilty of terror acts - should be addressed first.

To put these very differing categories into one chum-filled swimming pool is beneath Krauthammer... I like his work but I'm a little disappointed there.  It's apples and oranges.  Comparing illegal techniques with legal techniques.  It's like saying rape is okay because TX executes murderers.   But I suppose some ignorant ppl will buy in...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2012, 08:16:28 AM »
there's a big difference between torture, which is against geneva...

and a president choosing which of the high valued targets - all universally accepted as guilty of terror acts - should be addressed first.

To put these very differing categories into one chum-filled swimming pool is beneath Krauthammer... I like his work but I'm a little disappointed there.  It's apples and oranges.  Comparing illegal techniques with legal techniques.  It's like saying rape is okay because TX executes murderers.   But I suppose some ignorant ppl will buy in...


LOL!!!!!! 

Your kneepadding has now reached new heights!!!

Pour water over someone - illegal

Kill them for being a suspected terrorist, or even being near one - legal.






240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2012, 08:28:50 AM »
No, I'm right here, 33.

We're killing guys that the US Govt has deemed terrorists.  It's legal.

We're waterboarding people in violation of Geneva - well, we were.  Not legal.

You can try to mix legal and moral if you want to - but really, we're an imperialist republic who manipulates every country on earth for resource and advantage - put in a tampon if you have an issue there.

but legally, waterboarding you can't do.  Assasinate terrorists, you can.  Weird, but that's how it is.

To me, this is just another example of the continued VICTIMHOOD of the right, of FOX news, of the ousted republican party who can't tell us theyre rinos or tea partiers.  But but but obama is killing bad guys and the left was mad when cheney waterboarded them.

Obama is legally killing a fckload of bad guys.  Cheney illegally tortured.  Take your summers eve and admit the libshit dem is going more to stop terrorism than the neocon crew that let 911 happen.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2012, 08:31:25 AM »
fuck off.   

You and the rest of the clown show will do anything to defend obama doing shit you people wanted bush imprisoned for. 



No, I'm right here, 33.

We're killing guys that the US Govt has deemed terrorists.  It's legal.

We're waterboarding people in violation of Geneva - well, we were.  Not legal.

You can try to mix legal and moral if you want to - but really, we're an imperialist republic who manipulates every country on earth for resource and advantage - put in a tampon if you have an issue there.

but legally, waterboarding you can't do.  Assasinate terrorists, you can.  Weird, but that's how it is.

To me, this is just another example of the continued VICTIMHOOD of the right, of FOX news, of the ousted republican party who can't tell us theyre rinos or tea partiers.  But but but obama is killing bad guys and the left was mad when cheney waterboarded them.

Obama is legally killing a fckload of bad guys.  Cheney illegally tortured.  Take your summers eve and admit the libshit dem is going more to stop terrorism than the neocon crew that let 911 happen.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2012, 08:34:57 AM »
fuck off. 
You and the rest of the clown show will do anything to defend obama doing shit you people wanted bush imprisoned for. 


it's legal to kill bad guys.
It's not legal to torture them.

It's the geneva convention, the law of the world, and repub and dem leaders alike have agreed to it.

Obama should be ousted to kenya because he's illegally president.  hilary should run against Romney/RandPaul in 2012 and america should start healing.

But really, repubs getting mad that obama is being involved in the selection of which terrorists are targeted first?   Shit, yall have your priorities all mixed up.   And tell mark levin that 90 minutes listening to al sharpton speeches might be great for riling up ratings, but does nothing to address the larger problems facing america.  he did the same thing yesterday - "why is there no outrage about what sharpton said about some of the right..."


he has one of the biggest voices to conservatives, and he's not talking about solutions to our problems - he's playing up the VICTIMHOOD.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2012, 08:38:20 AM »
Whatever - fuck off with your bullshit.  other than a few obamabots grasping at anything to prop up obama with, no one buys your lies any more. 



it's legal to kill bad guys.
It's not legal to torture them.

It's the geneva convention, the law of the world, and repub and dem leaders alike have agreed to it.

Obama should be ousted to kenya because he's illegally president.  hilary should run against Romney/RandPaul in 2012 and america should start healing.

But really, repubs getting mad that obama is being involved in the selection of which terrorists are targeted first?   Shit, yall have your priorities all mixed up.   And tell mark levin that 90 minutes listening to al sharpton speeches might be great for riling up ratings, but does nothing to address the larger problems facing america.  he did the same thing yesterday - "why is there no outrage about what sharpton said about some of the right..."


he has one of the biggest voices to conservatives, and he's not talking about solutions to our problems - he's playing up the VICTIMHOOD.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2012, 08:40:33 AM »
Whatever - fuck off with your bullshit.  other than a few obamabots grasping at anything to prop up obama with, no one buys your lies any more. 

What am I lying about there?   

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2012, 08:45:21 AM »
Some of these posters have no clue as to what this means.

Obama took the moral high ground against interrogation tactics, yet he is killing every terrorists that comes into view. How is it anymore moral to kill a person than to waterboard them? Obama and the left criticized the Bush administration for "torturing" those poor terrorists. But, Obama is killing them. It seems that they are doing that in order to prevent interrogating them or sticking them in Guantanamo. This is utter hypocrisy.

Krauthammer is right. Obama lost the moral high ground on this issue.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2012, 08:54:32 AM »
Some of these posters have no clue as to what this means.

Obama took the moral high ground against interrogation tactics, yet he is killing every terrorists that comes into view. How is it anymore moral to kill a person than to waterboard them? Obama and the left criticized the Bush administration for "torturing" those poor terrorists. But, Obama is killing them. It seems that they are doing that in order to prevent interrogating them or sticking them in Guantanamo. This is utter hypocrisy.

Krauthammer is right. Obama lost the moral high ground on this issue.

this whole argument - isn't about repubs being mad about the killing of bad guys..

only that He has lost his 2008 ability to criticize?  That's the issue? 

I've yet to hear any repubs, including krauthammer, complaining about all the dead bad guys.  Only thing they're mad about is "but obama was mean to cheney and now he's doing the same thing... morral high ground, moral high ground!"

Theyre gonna have to be a little tougher if they want his job.  What's romney's campaign going to be?  "I wont change a thing about obama's military approach - but he doesn't have the moral high ground, nah nah nah..."

weak shit right there.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2012, 08:57:33 AM »
STFU troll.   Its about Obama and the hypocritical leftists like yourself who attacked bush daily, marched in the streets, wanted cheney and bush in jail for 7 years, and now are cheering on your lord messiah and savior when he does exactly thwe same thing. 




this whole argument - isn't about repubs being mad about the killing of bad guys..

only that He has lost his 2008 ability to criticize?  That's the issue? 

I've yet to hear any repubs, including krauthammer, complaining about all the dead bad guys.  Only thing they're mad about is "but obama was mean to cheney and now he's doing the same thing... morral high ground, moral high ground!"

Theyre gonna have to be a little tougher if they want his job.  What's romney's campaign going to be?  "I wont change a thing about obama's military approach - but he doesn't have the moral high ground, nah nah nah..."

weak shit right there.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2012, 08:58:45 AM »
STFU troll.   Its about Obama and the hypocritical leftists like yourself who attacked bush daily, marched in the streets, wanted cheney and bush in jail for 7 years, and now are cheering on your lord messiah and savior when he does exactly thwe same thing. 

make the election about hypocritical leftists - I'm sure that'll play great with moderate soccer moms you need to win the white house.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2012, 09:00:55 AM »
make the election about hypocritical leftists - I'm sure that'll play great with moderate soccer moms you need to win the white house.

 ::)  ::)


whatever - you can't even bring yourself to admit you and the rest of the obamabots cheering obama for doing exactly the same shit bush did are a bunch of hypocrites and liars. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2012, 07:54:03 AM »
In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda
By Sudarsan Raghavan, Published: May 29
Aden, Yemen — Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.

After recent U.S. missile strikes, mostly from unmanned aircraft, the Yemeni government and the United States have reported that the attacks killed only suspected al-Qaeda members. But civilians have also died in the attacks, said tribal leaders, victims’ relatives and human rights activists.

“These attacks are making people say, ‘We believe now that al-Qaeda is on the right side,’ ” said businessman Salim al-Barakani, adding that his two brothers — one a teacher, the other a cellphone repairman — were killed in a U.S. strike in March.

Since January, as many as 21 missile attacks have targeted suspected al-Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen, reflecting a sharp shift in a secret war carried out by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command that had focused on Pakistan.

But as in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where U.S. drone strikes have significantly weakened al-Qaeda’s capabilities, an unintended consequence of the attacks has been a marked radicalization of the local population.

The evidence of radicalization emerged in more than 20 interviews with tribal leaders, victims’ relatives, human rights activists and officials from four provinces in southern Yemen where U.S. strikes have targeted suspected militants. They described a strong shift in sentiment toward militants affiliated with the transnational network’s most active wing, al-Qaeda in the ­Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

“The drone strikes have not helped either the United States or Yemen,” said Sultan al-Barakani, who was a top adviser to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. “Yemen is paying a heavy price, losing its sons. But the Americans are not paying the same price.”

In 2009, when President Obama was first known to have authorized a missile strike on Yemen, U.S. officials said there were no more than 300 core AQAP members. That number has grown in recent years to 700 or more, Yemeni officials and tribal leaders say. In addition, hundreds of tribesmen have joined AQAP in the fight against the U.S.-backed Yemeni government.

As AQAP’s numbers and capabilities have grown, so has its reach and determination. That was reflected in a suicide bombing last week in the capital, Sanaa, that killed more than 100 people, mostly Yemeni soldiers.

On their Web sites, on their Facebook pages and in their videos, militants who had been focused on their fight against the Yemeni government now portray the war in the south as a jihad against the United States, which could attract more recruits and financing from across the Muslim world. Yemeni tribal Web sites are filled with al-Qaeda propaganda, including some that brag about killing Americans.

“Every time the American attacks increase, they increase the rage of the Yemeni people, especially in al-Qaeda-controlled areas,” said Mohammed al-Ahmadi, legal coordinator for Karama, a local human rights group. “The drones are killing al-Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning them into heroes.”

An escalated campaign

Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, has publicly defended the use of drone strikes, arguing that their precision allows the United States to limit civilian casualties and lessen risks for U.S. military personnel. The decision to fire a missile from a drone, he said, is taken with “extraordinary care and thoughtfulness.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said the administration’s counter­terrorism strategy in Yemen is “guided by the view that we must do what is necessary to disrupt AQAP plots against U.S. interests” and to help the Yemeni government build up its capabilities to fight AQAP.

“While AQAP has grown in strength over the last year, many of its supporters are tribal militants or part-time supporters who collaborate with AQAP for self-serving, personal interests rather than affinity with al-Qaeda’s global ideology,” Vietor said. “The portion of hard-core, committed AQAP members is relatively small.”

The dramatic escalation in drone strikes in Yemen followed foiled plots by AQAP to bomb a U.S. airliner headed to Detroit in 2009 and to send parcel bombs via cargo planes to Chicago the following year. In April, Saudi intelligence agents helped foil an AQAP plot to plant a suicide bomber on a U.S.-bound plane.

On May 6, a U.S. drone strike killed Fahd al-Quso, a senior al-Qaeda leader who was on the FBI’s most-wanted list for his role in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden, an attack that killed 17 American sailors. The drone strike in Shabwa province also killed a second man, whom U.S. and Yemeni officials described as another al-Qaeda militant.

But according to his relatives, the man was a 19-year-old named Nasser Salim who was tending to his farm when Quso arrived in his vehicle. Quso knew Salim’s family and was greeting him when the missiles landed.

“He was torn to pieces,” said Salim’s uncle, Abu Baker Aidaroos, 30, a Yemeni soldier. “He was not part of al-Qaeda. But by America’s standards, just because he knew Fahd al-Quso, he deserved to die with him.”

Out of anger, Aidaroos said, he left his unit in Abyan province, the nexus of the fight against the militants. Today, instead of fighting al-Qaeda, he sympathizes with the group — not out of support for its ideology, he insists, but out of hatred for the United States.

‘More hostility’ toward U.S.

The U.S. strikes, tribal leaders and Yemeni officials say, are also angering powerful tribes that could prevent AQAP from gaining strength. The group has seized control of large swaths of southern Yemen in the past year, while the government has had to counter growing perceptions that it is no more than an American puppet.

“There is more hostility against America because the attacks have not stopped al-Qaeda, but rather they have expanded, and the tribes feel this is a violation of the country’s sovereignty,” said Anssaf Ali Mayo, Aden head of al-Islah, Yemen’s most influential Islamist party, which is now part of the coalition government. “There is a psychological acceptance of al-Qaeda because of the U.S. strikes.”

Quso and Salim are from the Awlak tribe, one of the most influential in southern Yemen. So was Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American preacher who was thought to be a senior AQAP leader and was killed in September by a U.S. strike. The following month, another U.S. strike killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, also an American citizen, generating outrage across Yemen.

Awlak tribesmen are businessmen, lawmakers and politicians. But the strikes have pushed more of them to join the militants or to provide AQAP with safe haven in their areas, said tribal leaders and Yemeni officials.

“The Americans are targeting the sons of the Awlak,” Aidaroos said. “I would fight even the devil to exact revenge for my nephew.”

In early March, U.S. missiles struck in Bayda province, 100 miles south of Sanaa, killing at least 30 suspected militants, according to Yemeni security officials. But in interviews, human rights activists and victims’ relatives said many of the dead were civilians, not fighters.

Villagers were too afraid to go to the area. Al-Qaeda militants took advantage and offered to bury the villagers’ relatives. “That made people even more grateful and appreciative of al-Qaeda,” said Barakani, the businessman. “Afterwards, al-Qaeda told the people, ‘We will take revenge on your behalf.’ ”

In asserting responsibility for last week’s bombing in Sanaa, Ansar al-Sharia — the name by which AQAP goes in southern Yemen — declared that the attack was revenge for what it called the U.S. war on its followers.

The previous week, al-Qaeda’s supreme leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video portraying Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who took office in February and vowed to fight AQAP, as an “agent” of the United States.

In some cases, U.S. strikes have forced civilians to flee their homes and have destroyed homes and farmland. Balweed Muhammed Nasser Awad, 57, said he and his family fled the city of Jaar last summer after his son, a fisherman, was killed in a U.S. strike targeting suspected al-Qaeda militants. Today, they live in a classroom in an Aden school, along with hundreds of other refugees from the conflict.

“Ansar al-Sharia had nothing to do with my son’s death. He was killed by the Americans,” Awad said. “He had nothing to do with terrorism. Why him?”

No Yemeni has forgotten the U.S. cruise missile strike in the remote tribal region of al-Majala on Dec. 17, 2009 — the Obama administration’s first known missile strike inside Yemen. The attack killed dozens, including 14 women and 21 children, and whipped up rage at the United States.

Today, the area is a haven for militants, said Abdelaziz Muhammed Hamza, head of the Revolutionary Council in Abyan province, a group that is fighting AQAP. “All the residents of the area have joined al-Qaeda,” he said.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2012, 07:22:51 AM »
U.S. Labels ALL Young Men In Battle Zones As “Militants” … And American Soil Is Now Considered a Battle Zone
Submitted by George Washington on 05/31/2012 21:20 -0400




Preface: If this is too intense for you, look at this instead.

Glenn Greenwald has two must-read posts on the reason that virtually everyone the U.S. kills is called a “militant” or “suspected militant”.

He wrote Monday:

 

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in headlines that the dead were ”militants” – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed “officials” claiming that the dead were “militants.” It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.

 

This practice continues even though key Obama officials have been caught lying, a term used advisedly, about how many civilians they’re killing. I’ve written and said many times before that in American media discourse, the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates (that term was even used when Anwar Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen two weeks after a drone killed his father, even though nobody claims the teenager was anything but completely innocent: “Another U.S. Drone Strike Kills Militants in Yemen”).

 

This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:

 

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

 

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

 

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

 

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

 

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

The next day, Greenwald noted:


In 2006, the pro-Israel activist Alan Dershowitz created a serious scandal when he argued – mostly in order to justify Israeli aggression — that “civilian causalties” are a “gray area” because many people in close proximity to Terrorists — even if not Terrorists themselves — are less than innocent (“A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: ‘the continuum of civilianality’ . . . . Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others”).

 

Even more repellent was John Podhoretz’s argument in 2006 that “the tactical mistake” which “we made in Iraq was that we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” specifically that the real error was that the U.S. permitted “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” In other words, “all military-age males” in Sunni areas should have been deemed “combatants” and thus killed. Podhoretz’s argument created all sorts of outrage in progressive circles: John Podhoretz is advocating genocide!

 

But this is precisely the premise that President Obama himself has now adopted in order to justify civilian deaths and re-classify them as “militants.” Here is the rationale of Obama officials as described by the NYT: “people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.” Probably up to no good. That’s a direct replica of Dershowitz’s argument, and is closely related to Podhoretz’s. They count someone as a “militant” — worthy of death — based purely on the happenstance of where they are and the proximity they’re in to someone else they suspect is a Bad Person. If such a person is killed by a U.S. missile, then, by definition, they are “militants,” not “civilians” — even if we don’t know the first thing about them, including their name.

Will This Policy Apply to Americans On U.S. Soil?
This may sound like something far away which won’t directly affect Americans.

But the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield.  As we noted in March:


Fox News reports:


FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “[criteria] for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.

 

***

 

“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting

 

Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”

 

“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.

Indeed, Holder’s Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley writes:


One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

 

***

 

He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”

 

***

 

The claim that they are following self-imposed “limits” which are meaningless — particularly in a system that is premised on the availability of judicial review. The Administration has never said that the [Law Of Armed Conflicts] does not allow the same powers to be used in the United States. It would be an easy thing to state. Holder can affirmatively state that the President’s inherent power to kill citizens exists only outside of the country. He can then explain where those limits are found in the Constitution and why they do not apply equally to a citizen in London or Berlin. Holder was not describing a constitutional process of review. They have dressed up a self-imposed review of a unilateral power as due process. Any authoritarian measure can be dressed up as carefully executed according to balancing tests, but that does not constitute any real constitutional analysis. It is at best a loose analogy to constitutional analysis.

 

When reporters asked the Justice Department about Mueller’s apparent uncertainty, they responded that the answer is “pretty straightforward.” They then offered an evasive response. They simply said (as we all know) that “[t]he legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.” We got that from the use of the word “abroad.” However, the question is how this inherent authority is limited as it has been articulated by Holder and others. What is the limiting principle? If the President cannot order the killing of a citizen in the United States, Holder can simply say so (and inform the FBI Director who would likely be involved in such a killing). In doing so, he can then explain the source of that limitation and why it does not apply with citizens in places like London. What we have is a purely internal review that balances the practicality of arrest and the urgency of the matter in the view of the President. Since the panel is the extension of his authority, he can presumably disregard their recommendations or order a killing without their approval. Since the Administration has emphasized that the “battlefield” in this “war on terror” is not limited to a particular country, the assumption is that the President’s authority is commensurate with that threat or limitless theater of operation. Indeed, the Justice Department has repeatedly stated that the war is being fought in the United States as well as other nations.

 

Thus, Mueller’s uncertainty is understandable . . . and dangerous. The Framers created a system of objective due process in a system of checks and balances. Obama has introduced an undefined and self-imposed system of review ….

Before you assume that Mueller’s comments are being blown out of proportion, remember that it has been clear for some time that Obama has claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens within the U.S. As we pointed out in December:

 

I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.

 

This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.

 

***

 

Turley said [on C-Span]:


President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

 

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

 

You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

Remember, government officials have said that Americans can be targets in the war on terror.

And Northwestern University’s law school professor Joseph Margulies said:


Obama and Bush … both say we are in a war not confined to particular battlefield. … Both say we can target citizens without judicial oversight and that can happen anywhere in the world.

Indeed, the Army is already being deployed on U.S. soil, and the military is conducting numerous training exercises on American streets. And see this.

And the numerous drones flying over American soil – projected by the FAA to reach 30,000 drones by 2020 – are starting to carry arms.

Remember, the Department of Justice attorney who wrote the memo "justifying" torture - John Yoo - also recently said that drones could be used against Americans living on U.S. soil in time of war:



Of course, America has been in a continuous declared state of national emergency since 9/11, and we are in a literally never-ending state of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.

And the government has basically announced that it can label any American citizen a terrorist for no reason whatsoever.

So if a military-age man is killed in a U.S. city because he happens – even unknowingly – to be near a suspected bad guy, will the report simply read “another militant killed”?

Average:
4.923075

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2012, 09:18:41 AM »
::)  ::)


whatever - you can't even bring yourself to admit you and the rest of the obamabots cheering obama for doing exactly the same shit bush did are a bunch of hypocrites and liars. 

Something so simple just went right over their heads.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2012, 09:32:48 AM »

LOL - LBJ and Hitler ring a bell how well that worked out? 

I don't get it... LBJ went to the South Pacific... What did he have to do with Hitler?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2012, 09:38:57 AM »
I don't get it... LBJ went to the South Pacific... What did he have to do with Hitler?

LBj and hitler both got involved in day to day minutea of the wars. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2012, 09:41:50 AM »
LBj and hitler both got involved in day to day minutea of the wars. 

Ah... I see... I have no first hand knowledge of this with LBJ. I don't know enough about his day to day operational involvement in Vietnam and what not.

Hitler being involved militarily was only a problem because he had to fight a 2 front war... Ridiculous.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2012, 09:44:18 AM »
Ah... I see... I have no first hand knowledge of this with LBJ. I don't know enough about his day to day operational involvement in Vietnam and what not.

Hitler being involved militarily was only a problem because he had to fight a 2 front war... Ridiculous.



They said LBJ actually decided of certain bombing raids out of the WH and went over all the maps, etc.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2012, 05:50:28 AM »
Drone strikes are not nearly as surgical or efficient as they want you to believe.

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2012, 11:08:34 AM »
Drone strikes are not nearly as surgical or efficient as they want you to believe.


It's all relative.

Kind of hard to be surgical when using several hundred or even thousands of pounds of high explosive.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2012, 12:56:44 PM »
Bam-bo shoots off his mouth
New York Post ^ | 6-3-12 | Michael Goodwin

Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2012 10:51:21 AM by afraidfortherepublic

Panic is never pretty. When it involves a politician scrambling desperately to stay afloat, it is ugly. When it involves a president of the United States trading national-security secrets for political gain, it is obscene.

Twice last week, The New York Times published insider accounts of Obama-administration decisions. One involved “kill lists” of terrorists targeted by drones. The other described cyberwarfare attacks against Iran.

The articles revealed details of top-level meetings and quoted the president’s comments. They were so gushingly favorable to him that it’s clear they were based on authorized leaks by the White House designed to make Obama look tough against terror. Flattery was part of the bargain.

So we learned the president insists on giving final approval to each target, a “grim debating society” that tests his “principles.” We learned he “is a student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas” and follows the “just war theories of Christian philosophers.” Adviser John Brennan, described as a “grizzled” son of Irish immigrants, is compared “to a priest whose blessing has become indispensable” to Obama.

Naturally, campaign guru David Axelrod attends these “Terror Tuesday” meetings. Not that politics is involved, of course.

This is more than an unseemly spiking of the football. This is reckless politicking that reflects an his “anything goes” approach to November: Nothing is sacred except four more years.

The Times also outed Israel as our partner in launching the Stuxnet virus against Iran’s nuclear computers. While the United States and Israel were long suspected, the article shredded any deniability.

The Allies broke German military codes in World War II, but it remained secret until the 1970s. Now our president leaks secrets in real time.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2012, 01:29:17 PM »
O’s assassinations
By RICH LOWRY


Last Updated: 12:35 AM, June 2, 2012

Posted: 10:38 PM, June 1, 2012

Killing has never been so discriminating, so urbane, so cool.

The New York Times and Newsweek both ran long, largely admiring articles on how President Obama selects individual terrorists to terminate with extreme prejudice. The administration’s “smart power” isn’t working out so well, but smart killing is a smash success.

Obama’s national-security team — as well as his top political adviser, David Axelrod — gather on “Terror Tuesdays” to go over an expanding “kill list” that the president examines with the aid of capsule biographies of the terrorists, or “baseball cards.” Then the president decides who lives and who — if we get him in our sights — dies.

Needless to say, had Dick Cheney consulted “baseball cards” to decide in weekly meetings attended by Karl Rove who deserved to have close encounters with drone-fired missiles, Nancy Pelosi would have drafted the articles of impeachment herself.

The Obama killings vindicate the core premises of the Bush War on Terror: This is a war, and the protections of our criminal-justice system don’t apply to the enemy.

In light of the kill list, it’s a wonder anyone ever objected to Bush-era detentions or interrogations. If we can pick someone off a roster of names and sentence him to death without due process, surely we can capture and hold that same person.

If we can execute someone — and any of his associates who happen to be in the vicinity — from on high, surely we can keep him awake at night and otherwise discomfit him should he fall into our hands.

The Times notes that “Obama’s record has not drawn anything like the sweeping criticism from allies that his predecessor faced.” True enough. It hasn’t been subjected to a highly politicized assault at home and abroad by people desperate to put it in the worst possible light and even make it a war crime.

With a few exceptions, the left has retired from the field when it comes to smearing the executive branch for prosecuting the war. If the left was still in the game, it would insist on always calling the actions assassinations, demand congressional authorization and judicial sign-off, excoriate the secret proceedings and pour scorn on the entire notion of enemy combatants standing outside the criminal-justice system. It would call the assassinations a “terrorist-recruiting tool” — as indeed they are, since almost anything we do to combat al Qaeda will offend some sympathizers of al Qaeda.

For most of the left, the highest principle of just war theory is licet si Obama id faciat — it’s OK if Obama does it. This is how Gitmo, formerly a standing repudiation of all that we hold dear as a nation, becomes an afterthought when it is owned and operated by one Barack H. Obama.

As it happens, the president holds exactly the same Obama-centric view. So long as the kill list is overseen by him as judge and executioner, it’s beyond reproach.

The press tends to agree. Newsweek reports, “The choices he faces are brutally difficult, and he has struggled with them — sometimes turning them over in his mind again and again.”

Really? He thinks about who he is deciding to kill? The nation is blessed to have such a scrupulous leader.

The Times maintains that the president parses the kill list as “a student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.” If no anecdotes have yet emerged about Obama justifying a particular kill with reference to the Summa Theologica, it’s probably only a matter of time.

In authorizing the strikes, Obama is to be commended for his coldbloodedness, although no tactic is perfect or without costs. The war in Yemen is sliding the wrong way’ relations with target-rich Pakistan are at a low ebb. But there should be no doubt now that the commander in chief possesses fearsome powers in the War on Terror. All it took for Democrats to accept that was for President Obama to begin exercising them.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/assassinations_a2tC2odBZzJ7J70nsMvOVO#ixzz1wrHFya6E


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39703
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Imagine if GWB did this? The left would explode.
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2012, 01:51:17 PM »
EPA Using Drones to Spy on Cattle Ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa

Kurt Nimmo
 Infowars.com
 June 4, 2012
 

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is using aerial drones to spy on farmers in Nebraska and Iowa. The surveillance came under scrutiny last week when Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a joint letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
 
On Friday, EPA officialdom in “Region 7” responded to the letter.
 
“Courts, including the Supreme Court, have found similar types of flights to be legal (for example to take aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility) and EPA would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act,” the agency said in response to the letter.
 
“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” said Mike Johanns, a Republican senator from Nebraska.
 
In fact, the EPA has absolutely zero authority and is an unconstitutional entity of an ever-expanding and rogue federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment. Under the Tenth Amendment, this authority is granted to the states and their legislatures, not the federal government.
 
The EPA has not addressed the constitutional question, including its wanton violation of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. It merely states that it has authority to surveil the private property of farmers and ranchers. It defends its encroaching behavior as “cost-efficient.”