John Cusack Interviews Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution

[Bonobo]

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

If you are going to attack, please keep it related to the content of this article and interview and be intellectually honest, ok?

----------------------
TURLEY: Well, President Obama outdid President Bush. He ordered the killing of two US citizens as the primary targets and has then gone forward and put out a policy that allows him to kill any American citizen when he unilaterally determines them to be a terrorist threat. Where President Bush had a citizen killed as collateral damage, President Obama has actually a formal policy allowing him to kill any US citizen.

CUSACK: But yet the speech that Eric Holder gave was greeted generally, by those others than civil libertarians and a few people on the left with some intellectual honesty, with polite applause and a stunning silence and then more cocktail parties and state dinners and dignitaries, back the Republican Hypocrisy Hour on the evening feed — and he basically gave a speech saying that the executive can assassinate US citizens.

TURLEY: That was the truly other-worldly moment of the speech. He went to, Northwestern Law School (my alma mater), and stood there and articulated the most authoritarian policy that a government can have: the right to unilaterally kill its citizens without any court order or review. The response from the audience was applause. Citizens applauding an Attorney General who just described how the President was claiming the right to kill any of them on his sole inherent authority.

CUSACK: Does that order have to come directly from Obama, or can his underlings carry that out on his behalf as part of a generalized understanding? Or does he have to personally say, "You can get that guy and that guy?"

[ProSense]

1. Oh goody

TURLEY: Well, President Obama outdid President Bush. He ordered the killing of two US citizens as the primary targets and has then gone forward and put out a policy that allows him to kill any American citizen when he unilaterally determines them to be a terrorist threat. Where President Bush had a citizen killed as collateral damage, President Obama has actually a formal policy allowing him to kill any US citizen.

Fact-free Ronulan bullshit!

Not this shit again. How many times is this drivel going to be repackaged?

[msanthrope]

3. Turley is advocating that people not vote for Obama....that they "walk away."

I wonder if the OP is advocating that, too.

[Demonaut]

61. Turley is a LINO, his arguments only present a means to create dissention among Obama supporters

fuck that asshole.

love me some Cusack though

[CoffeeCat]

70. Turkey wants to deflate voters...

Turkey wants us all to hate Obama and vote in Romney--who can't wait to start a big war with Iran and kiss the ass Of every corporate CEO--as he pays back Koch and the other millionaire psychos who gave him campaign funds.

Uhhhh, sorry--no.

I will however, take a hug from Mr Cusack!

[freshwest]

40. Until The Peacemakers©, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan take over.

You can get two versions of a theocracy for the price of one by voting GOP this year. When they take over in January 2013, the names of Democrats will be handed over to Sister Sarah Palin. The drawing and quartering will be performed by Queen Ann's horses directly after the cake is served. Any questions?

[msanthrope]

2. "John Cusack makes films." Have you learned NOTHING from the Clint? Politics and actors

do not mix well!!!

Why are you posting an interview of a Libertarian who is asking people to "walk away" from voting for Obama?

TURLEY: Right. I think that people have to accept that they own this decision, that they can walk away. I realize that this is a tough decision for people but maybe, if enough people walked away, we could finally galvanize people into action to make serious changes.

Is that what YOU are advocating?????

[Demonaut]

64. he's a douche, watched his"talking head" enough to see which sde he's on

his arguments never hold water

[mattclearing]

96. Tell it to George Clooney, Sean Penn, and Matt Damon.

Your generalization about an entire profession does not withstand scrutiny.

[SidDithers]

4. "War on the Constitution"...

Sid

[msanthrope]

7. Is that related to the War on Christmas? Because the ACLU is already sending me shit, and it's not

even Halloween yet!!!

[banned from Kos]

8. Yeah - Turley is a bullshitter. If you are in Yemen you have NO US constitutional rights.

If you are in Iran they can shoot you for being gay.

STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THESE HELLHOLES!

[msanthrope]

12. Turley likes to forget the AUMF of 9/18/2001, particularly when he annoys the DC circuit

and gets his ass kicked......he got called a hack by Judge Walton after his last case against the Obama admin was tossed...

4. Interestingly, Representative Kucinich, the lead plaintiff in Kucinich v. Bush, the case in which these words were written, is the lead plaintiff in this case in which members of Congress are again attempting to bring an action against Executive Branch officials. Indeed, the plaintiffs "acknowledge the contrary result" reached by the District of Columbia Circuit in a case also involving alleged presidential violations of the War Powers Clause and the War Powers Resolution. See Pls.' Opp'n at 17. While there may conceivably be some political benefit in suing the President and the Secretary of Defense, in light of shrinking judicial budgets, scarce judicial resources, and a heavy caseload, the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law. The Court does not mean to imply that the judiciary should be anything but open and accommodating to all members of society, but is simply expressing its dismay that the plaintiffs are seemingly using the limited resources of this Court to achieve what appear to be purely political ends, when it should be clear to them that this Court is powerless to depart from clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit.


http://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv1096-14

[msanthrope]

5. You are posting an interview of a Libertarian who is advocating that people "walk away" from the

voting booth, as I referenced above.

Why are you doing that?

[SidDithers]

6. That's a good question...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

9. Yeah....both Cusack and Turley are advocating not voting for Obama, and yet, this OP is supposed to

be taken seriously.

[SidDithers]

11. Some posters occasionally forget that this is a partisan website...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

14. Or, they forget Turley got his ass handed to him by the DC Circuit after his last case against Obama

was tossed. Impartial, my ass...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=107135

[freshwest]

42. Look, he's just trying to save us from going to Hell. That's all. R-R-R* in 2012!

R-R-R:

Ayn Rand
Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney

[treestar]

10. If they want a "war on the Constitution," let Mittens be the next one

appointing new Scalias to the SCOTUS.

[JoePhilly]

13. From where John now sits ... this is all abstract.

I love Cusack's movies ... LOVE THEM.

But he's now sitting above all of this.

Whether Obama wins, or Romney wins, it no longer impacts John.

If Romney wins, John is fine. If Obama wins, John is fine.

But the issues John is concerned about in this interview ... they get WORSE if Mitt wins, and they get BETTER if Obama wins.

Its nice to be so well off that you are above all of this.

[progressivebydesign]

106. Hard for John to hear reality with the waves crashing on his private beach...

.. or the rev of his porsche, or his motorcycle as he plays bad-ass motorcycle guy, while everyone else is working.

From the people I know that have met him, he's quite curmudgeonly. His sister, who has worked with a friend of mine a few times, is a sweetheart. I think he feels that he is just too brilliant for the room. Until I see his ass out there doing humanitarian work, or helping to get people registered to vote, he's just another guy with way tooo much time on his hands, and nothing but First World problems to worry about. You know, couldn't get the best table at Geoffey's on Sunday, his Daily Variety was stolen from his mailbox. Hot Tub Time Machine was not the box office smash he'd envisioned. lol.

[still_one]

15. So let's see, we are 2 months away from an election where if the Obama loses you can be sure that

That the supreme court will be packed with Thomas and Scalia clones. Social security and Medicare will be destroyed, women will be second class citizens, and this is the time for some progressives to eat their own?

The r/w will love this shit. Maybe Michael Moore can come out saying Obama's going to lose because he doesn't have enough money. Do we really need to demoralize base?

If Obama loses things can get worse, much worse

[msanthrope]

17. Turley is no progressive--he was pro-impeachment of President Clinton. A slimy fuck, from way back.

[freshwest]

44. I did not know that. Thanks.

[Mojorabbit]

37. A post on a website is not going to demoralize the base

Don't care for the article but agree that letting the executive have this power is a step on a slippery slope. I love many things Obama has done but this is not one of them.

[msanthrope]

16. Are you agreeing with Turley and Cusack that we "walk away" from President Obama? nt

[SidDithers]

18. Relevant section from the linked article, for easy reference...

TURLEY: Well, the question, I think, that people have got to ask themselves when they get into that booth is not what Obama has become, but what have we become? That is, what's left of our values if we vote for a person that we believe has shielded war crimes or violated due process or implemented authoritarian powers. It's not enough to say, "Yeah, he did all those things, but I really like what he did with the National Park System."

CUSACK: Yeah, or that he did a good job with the auto bailout.

TURLEY: Right. I think that people have to accept that they own this decision, that they can walk away. I realize that this is a tough decision for people but maybe, if enough people walked away, we could finally galvanize people into action to make serious changes. We have to recognize that our political system is fundamentally broken, it's unresponsive. Only 11 percent of the public supports Congress, and yet nothing is changing — and so the question becomes, how do you jumpstart that system? How do you create an alternative? What we have learned from past elections is that you don't create an alternative by yielding to this false dichotomy that only reinforces their monopoly on power.

It's pretty damned clear that both Turley and Cusack are advocating not voting. Is the OP doing the same?

Sid

[msanthrope]

20. OP has gone quiet, but I think this is worth discussing more fully.

Should DU allow points of view that advocate not voting or non-voting for the President of the United States? I think not.

[Bonobo]

23. You want to make it about me and not the substance of the article.

I have not advocated that anyone not vote for Obama.

[msanthrope]

26. Oh, no...I'm talking to you about what is IN THE ARTICLE....advocacy of walking away from the vote:

TURLEY: Right. I think that people have to accept that they own this decision, that they can walk away. I realize that this is a tough decision for people but maybe, if enough people walked away, we could finally galvanize people into action to make serious changes.

Did you not read that??? Granted, it was after cusack started spouting shit about Kafka and the Nazis, but still....

Do you agree????

[cliffordu]

45. Then why the fuck toss this excrement,

monkey?

A bonobo is a monkey, right?

[Bonobo]

49. No, it is not a monkey.

Your education is showing.

[cliffordu]

51. Oddly enough,

so is yours.

You say chimp, I say chump, it's all good.

[Whisp]

78. Bull. Your running theme

well, is a theme.

A well known one.

And here you play all 'who, innocent me?' bullshit.

[pnwmom]

102. You are giving a platform on DU to two men who are advocating not voting for Obama.

Which is why this is also about you and your motivations.

[SidDithers]

24. IMO, the Terms of Service are pretty clear...

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Sid

[msanthrope]

29. I think advocating people "walk away" from voting for Obama is pretty clear. nt

[one_voice]

30. The usual suspects will,,,

show up shortly.

[msanthrope]

32. And I'll ask every one of 'em if they are going to "walk away" from President Obama. nt

[Mojorabbit]

38. the last line in that excerpt

talks of ..if I am reading it right....the fact we only have two choices or two parties. I have seen that discussion here before and I would love to try a system like Britain has. We might get a more diversified govt out of it. There is plenty in the article to discuss and more than plenty to dismiss out of hand. Not voting is not the answer but I agree that working for a better way to be represented is worth thinking about.

[vaberella]

100. I'm against anything or anyone who is advocating "not voting". Ban worthy in my book. n/t

[one_voice]

34. It's easy to advocate not voting...

when you won't suffer any consequences.

Or

You think both parties are the same. You think Bush = Obama. Or as this article says, and people in this thread agree Obama is worse than Bush.

[joshcryer]

48. Yeah, I find typically these type of view come from bourgeoisie elites.

People who aren't for want, on the scheme of things.

My fundamentalist mom has been getting into fights with people on Facebook over Romney.

She hates Obama's stance on gays and abortion (I mean, seriously hates, with the bottom of her heart).

But she hates even more the bullshit that Romney supporters have been throwing out.

She makes less than $650 a month from Social Security, can't work, COPD, etc.

[one_voice]

53. I'm sorry your mom isn't well...

My father in law had COPD, he lived with us and I took care of him before he passed, I know how tough that can be.

I also know how hard it is to get by on SS, as I too am disabled. Luckily, I have a husband that works, he was out of work for a year and a half though. I didn't mean to insult you or your mom.

I did however mean to insult people like Cusack and Turley, won't matter who's president is their lives won't change one iota.

[joshcryer]

59. No worries, I took no offense and agree.

Basically I wanted to point out that my fundamentalist mom (who once got banned from Yahoo! comments for making a racist remark about FLOTUS) is supporting Obama now. It's really shocking how much her politics have changed in the past 4 years.

But yeah, rich people, it doesn't matter to them, Romney could win and nothing would change for them. Except maybe they get more money in their wallets.

[Bonobo]

54. "bourgeoisie elites is an oxymoron. nt

[joshcryer]

58. I think you mean "redundant."

[Bonobo]

60. No, I did not.

'Bourgeois' refers to the middle class.

'Elites' refer to the upper class.

[joshcryer]

62. "Bourgeoisie" are the ruling class.

The working class is the "proletariat" and the "lumpenproletariat."

Elites are the ruling class and therefore the bourgeoisie.

[Bonobo]

63. OK, if you're going straight up Marxist I guess,

In common parlance, however, when one says bourgeoisie, one is referring to the middle class.

In America, the dwindling middle class are most certainly NOT the elites.

[joshcryer]

65. I think you've confused the petite bourgeoisie with bourgeoisie.

The petite bourgeoisie are not elites in any form and they would qualify, in the current socio-economic environment, as part of the middle class in the United States. However, they aren't representative of the middle class of the United States by any means whatsoever.

The majority of the middle class in the United States doesn't own a business and therefore is proletarian not petite bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.

[Puregonzo1188]

94. The bourgeoisie was the middle class in feudal times when there was

an aristocracy above them and the working and peasant classes below them.

Those people largely don't exist anymore and certainly not in America.

[dionysus]

77. vaht? vas you shayin shumthing, about TOS violations.. to meeee? vaht?

[Jennicut]

19. This is as old as time. If you don't vote for the Dem, the Repub will win.

It is breathtakingly easy. It is not a threat. It is the simple truth. There are real, actual differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. Between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama may not be as left as some people want but he is a hell of a lot better then any Republican, who hate women, hate gays, hate poor people. Mitt may not believe in any of that but he is so soulless he is tied to who will try and get him in office. He answers to the nutcases supporting his campaign. Now that is scary.

I love John Cusack's films but he is wealthy and can be "pure" without consequences. Most of us can't.

[Zorra]

39. +1

[WooWooWoo]

21. well, as to the actual article

(because every now and then it's fun to actually engage in a debate on issues)

If an American citizen takes up arms against the United States, joins the enemy, trains with them, and plots to harm America in the future, then extreme measures can be taken to deal with that threat.

In a perfect world, I'm sure it would be better to go in and arrest him, bring him back to the US to stand trial for treason (and then be given the death penalty). But those two individuals were on foreign soil and acting on behalf of an enemy we're engaged in combat with, and as such, gave up his rights as a citizen.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[msanthrope]

22. Preserved the OP......

John Cusack Interviews Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

If you are going to attack, please keep it related to the content of this article and interview and be intellectually honest, ok?

----------------------
TURLEY: Well, President Obama outdid President Bush. He ordered the killing of two US citizens as the primary targets and has then gone forward and put out a policy that allows him to kill any American citizen when he unilaterally determines them to be a terrorist threat. Where President Bush had a citizen killed as collateral damage, President Obama has actually a formal policy allowing him to kill any US citizen.

CUSACK: But yet the speech that Eric Holder gave was greeted generally, by those others than civil libertarians and a few people on the left with some intellectual honesty, with polite applause and a stunning silence and then more cocktail parties and state dinners and dignitaries, back the Republican Hypocrisy Hour on the evening feed — and he basically gave a speech saying that the executive can assassinate US citizens.

TURLEY: That was the truly other-worldly moment of the speech. He went to, Northwestern Law School (my alma mater), and stood there and articulated the most authoritarian policy that a government can have: the right to unilaterally kill its citizens without any court order or review. The response from the audience was applause. Citizens applauding an Attorney General who just described how the President was claiming the right to kill any of them on his sole inherent authority.

CUSACK: Does that order have to come directly from Obama, or can his underlings carry that out on his behalf as part of a generalized understanding? Or does he have to personally say, "You can get that guy and that guy?"

[Bonobo]

25. Oh, I am not deleting this if that is what you are hinting at. nt

[msanthrope]

28. You have posted an article where Turley advocates that people not vote. Why would you do that? nt

[limpyhobbler]

27. Good interview. People are quite correct to be concerned about these issues. nt

[msanthrope]

31. Do you agree with the call to "walk away" from voting for Obama? nt

[Capn Sunshine]

35. walk away, right off that cliff.

Yes the path looks clear t me. I think Turley has some good points but the President's interpretations of various ways forward as they relate to executive power is hardly a "War on the Constitution"

Hysterics only get you so far.

[limpyhobbler]

57. no

[ProSense]

33. Good interview?

Turley is concerned about straw men: "Well, President Obama outdid President Bush."

He isn't much concerned about what's really killing this country, greedy rich predators. You see he supports Citizens United.

[limpyhobbler]

41. hmmm...

He supports Citizens United. Well that is horrible. He would be wrong about that. The ACLU also supports it. It might show a certain fanaticism for civil liberties. It's possible to be wrong about one issue, but be correct on other issues, or make good points on other issues. In fact that happens to us quite a bit with libertarians.

The other point, did Obama "outdo" Bush? Well certainly don't think President Obama has used any less executive power that President Bush on these issues.

[ProSense]

47. "He supports Citizens United. Well that is horrible."

Irony, a guy who supports Citizens United accusing the President of waging a "war on the Constitution."

That and the idiocy of telling people not to vote might as well qualify Turley as a Romney supporter. I mean, Romney supports CU, and Turley is advocating that people walk away and not vote for Obama.

He's an idiot!

[limpyhobbler]

55. an idiot?

ok

[ProSense]

86. Yes, an idiot

In addition to the feel-good hyperbolic attacks on the administration, advocating that people not vote is idiotic.

Turley might want to give the impression that there is no difference between President Obama and Mitt, but not everyone is operating under his agenda:

Taiibi has most important summary of this election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021258704

[limpyhobbler]

99. So,

do you think anybody that votes for a third party is an idiot?

[Ikonoklast]

36. Jonathan Turley?

Doesn't he have a lawsuit to lose somewhere?

[joshcryer]

43. I'm unconvinced Obama's targeted killing of unlawful combatants is illegal.

While highly immoral, unethical, and downright totalitarian, I think it's fully legal within the confines of international law.

Why, in fact, I spent an entire year being vilified by people on this very forum for defending "unlawful combatants" in a skirmish in which a dictator was murdering wholesale those against him. I was told, flat out, that any country would defend themselves from such actors.

[Bonobo]

46. The problem lies in the secret determination of what constitutes an "unlawful combatant"

It is a circular argument.

[joshcryer]

50. It's well defined in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

And the President basically has the final say.

Time to reverse some laws, eh?

[Bonobo]

52. Yup.nt

[sabrina 1]

71. I remember when the very words 'enemy combatant' coming out of Bush's leering mouth

would send Democrats into a rage. The injustice of what he was doing was obvious to all Democrats, even elected ones.

I remember Committees being set up by people like Sen. Leahy to look into these matters, to look at restoring Habeas Corpus. I remember Cheney was so angry at Democrats like Leahy eg, for questioning these policies that he told Leahy to go 'fuck himself'.

I still feel the same way whenever I see the words 'enemy combatant' and will never change my mind about these horrific policies.

I also remember Jonathon Thurley doing what he is still doing, criticizing Bush's policies, he was like a breath of fresh air at a time when few in our media dared to question the attacks on the Constitution by the Bush administration.

Has Thurley changed? Not that I can see. But apparently he has gone from champion of the rule of law, to a pariah, along with so many others who had the guts to criticize the tearing to pieces of the Constitution, Torture, murder etc.

We seem to have some people here who believe that DUers are so weak minded and unintelligent that they need to not see or read anything such as the article in the OP.. Do these people support Republican policies? I thought this was a Democratic forum were Republican policies were not supported.

There definitely needs to be some clarification on this. I was under the impression that Bush Policies were one of the reasons we worked so hard to elect Democrats, so they could be overturned as they were so threatening to this country.

I will never support torture, extra-judicial killings, illegal wars, Wall Street corruption, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and all the other anti-Constitutional legislation forced on this country using FEAR to do so, by the Bush administration. And I will never support letting the criminals get away with it.

I do not ever recall anyone disagreeing with any of this on DU during the Bush years. I would like to think that that has not changed.

[msanthrope]

74. Who is "Jonathan Thurley?" Jonathan Turley hasn't championed the 'rule of law' ever since he

supported impeachment. Disagreeing with Bush was shooting fish in a barrel--but Turley's stances on guns and CU show him for the libertarian he is.

[sabrina 1]

79. You didn't address my comment.

Do you support Bush/Republican policies? Do you support the rule of law, as in, NOT Bush's law? Would you eg, support Chavez extra-judicially killing people who tried to overthrow his democratically elected government?

[msanthrope]

85. I would not have had a problem with the killing of Osama bin Laden by the prior

administraton, would you?

[sabrina 1]

111. The question wasn't about Bin Laden, which I'm sure you knew.

The question was, 'do you support Bush/Republican policies'. Did you support Bush's claims that he had the powers of a king, to determine who should receive the death penalty without any review by the other branches of government, without charges, without conviction, just on his say-so?

[hughee99]

80. Apparently for some, the president issuing orders to kill people, including US citizens,

without any sort of transparent oversight is only concerning when a repuke is president.

[joshcryer]

82. Bush did not employ targeted killing anywhere near Obama's level.

Obama has used the laws Bush got passed to implement targeted killing as to avoid due process. Fully legal within the confines of international law.

Bush's issue is that they would use the unlawful combatant or belligerent concept to indefinitely detain people.

Obama avoids that issue completely by taking out anyone that is deemed a unlawful combatant.

This is highly concerning, highly despicable, totalitarian, whole nine yards.

But it's perfectly legal as far as I can tell.

If you elect people that pass laws that make it legal to do something then the onus is on you to reverse those laws.

The Democrats tried to repeal AUMF (Authorization for Military Force).

It failed across party lines.

[ProSense]

83. That is completely inaccurate

Obama has used the laws Bush got passed to implement targeted killing as to avoid due process. Fully legal within the confines of international law.

Bush's issue is that they would use the unlawful combatant or belligerent concept to indefinitely detain people.

Obama avoids that issue completely by taking out anyone that is deemed a unlawful combatant.

You're continuing to make statements to give the impression that this is legal, but implicating the Obama adminstration with red herrings.

<...>

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998, but limited their use to specific targets, such as Osama bin Laden, and only if capture was not “feasible.” George W. Bush dropped the “feasible” limitation and eliminated the need for a specified list of targets. The first CIA drone killing took place in Yemen on November 5, 2002, and included the death of an American citizen, Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obamas_Secret_Assassination_Program_111229

Human Rights Watch, 2003:

<...>

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html

[joshcryer]

87. Your link agrees with what I said.

I don't see where the disagreement is.

[ProSense]

89. No, your statement

that Bush simply used the law for indefinite detention is not accurate, and the interpretation of Obama policy is not either.

[joshcryer]

92. I didn't say that.

We're talking about proportion here. Bush partook in relatively few targeted killings his entire Presidency.

Obama has done many more.

Bush: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/the-bush-years-2004-2009/

Obama: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2009-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2010-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2011-strikes/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/01/11/obama-2012-strikes/

[ProSense]

97. First of all

Turley is talking about targeting Americans, not drone strikes.

Secondly, where are the Bush years 2001 to 2004? Bush was a screw up. I noticed most of the casualtie were civilians. The likely reason that there are more drone strikes during this administration is that Bush neglected Afghanistan to launch the Iraq war. A drone policy, as deadly as it can be, is not as devastating as the Iraq war, which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands (possibly more than a million) civilians.

[joshcryer]

81. Do I sound like I am supportive of Obama's use of targeted killing?

Do I?

I am simply pointing out that it is legal within the confines of international law.

Unlike some here on DU I do not think Obama has committed war crimes.

[ProSense]

84. "Unlike some here on DU I do not think Obama has committed war crimes."

This debate is absurd!

[joshcryer]

88. What? You're ignorant of those DUers who believe Obama...

...has committed war crimes?

[ProSense]

90. No, I'm saying

the debate is absurb. The claim is "ignorant," not me.

[ProSense]

72. I'm not convinced it's any of those things

See, commentary like the one in the OP is typically hyperbolic bullshit.

[Puregonzo1188]

108. Unlawful combatants? We're using Bush terminology now?

I remember how there was near unanimous rejection of that term here during the Bush Years.

[joshcryer]

109. I am not supporting the fucking term.

It is a real legal term. Bush made sure of that.

I love how people gloss over my posts like that.

[SomethingFishy]

66. Hey this isn't the time to be criticizing any Obama Administration policies

you will be informed when you are allowed to think for yourself.

For right now just remember that even though what they say about the assassination policy is true, it's bullshit because they advocate not voting.

I think I got that right.

[Bonobo]

67. Good point...

At precisely the moment when we have the greatest amount of leverage over our party, we should close our mouths to any inconvenient truths lest we demoralize people.

[2Design]

68. Will vote Democrat no matter what - I know republicans can do so much damage

Last edited Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Eventually maybe we will get a good democrat

If you let the republicans take control there will never be a chance and this country will be even worse

Sorry this is happening - yes disappointed

Not in my name

Yes my vote will appear to approve

My none (not voting) vote would give the lunatics the keys to the crazy house AND I do not want that

I do understand the difference between right and wrong and moral high ground

BUT I am unwilling to vote against my best interest because the other side doesn't care about us at all

They want us all to die - they will eliminate jobs and healthcare for anyone not part of their circle

[Bonobo]

69. +1

I admire your honest, your integrity and your clear-sightedness.

[ProSense]

73. Exactly

what Turley is attempting to do, depress the vote.

See, people were getting a little too excited about voting for Obama so let's remind them he sucks. Walk the fuck away, don't vote.

Then comes the "I'll vote for the lesser evil" crap.

Turley's point is warmed over red herring bullshit.

Does anyone have a list of the Americans assassinated by President Obama?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002747641

[xiamiam]

75. the interview raises legitimate concerns

don't think that this site is the best place to discuss them or the truth about them. This used to be my first source for news and issues, that's changed..its an election season and truth is inconvenient for some. Discuss it with your friends and family..and with your children when they want to know what this country used to be about.

[fascisthunter]

76. no one in a democracy should that much power

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Well, torture, rendition, indefinite imprisonment, and assassination are the new American values.

Well, not so new..but "legal".

[joshcryer]

93. Yep. They get you elected. 83% of Americans back targeted killing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html

Figure that.

Campaign promise kept.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. Yep. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Give more money to the MIC. Send in the drones.

Later, build a pretty monument to the dead in preparation for the next war for PR.

[joshcryer]

98. I don't know how to fix it politically, either.

We need an electorate who can look beyond the Emmanuel Goldstein's that are waved in front of our faces on a regular basis and politicians who refuse to buy into it.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I think you can't get elected President in this country without being a power mongering totalitarian when it comes to foreign policy. When Obama gave his nomination speech I just face palmed because of the saber rattling that was going on and I was disgusted that he had to do it.

[leftstreet]

115. He didn't 'have to do it.' He chose to

The GOP was dead, the voters rejected Bush's flag waving war, and voters wanted change.

He didn't 'have to' do anything to appease a dead political party. He chose to.

[joshcryer]

116. Did you not see post #93?

The saber rattling still polls quite high. Sorry, that's how it is.

Believe what you want.

[leftstreet]

118. Medicare For All polls high. Where is it? n/t

[joshcryer]

119. The President isn't a dictator for domestic policy.

The President is the most powerful human being on the planet when it comes to foreign policy, particularly when it involves blowing shit up.

To get Medicare for all you must elect representatives that will legislate it.

[leftstreet]

120. He dropped Public Option, kept extraordinary rendition

Thanks for explaining how that works

[ProSense]

121. Nonsense.

"He dropped Public Option, kept extraordinary rendition"

No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under (Obama's) administration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273667

As the President's health care law, it expanded Medicaid to 16 million people, the largest expansion of the program ever.

[pnwmom]

101. Anyone who thinks this wouldn't get far worse under Romney is nuts. n/t

[joshcryer]

110. In Romney's nomination speech he all but said he was attacking Iran.

[fredamae]

103. I found it remarkably well written

I read the whole thing and found it fascinating...I'm still voting Dem straight down the line..I'm not swayed by their remarks/beliefs etc. This election is a "no brainer", for me...

But, do you worry about some of the issues that are raised-for the raw reality of their existence-without relying on their opinions of the issues?

[cali]

104. You know what really pisses me off?

Anyone who thinks they have any fucking right to tell me what I can and can't criticize.

[progressivebydesign]

105. Wait.. are you telling us how to respond? Was that your note at the beginning?

Because here on DU we're going to respond the way we want to, within the TOS. And if that means trashing an actor who loves the sound of his own ideas as he sits in his multi-million dollar home in Malibu, then I'm gonna do just that.

Both of them sound like out of touch thought-junkies, who are living in their own heads.. instead of the real world.

And when Romney/Ryan start the next war in Iran, and Syria, I hope that Cusack and Turley understand how utterly stupid this is. I tire of the purists, who want us all to know how freakin' smart and cool they are, because they're sooo badass that even being liberal isn't enough for their advanced brains.

Too bad Cusack doesn't take his time (too much time on his hands after the Hot Tub Time Machine) and money, to help out the people in poor counties of America, who are being denied the right to vote.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck that we have carried out those attacks. Guess what? Al Queda, and others have been weakened. We're no longer bombarded with trumped up terror alerts. What we're doing now is what Bush should have done all along, instead of attacking other Countries.

[cali]

107. One thing is crystal clear: Turley doesn't give a shit about

the poor, the disabled, the middle class, the elderly, the young or women.

Advising people not to vote make me want to smack his smug fucking face. Hard.

[woo me with science]

112. kick

[Hell Hath No Fury]

113. I appreciate that someone is still --

worried about this stuff. By far, my biggest beef with O is on these very issues.

[Zoeisright]

114. Turley is a pig.

And he can kiss my ass.

[Egalitarian Thug]

117. K&R "keep it related to the content of this article and interview and be intellectually honest, ok?"

You so funny!

Honesty during election ritual?