Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
If you can scare a population enough, they'll gladly surrender their freedoms in the false hope of finding security. The same tactic is easily adapted to get a nation to go to war for no reason at all:
you speak for many of us
Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)
(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (14) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (13) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.
...vote for Obama over any Republican, including Ron Paul, who you seem to have a soft spot for (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193822#post4)
There is so much spin in that paragraph it's hard to know where to begin. First, equating the killing of a terrorist to the "assassination" of American citizens is completely bogus. Also, the President did not "reinterpret" the War Powers Resolution (ask Jonathan Turley, whose lawsuit was thrown out).
Facts:
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985
That is essentially the President's position. Killing a terrorist is not equivalent to the "assassination" of American citizens.
Obama issued a signing statement, pledging:
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851
Full text: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851#post7
Statement of Policy sent to Congress.
<...>
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
The whistleblowers claim, bogus. The President was cleaning up Bush’s mess.
In July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002.[25] Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[29] None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake's residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for 'retaining' information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)).[20] The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused.[29] Reporter Gorman was not contacted by the FBI.[15][21]
Drake initially cooperated with the investigation, telling the FBI about the alleged illegality of the NSA's activities.[29] The government created a 'draft indictment' of Drake, prepared by prosecutor Steven Tyrrell. It listed charges as "disclosing classified information to a newspaper reporter and for conspiracy". Diane Roark, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis (the complainants to the DoD IG in 2002) were also allegedly listed as "unindicted co-conspirators".[25] In 2009 a new prosecutor came on the case, William Welch II,[15][29] and changed the indictment. Some charges were removed, as was any naming of 'co-conspirators'. The new case only contained charges against Drake.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#2007_FBI_raids
Drake initially cooperated with the investigation, telling the FBI about the alleged illegality of the NSA's activities.[29] The government created a 'draft indictment' of Drake, prepared by prosecutor Steven Tyrrell. It listed charges as "disclosing classified information to a newspaper reporter and for conspiracy". Diane Roark, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis (the complainants to the DoD IG in 2002) were also allegedly listed as "unindicted co-conspirators".[25] In 2009 a new prosecutor came on the case, William Welch II,[15][29] and changed the indictment. Some charges were removed, as was any naming of 'co-conspirators'. The new case only contained charges against Drake.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#2007_FBI_raids
On June 9, 2011, all 10 original charges against him were dropped. He rejected several deals because he refused to "plea bargain with the truth". He eventually pleaded to one misdemeanor count for unauthorized computer access; Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, who helped represent him, called it an act of "Civil Disobedience"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Court_proceedings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#Court_proceedings
Charges were also dropped against Tamm
http://www.openthegovernment.org/node/3089
GAP Praises White House Commitment to Whistleblowers
http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/31-2010/1507-gap-praises-white-house-commitment-to-whistleblowers
The President complied with the War Powers act from the beginning: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya
SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 85
<...>
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
<...>
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 85
<...>
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
<...>
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1
Pelosi, Boxer defend Obama's move on Libya
<...>
"This isn't America versus Libya," Boxer said. "This is an extraordinary achievement by the president and our secretary of state to get the world to come together" in a humanitarian crisis.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/23/MNRT1II30A.DTL#ixzz1jv1A4CrN
<...>
"This isn't America versus Libya," Boxer said. "This is an extraordinary achievement by the president and our secretary of state to get the world to come together" in a humanitarian crisis.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/23/MNRT1II30A.DTL#ixzz1jv1A4CrN
Libyan People Thank Obama ! (While Qaddafi Thanks the GOP)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/22/1009579/-Libyan-People-Thank-Obama-
And the spin to take credit away from the administration on Iraq is still bogus.
Obama May Face Tough Decision as Iraqi Leader Signals U.S. Troops Could Stay
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-may-face-tough-decision-as-iraqi-leader-signals-u-s-troops-could-stay-20110512
Iraq says it's asked for 5,000 U.S. trainers, awaits reply
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449098/iraq-says-its-asked-for-5000-us.html
The important thing is that the President ended the Iraq war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq
A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!
The ACLU just scored a big win for freedom of speech from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). More than 2 years ago we filed a complaint with the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL) concerning an effort to collect and distribute information about lawful demonstrations. Earlier this month, we received a letter from OCRCL letting us know that they have resolved our complaint, and are adopting our recommendations!
In 2006, DHS Federal Protective Service (FPS) distributed a Protective Intelligence Bulletin to local law enforcement detailing information about dozens of peaceful activist groups. The bulletin was entitled "Civil Activists and Extremists Action Calendar," and provided information on over 70 demonstrations, almost entirely peace, environmental and social justice rallies and marches where no violence or other criminal activity was expected.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/win-free-speech-aclu-recommendations-adopted-dhs
The ACLU just scored a big win for freedom of speech from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). More than 2 years ago we filed a complaint with the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL) concerning an effort to collect and distribute information about lawful demonstrations. Earlier this month, we received a letter from OCRCL letting us know that they have resolved our complaint, and are adopting our recommendations!
In 2006, DHS Federal Protective Service (FPS) distributed a Protective Intelligence Bulletin to local law enforcement detailing information about dozens of peaceful activist groups. The bulletin was entitled "Civil Activists and Extremists Action Calendar," and provided information on over 70 demonstrations, almost entirely peace, environmental and social justice rallies and marches where no violence or other criminal activity was expected.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/win-free-speech-aclu-recommendations-adopted-dhs
Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (2)
and let them act as indicators of the general quality. Because you do have the advantage of being very busy with the shovel, and the nature of spin is that every word of bullshit usually takes 10 to correct.
First, and truly odious, is the play on euphemisms about the assassination of US citizens without due process. Actually, your "killing a terrorist," in the government's preferred choice of words, is not incompatible in its literal meaning with the correct description of the same act in plain English: assassinating a US citizen, without due process. The government has long claimed this right ad hoc and repeatedly carried out assassinations by drone on US persons who could have been arrested, without bothering with charges or public presentation of evidence against them other than (in the case of Al-Awlaki) his alleged incitement of violence through words. Now the recent NDAA provides a legislated (if outrageously unconstitutional) basis for the extraordinary powers first claimed on executive privilege (as an extension of "commander-in-chief"
by the Bush regime. Bit by bit, a legal (again unconstitutional) framework has been created for the suspension of habeas, indefinite dentention without charges or counsel, military law over civilian, if only the targets are designated "terrorist" or associated with "terrorist" under the incredibly squishy definitions that could so label any dissident. These measures must be viewed in the context of a long-running authoritarian push that has continued under both R and D administrations, that among other things has also seen the US turn into the keeper of the world's biggest prison population.
But what's curious in your posting, and what indicates a systematically dubious M.O., is your inclusion of a quote that is supposed to suggest that Human Rights Watch accepts the assassination policy (or "targeted killing," or whatever the euphemism of the week is), so therefore it's all right. As if! But let's play along with the pretense that murder can be justified given enough legitimating statements, and ask instead: Why are you quoting HRW from 2003? Approving a Bush assassination action? At the height of "War on Terror," post-9/11 hysteria and conformity in civil society? What are you trying to say - that if Bush did it first, it's okay? Why 2003? And strangely, why didn't you quote HRW's reaction to a case under Obama, such as the Al-Awlaki case that you start with?
It becomes pretty obvious why you would not quote what Human Rights Watch has said about the Al-Awlaki case, once we look that up:
Ruling on Targeted Cleric Highlights Need to Explain Legal Basis for Lethal Attacks
December 7, 2010
Related Materials:
Letter to Obama on Targeted Killings and Drones
Q & A: US Targeted Killings and International Law
President Obama should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted. Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe.
- Kenneth Roth, executive director
(New York) - The US government should immediately clarify its legal rationale for targeted killings, Human Rights Watch said in a letter today to President Barack Obama.
A federal court judge's dismissal of a lawsuit on December 7, 2010, challenging the US government's targeted killing program abroad underscores the urgent need for the Obama administration to publicly explain its policy, Human Rights Watch said. Judge John Bates of the US district court in Washington, DC dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds but did not address the merits of the case.
SNIP
The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, challenged the US government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Yemen. The US government says al-Awlaki is linked to the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula but has not brought formal charges against him. The lawsuit also sought to have the government disclose the legal standard it uses to place US citizens on alleged government "kill lists."
SNIP
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/12/07/us-clarify-position-targeted-killings
So one might think your choice of a quote from 2003 was a clumsy attempt to mislead about what rights groups really think about your government's "killing terrorists" who are also US citizens without due process. Even the relatively moderate HRW thinks it will "inevitably" lead to international crimes and worldwide adoption of the savage practice. But what HRW thinks is so easily uncovered that one is forced to the conclusion your suggesting otherwise was a mistake. Right? You'll be correcting this, no?
Anyway, the rest of your pile is more or less in that vein of spin, misrepresentation and use of irrelevancies to distract from the point.
A selection of endorsements for the NATO campaign in Libya are irrelevant to the question of whether the United States government violated the War Powers Act of 1973 with the failure to hold a timely vote on the undeclared action, and really don't help erase the memory of Orwellian claims that it wasn't a war and that US forces weren't involved in hostilities! These presumably because there was no way to credibly represent the several months of continuous bombing as the simple imposition of the "no-fly zone" (another lovely little euphemism) approved in the earlier resolution.
And you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper on the matter of the US withdrawal from Iraq under the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement demanded by the Iraqi government in 2008. As everyone in the world knows, the US withdrew official military (as opposed to contract mercenaries) from Iraq in December. This happened under the schedule established under SOFA. The Obama administration's contribution to this process was, first, to attempt to renegotiate SOFA so as to gain an extension of the occupation! And then, after several months of negotiations, when the Iraqi government finally and definitively rejected the idea of granting immunity to US troops past the deadline, the Obama administration dutifully followed the provisions of the treaty. This carrying out of international obligations established prior to 2009 is falsely characterized in the simplistic phrase that "Obama ended the war." Absurdly, you link to news articles about the negotiations to extend the occupation while they were happening, as if it makes a difference that the Iraqi government at points explored the idea. All that matters is that the Iraqi government in the end, under pressure from its people, was against the idea. They were the ones who rejected it, not the USG, and thankfully the USG fulfilled the terms of the treaty. Meanwhile, USG has since 2009 massively expanded operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, sold arms to the Saudi monarchy at a time when it is leading the charge against the Arab Spring, and sold a perpetuation of the gargantuan Bush-era levels of military spending as "defense cuts." The decades-old perpetual global war, radically intensified by Bush, unfortunately continues under Obama. Still, I think the chances are somewhat higher it can be scaled back under Obama than a Republican - assuming more popular pressure to change the insane US spending priorities - which is one reason to support him.
So that's all the time we have for this task now, because as usual it takes more effort to correct false spin than to spin it. Except for the way that you managed to import your Ron Paul obsession into this thread. That's your perogative, but you shall kindly refrain henceforth from repeating the falsehood that I have a "fondness" for Ron Paul. I have no fondness for Ron Paul, and have never said I did. That's your invention. What I have noted, repeatedly, is the exceptional rage that the mere existence of this second-tier Republican presidential candidate causes in establishment liberals (something also evident in your many posts). My hypothesis has been that this rage is not because of his right-wing positions, which are no worse than those of Gingrich or Romney (who do not inspire as much rage as frequently). Rather, many liberals who wish to bury all criticism of the US government (as long as the current administration is a "D"
seem unable to stand the cognitive dissonance of being outflanked by this Confederate right-winger on vital, life-or-death questions of the drug war (with its victims here and abroad in the millions), the unsustainable USG global empire that is bankrupting the nation and bringing instability and carnage to distant countries, and fundamental rights of due process (like, the crazy 13th century idea that you gotta actually present charges and put a citizen on trial and get a conviction before you get to assassinate him with a missile! Oh no!).
PB
"your political participation can't be limited to a choice between the only two parties in an election that have any chance of winning,".
I say fine. Between all the choices in all the parties I choose Obama. 
