Blue team evades questions on Obama's NDAA and Kill List

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aaEpvCvLs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FnRahHqTRw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh0nIYNAyY

"Is that a question in the debate?" lol

[Jacob1983]

It's okay when their guy does it. Besides Obama is going to keep abortion legal and let homos get married so it's okay if he has a secret kill list and supports the Patriot Act and NDAA.

[ChumpDumper]

It's okay when their guy does it. Besides Obama is going to keep abortion legal and let homos get married so it's okay if he has a secret kill list and supports the Patriot Act and NDAA.Again with teh gheys.

You got a complex.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's okay when their guy does it. Besides Obama is going to keep abortion legal and let homos get married so it's okay if he has a secret kill list and supports the Patriot Act and NDAA.

Yet another post where gaycob lashes out with a sardonic comment about gay marriage even though he claims he's OK with it :lol

[Jacob1983]

I have actually said that I don't care if homos get married and/or have gay sex. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't hurt me. But stop deflecting the issue and man up. Why doesn't Obama get grilled on this shit? Shouldn't liberals be furious with him over the NDAA and the kill list?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

^I'm furious with him over Gitmo, the Patriot Act, and NDAA, which is why I'm not voting at all.

[mavs>spurs]

lol NDAA and kill list morphing into ghey rights like some sort of chameleon

[mavs>spurs]

^directed at chump not dok

[SA210]

http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/303687_433664670002739_1227079433_n.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

I have actually said that I don't care if homos get married and/or have gay sex. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't hurt me.

You care so little about gay marriage that you turn any thread about Obama into "BARRY GON' LET THEM HOMOS GET MARRIED N' HAVE QUEER BUTTSEX," B.... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I have actually said that I don't care if homos get married and/or have gay sex. It doesn't matter to me. It doesn't hurt me.Then STFU about it.

[mavs>spurs]

^anyone who's entire political forum existence consists of whining about ron paul doesn't have a leg to stand on tbh

[Clipper Nation]

Not my fault he's right about everything, tbh... :downspin:

[mavs>spurs]

i like ron paul tbh

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You care so little about gay marriage that you turn any thread about Obama into "BARRY GON' LET THEM HOMOS GET MARRIED N' HAVE QUEER BUTTSEX," B.... :lol

:lol he's gonna respond with, "I call them homos because that's what they are, homos! That doens't mean I hate them!"

[Clipper Nation]

:madrun "After I pop this Xanax, I'm gonna express my deep uncaring about gay marriage by talking at length about how Barry is going to let those homoqueers fornicate in the same bed!" :madrun

[Jacob1983]

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has typed the word Xanax on this message board. I would be able to take a much needed and well deserved nice vacation. For some of you assuming ignorant beings, I voted for Gary Johnson and he supports gay rights and abortion. So if I hate homosexuals and gay marriage so much then why did I vote for Gary Johnson? Thank you.
To be honest, I have more respect for Gary Johnson than Obamney because he doesn't make social issues the most important issues. He gives his stance on social issues and that's it. He focuses more on the important shit like the economy. Just sayin'.

And this is a challenge to any of the haters on this board, bring it on.

[Winehole23]

did Romney address them? silence implies agreement, so I'm assuming he's for them . . .

[ElNono]

tbh, I thought both candidates were pretty straightforward on where they stand on this issue.

[ChumpDumper]

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone has typed the word Xanax on this message board. I would be able to take a much needed and well deserved nice vacation. For some of you assuming ignorant beings, I voted for Gary Johnson and he supports gay rights and abortion. So if I hate homosexuals and gay marriage so much then why did I vote for Gary Johnson? Thank you.
To be honest, I have more respect for Gary Johnson than Obamney because he doesn't make social issues the most important issues. He gives his stance on social issues and that's it. He focuses more on the important shit like the economy. Just sayin'.

And this is a challenge to any of the haters on this board, bring it on.Um, which candidate hasn't focused on the economy in his campaign?

[Clipper Nation]

He focuses more on the important shit like the economy.
That isn't a selling point, because his economic plan sucks, tbh.... not Austrian enough for my tastes....

Personally, GJ reminds me of the Libertarians' answer to Obama's '08 campaign: lots of slogans and packaging, not much substance though..... when I did my research on his views, I was shocked at how neoconservative his foreign policy really was, as well as his crap-ass economic views, none of which are on his website....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/303687_433664670002739_1227079433_n.jpg

I like how the author gives Obama the neanderthal sloped forehead and Bush the Alfred E Newman.

[RandomGuy]

http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/303687_433664670002739_1227079433_n.jpg

The answer is yes, I am mad.

Easy.

I am also uncomfortable with the drone strikes. Their efficacy is severely hampered by the Pakistani reaction to them, and they should probably be discontinued, IMO. Not militarily worth the cost in lives and moral authority.

Better?

[SA210]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526027_10152229109305515_1092781836_n.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526027_10152229109305515_1092781836_n.jpg


Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.

“I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/#ixzz2A8zdRQIQ

[MannyIsGod]

I'm against our involvement in Libya for sure. Strikes in "countries" such as Yemen and Afghanistan with drones are a different story for me. I'm not for innocent people dying at all but I realize that this is unlikely to end. I'm for individual evaluations of each possible strike but not an outright end to them.

Indefinite detention and the killing of US citizens by the US government are two things I am completely against.

[SA210]

@ClipperNation, I'm Ron Paul all the way. Since people are so impressed with zingers rather than truth, that line pretty much makes sense considering Obamas lies about how he cares so deeply about young ones in the Middle East. Imagine if Ron Paul were in the debates with a line like that. The world would be blown away lol.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know if he's lying about caring about the people of the middle east. I don't agree with many aspects of his foreign policy but there's no need to try to make him into some evil sociopath. I'm pretty sure that the innocent lives lost in American military actions weigh on the minds of every President who's ever ordered the military action that caused their deaths.

[Clipper Nation]

Well, actions speak louder than words, and by sabre-rattling for more wars in the Middle East, neither candidate seems to care too deeply about the lives of innocent people in that region, tbh.... if those deaths really rested that deeply on Presidents, we would still have constitutional deliberations on and declarations of war, we wouldn't be starving people with sanctions, and we would only be using war as the absolute last resort....

[MannyIsGod]

Well, actions speak louder than words, and by sabre-rattling for more wars in the Middle East, neither candidate seems to care too deeply about the lives of innocent people in that region, tbh.... if those deaths really rested that deeply on Presidents, we would still have constitutional deliberations on and declarations of war, we wouldn't be starving people with sanctions, and we would only be using war as the absolute last resort....

You seem to think that its either or when in reality there are components to the equation outside of simply innocent casualties in the middle east. Sanctions are in place but those sanctions aren't in place for fun. They're there to achieve goals that are meant to protect the safety of other groups of people. You can argue whether this is the most effective way to proceed or not but Obma and other presidents aren't killing innocents in the middle east for fun.

An inability to acknowledge the variety of competing interests in the region that lead to these actions is intellectually dishonest. Our foreign policy in that region is complicated and while I would argue that our decisions cause us more trouble than its worth the majority of the time I don't think its due to malice from our leaders.

[Jacob1983]

Ron Paul would beat the shit out of Obamney on foreign policy in a debate. Ron Paul would call out Obamney on supporting the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drone attacks, nation building, and being the policemen of the world.

[SA210]

Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process.

The Constitution provides for no such thing.

He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect.

And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.



The Constitutional lawyer and Peace President..

[clambake]

those drones are awesome!

[SA210]

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American


Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.



Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g

[SA210]

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American


Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:
ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.



Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g



Team Obama's Justification For Killing A 16-Year-Old American In A Drone Strike Is Stunning




Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, recently became the first person on Team Obama to address the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/#), Conor Friedersdorf of the The Atlantic (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/the-atlantic) reports.

Abdulrahman was the son of New Mexico-born cleric and al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Alwaki. Both were killed (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/) in separate drone strikes last year.

A reporter asked Gibbs: "Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Alwaki's 16-year-old son, who was an American citizen, is justifiable?"
Here is Gibbs' answer:

"I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Alwaki's son … I would suggest that you have a far more responsible father if they're truly concerned about the well being of your children. I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a FOIA request (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/us-must-explain-targeted-killings-its-own-citizens) for information regarding the legal and factual basis for the targeted killings of the al-Alwakis and another U.S. citizen who was killed with Anwar al-Alwaki.
The video below shows Gibbs being asked about President Obama's secret kill list. The al-Alwaki question is asked at 1:55.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/alwaki-son-yemen-16-drone-2012-10#ixzz2AHGfGv2c



================================================== ================================================== ================================



Why Losing Indefinite Detention Powers Would Be A Disaster For Obama




There's a big story by Greg Miller in the Washington Post (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/washington-post) on how the Obama administration has expanded its powers in the War on Terror (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html).

Miller notes that the legal foundation for U.S. counterterrorism strategy is partially based on "the Congressional authorization to use military force" (AUMF) that was passed after 9/11.

Specifically it seems to be based on an interpretation of the AUMF that was "reaffirmed" by the indefinite detention clause of the NationalDefense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This explains why Obama is fighting so hard (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-fights-for-the-ndaa-2012-9) to keep the indefinite detention clause in effect.

In court the government argued (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/357323-preliminary-injunction-against-ndaas-indefinite.html) that the indefinite detention clause is simply a "reaffirmation" of the Authorization Use Of Military Force (AUMF), which gives the president authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons." In the NDAA lawsuit, the government argued (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/357323-preliminary-injunction-against-ndaas-indefinite.html) that the NDAA §1021 is simply an "affirmation" or "reaffirmation" of the AUMF.

But the NDAA adds language to the AUMF when it says "The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces."

That extra part is what Judge Katherine Forrest ruled unconstitutionally vague (http://www.businessinsider.com/no-americans-indefinitely-detained-without-due-process-2012-6). And since Judge Forrest was careful to protect the AUMF (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-be-outraged-about-the-ruling-to-keep-the-national-defense-authorization-in-effect-2012-10) in her permanent injunction, the government should be OK with that decision if the AUMF and NDAA indefinite detention powers are precisely the same.

Tangerine Bolen, an activist and plaintiff on the NDAA lawsuit, told us that the government's reaction raised "significant red flags" that the indefinite detention clause is "a retroactive legislative fix ...[that] allows them to continue to arbitrarily apply indefinite detention (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291872137626701.html) to whomever they wish, whenever they wish, for whatever reasons they wish without being held accountable."

Thus a victory for the plaintiffs in the NDAA lawsuit would strike down unjustified indefinite detention powers that the government has been claiming for years.

"Our lawsuit is the lock on Pandora's box," Bolen said. "And Pandora's box is the overly broad application of the AUMF… is to suddenly and sharply delimit powers upon which President Obama has come to rely wrongfully. [B]He never should've had these powers. Bush never should've had these powers."

The Post notes that critics of Obama's secret drone war (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&) argue that its legal justifications have become much weaker as "the drone campaign has expanded far beyond the core group of al-Qaeda operatives ... [and] officials see an array of emerging threats beyond Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia — the three countries where almost all U.S. drone strikes have occurred."

Bolen argues that the "irreparable harm" is that the permanent injunction would be "exposing illegal activities for the last decade. It could have such a set of ripple consequences: we could see people in the Bush administration, Obama administration and security agencies be investigated for how they have applied the AUMF. Obama could finally be forced to release all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared for years. It's an incredible headache for him."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-losing-indefinite-detention-powers-would-be-a-disaster-for-obama-2012-10#ixzz2AHEst400

[Jacob1983]

Obama is a disaster on civil liberties.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6GQr8m5cOY

lol His son was NOT with him at all, his son was killed in a different strike entirely 2 weeks later along with other kids while eating dinner outside.

These people are not qualified to hold their positions.

[boutons_deux]

And so the Gecko/Ryan and the Repugs will overturn the NDAA and cancel Petraeus' SOCOM international murder gang? hell no. They won't touch it.

NDAA/SOCOM are indefensible, but to vote in Gecko/Ryan to punish Barry will only get you Gecko installing oil-thirsty, blood-thirsty imperial PNAC/dubya/dickhead neocons running foreign/MIC policy.

[Winehole23]

And so the Gecko/Ryan and the Repugs will overturn the NDAA and cancel Petraeus' SOCOM international murder gang? hell no. They won't touch it.neither will Obama, if re-elected.

[SA210]

I'm not voting for evil Mitt either, never was. Barry and Mitt are basically the same when it comes to illegal war and civil liberties. We are screwed no matter which one of them is elected. As long as people want to continue only arguing senseless red team/blue team talking points and ignoring these more important issues, no change will happen.

If you are on the "left" you should be absolutely furious over the murder of a 16 year old American citizen without charge, trial, due process, etc.. by the President, and you should be even more furious at the comment that he should've had a better father as an excuse.

Had Bush done this as President right now, Dems would be all over it on this board. My my, how things have changed.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9TAZRYO-Tc

[boutons_deux]

The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultzhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

[SA210]

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American


Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:
ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.



Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g




Robert Gibb's horrible comments getting more attention. Will it hit mainstream media?

This should immediately end Obama's campaign if the country really knew about all of this and if the msm focused on it as they should be doing, but it won't.
And the moron on the other side would do the same shit.

TYT does a great story here..Cenk really looks bothered, as we all should be.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtG4n6Ci8w

[boutons_deux]

I bet a Gecko $10,000 that Gecko/Ryan will not stop nor deny funding for drone/SOCOM assassinations, which would be OK to wildly popular here with right-wingers.

[SA210]

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American


Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:
ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.



Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g




Now on Yahoo News..let's see where else it goes..

==============================================


Drone of silence: the national-security policy that Obama and Romney won’t debate


Robert Gibbs was holding court in the press room at last week’s second presidential debate at Hofstra University. The former White House press secretary turned senior adviser to the Obama campaign had a single-minded mission of boosting the president to quote-obsessed reporters. So it is easy to imagine Gibbs’ exasperation when he began being hectored by video journalists from the activist group We Are Change (http://wearechange.org/).

Their recently released three-minute video of the encounter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7MwB2znBZ1g) is mostly familiar footage of a campaign mouthpiece trying to deflect off-message questions from unknown reporters. Asked about drone attacks, Gibbs retreated to the kind of non-responsive answer that he used to deliver from the lectern in the White House press room: “When there are people who are trying to harm us -- and have pledged to bring terror to these shores -- we've taken that fight to them."

What came next is what makes this press room face-off sadly emblematic of larger truths (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/). The question involved the drone killing a year ago in Yemen of a United States citizen, the 16-year-old son of American-born cleric and al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

This was Gibbs’ cold-blooded answer about the lesson from this murder from the skies: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al-Qaida jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

All the perfumes of Arabia will not wash that one away.

Yes, Gibbs was provoked. And he has not held a governmental role since he left the White House in early 2011. (At the time, Barack Obama praised Gibbs, who was earning $172,200 a year (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/06/the-underpaid-robert-gibbs-and-washingtons-sense-of-entitlement/), for “going 24/7 with relatively modest pay”). So these ghoulish pick-your-parents-carefully comments by Gibbs were not a statement of official administration policy.

Yet Gibbs was one of Obama’s closest advisers during the early days of the administration when the president began personally picking (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&) the suspected terrorists who would be targeted by drone attacks. So Gibbs is familiar with the presidential rationale for these targeted killings and the collateral damage that sometimes accompanies them. As a result, Gibbs’ answer carries more policy weight than, say, a response from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who chairs the Democratic National Committee.

The mindset surrounding the drone attacks is analogous to Richard Nixon’s declaration, “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8).” In this case, Gibbs was saying, in effect, “When the president kills you with a drone strike, that means you are a terrorist.” And if you are an American citizen like the 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, then you too are fair game...

Except that this teenager was not with his father when he died in 2011. As Tom Junod reported in Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN), Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had not seen his father in two years and was searching for him -- haunted as many boys are by the missing imprint of a male parent. Given the blanket of executive secrecy (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/drone_foia_reply_brief.pdf) surrounding the president’s kill list, we do not know why the group of relatives and friends that he was eating dinner with by the side of the road was targeted by a drone.

http://news.yahoo.com/drone-of-silence-the-national-security-policy-that-obama-and-romney-wont-debate-10251296.html

[boutons_deux]

Any right-wingers here think Gecko/Ryan overturn NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, ground all the drones, fire Petraeus/SOCOM?

There won't be any of Gecko's highly original "Big Change" in any of these activities, except for the worse. So voting against Barry to punish him will only get the same and more of the same, plus bombing Iran, from Gecko and his neocons.

[Clipper Nation]

But yet, voting for Barry will also only end up getting us at least 4 more years of NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, drones, and SOCOM....

[boutons_deux]

But yet, voting for Barry will also only end up getting us at least 4 more years of NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, drones, and SOCOM....

Voting for Gecko will get the same and his neocons will certainly make it all worse.

[Clipper Nation]

Voting for Gecko will get the same and his neocons will certainly make it all worse.

Good thing I'm writing in Ron Paul instead of voting for either of those bums....

[SA210]

I don't know about you, but there is no question in my mind that Barry will attack Iran..not much of a difference than Romney.

[SA210]

United Nations investigates Obama's drone attacks to see if killing civilians is a war crime (http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1981-un-investigates-to-see-if-obamas-drone-attacks-killing-civilians-are-war-crimes)

Official who monitors counter-terrorism for the UN says US drone strikes in Pakistan – where those helping victims of earlier attacks or attending funerals were killed – may amount to war crimes.


THE UNITED NATIONS is to set up a dedicated investigations unit in Geneva to examine the legality of drone attacks in cases where civilians are killed in so-called 'targeted' counter-terrorism operations. The announcement was made by Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, in a speech to Harvard law school in which he condemned secret rendition and waterboarding as crimes under international law.

His forthright comments, directed at both US presidential candidates, will be seen as an explicit challenge to the prevailing US ideology of the global war on terror.

Earlier this summer, Emmerson, who monitors counter-terrorism for the UN, called for effective investigations into drone attacks. Some US drone strikes in Pakistan – where those helping victims of earlier attacks or attending funerals were killed – may amount to war crimes, Emmerson warned.

In his Harvard speech, he revealed: "If the relevant states are not willing to establish effective independent monitoring mechanisms … then it may in the last resort be necessary for the UN to act. Together with my colleague Christof Heyns, [the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings], I will be launching an investigation unit within the special procedures of the [UN] Human Rights Council to inquire into individual drone attacks."

The unit will also look at "other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted, and to seek explanations from the states using this technology and the states on whose territory it is used. [It] will begin its work early next year and will be based in Geneva."

Security officials who took part in waterboarding interrogations or secret rendition removals should be made accountable for their actions and justice, Emmerson added. "The time has come," he said, "for the international community to agree minimum standard principles for investigating such allegations and holding those responsible to account.

"Let us be clear on this: secret detention is unlawful as a matter of international law. Waterboarding is always torture. Torture is an international crime of universal jurisdiction. The torturer, like the pirate before him, is regarded in international law as the enemy of all mankind. There is therefore a duty on states to investigate and to prosecute acts of torture."

The US stance of conducting counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaida or other groups anywhere in the world because it is deemed to be an international conflict was indefensible, he maintained.

"The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law," Emmerson said. "It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.

"The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …

"[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view."

Emmerson singled out both President Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney for criticism. "It is perhaps surprising that the position of the two candidates on this issue has not even featured during their presidential elections campaigns, and got no mention at all in Monday night's foreign policy debate.

"We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones. But the issue of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques is an one which, according to the record, continues to divide them.

"I should make it absolutely clear that my mandate does not see to eye to eye with the Obama administration on a range of issues – not least the lack of transparency over the drone programme. But on this issue the president has been clear since he took office that water-boarding is torture that it is contrary to American values and that it would stop.

"... But Governor Romney has said that he does not believe that waterboarding is torture. He has said that he would allow enhanced interrogation techniques that go beyond those now permitted by the army field manual, and his security advisers have recommended that he rescind the existing restrictions."

The Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, Emmerson pointed out, used the technique. "Anyone who is in doubt about whether waterboarding is torture should visit Tuol Sleng, the infamous S-21 detention facility operated by the Khymer Rouge in Phnom Penh.

"Over a period of four years 14,000 people were systematically tortured and killed there. It is now a genocide museum. And right there, in the middle of the central torturing room, is the apparatus used by Pol Pot's security officials for waterboarding."


http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1981-un-investigates-to-see-if-obamas-drone-attacks-killing-civilians-are-war-crimes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course they are war crimes.

[SA210]

::crickets::

[mercos]

My biggest beefs with Obama are on civil liberties. If Romney offered a competing view in those categories, he would get my vote, but he does not. I'm also not wasting my vote on a third party candidate that can not win When a third party becomes viable, I will definitely give them consideration, but I am not naive. Voting third party and giving the election to someone worse that Obama isn't teaching him a lesson, its hurting myself. I understand that there is never going to be a candidate that I completely agree with unless I run myself.

I have no problem with Obama's foreign policy, including the drone strikes. I didn't have a problem when Bush did it either. My biggest problem with Bush's foreign policy was that he was inept at running it. It sucks that innocent people get killed in drone strikes, but shit happens in war. Unlike the our enemies, we are not TARGETING civilians. If we wanted to kill civilians, the death toll would be a lot higher. I wish we could just mind our business and not be bothered, ala the Ron Paul philosophy, but I'm afraid its far to late for that. The sins of our fathers have tainted our image in the middle east for generations to come, and we will have to deal with the fallout.

[Clipper Nation]

I wish we could just mind our business and not be bothered, ala the Ron Paul philosophy, but I'm afraid its far to late for that. The sins of our fathers have tainted our image in the middle east for generations to come, and we will have to deal with the fallout.

So your solution to making up for our fuck-ups in the Middle East and healing our image is just to drone people instead of sending in the troops? Illogical, tbh...

The only way we have a chance at healing our image abroad is to stop behaving like an empire and get our nose out of everyone else's business unless we are DIRECTLY threatened, tbh...

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU

[Jacob1983]

Unlike Obamney, Gary Johnson says he doesn't want to bomb Iran. Pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't bomb Iran either.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3meCzBQqYQ

[Jacob1983]

It's okay because Obama is a Democrat and social liberal. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama is straight up neo-con.

[SA210]

lol Liberals all silent. What a turnaround from about 4 years ago when Bush was doing these things.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Liberals all silent. What a turnaround from about 4 years ago when Bush was doing these things.Actually, there have been many threads critical of Obama on this subject from his supporters.

You just never read anything but your own posts.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol Liberals all silent. What a turnaround from about 4 years ago when Bush was doing these things.

If you can point to a thread where these so called Liberals have supported Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, or the NDAA, please do so. As far as I've seen most of the Obama supporters on this site are annoyed with those things and don't try to defend them.

[Wild Cobra]

If you can point to a thread where these so called Liberals have supported Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, or the NDAA, please do so. As far as I've seen most of the Obama supporters on this site are annoyed with those things and don't try to defend them.
Isn't it funny the outrage only exists during a republican's term?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Isn't it funny the outrage only exists during a republican's term?

Did you read my post? I'm liberal and I have plenty of outrage towards Obama's decision on The Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, Netanyahu, etc.

[SA210]

If you can point to a thread where these so called Liberals have supported Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, or the NDAA, please do so. As far as I've seen most of the Obama supporters on this site are annoyed with those things and don't try to defend them.

:lol So outraged and annoyed that they still support him. Makes a lot of sense.

A vote for Obama is a vote for more war and the murder of innocent women and children. They were so vocal against Bush, about war crimes, etc, but no such talk like like that on Obama. You know that.

Simple criticism here and there is nothing compared to the everyday attack on sorry ass war crime Bush, even though Bush bombed 4 countries in 8 years, and Obama bombed 6 countries in less than 4. lol

[z0sa]

If you can point to a thread where these so called Liberals have supported Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, or the NDAA, please do so. As far as I've seen most of the Obama supporters on this site are annoyed with those things and don't try to defend them.

Could you specifically point out posters who are "annoyed" by these things, and liberal in your opinion? Thanks in advance.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you read my post? I'm liberal and I have plenty of outrage towards Obama's decision on The Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, Netanyahu, etc.
Sure, as an individual.

What about the mainscream media?

[Jacob1983]

I think the reason why Bush got more shit because he was apathetic toward it. He didn't want every American to like and he didn't give a shit about it either. Obama cares way too much about how he is viewed by Americans. Obama wants people to like him. It's a weakness if you ask me. You are suppose to be a leader, not everyone's best friend.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol So outraged and annoyed that they still support him. Makes a lot of sense.

A vote for Obama is a vote for more war and the murder of innocent women and children. They were so vocal against Bush, about war crimes, etc, but no such talk like like that on Obama. You know that.

Simple criticism here and there is nothing compared to the everyday attack on sorry ass war crime Bush, even though Bush bombed 4 countries in 8 years, and Obama bombed 6 countries in less than 4. lollol it's just a different set of talking points

[SA210]

Liberals let Obama get away with unconstitutional actions

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/obama-romney-civil-liberties_n_2006992.html) on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.
Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?

The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.

In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.

The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.

These acts aren’t deal-breakers for many voters, except among a small number of civil liberties advocates, such as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, whose blog “Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/)” deplored the left’s lack of outrage. Other liberals, seeing a constellation of social and economic issues, don’t want to damage Obama’s re-election chances by speaking out. He’ll probably get the votes of most lawyers for the ACLU, which has criticized him (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase) persistently. And his judicial nominees will be more liberal than Mitt Romney’s. So there is no opportunity for principled voting. Without a civil liberties candidate with a chance to win, pragmatic balloting is unavoidable.

A symmetrical silence about Obama’s rights policies afflicts Republicans. They worry that government is too big when it funds programs for the poor but not when it funds wars. It is too big when it regulates business but not when it regulates individual lives. It can decide whom people may marry, restrict women’s control over their pregnancies and evade the Fourth Amendment by invading Americans’ privacy. Only true libertarians seem to care.

But there is more here than hypocrisy. Terrorism remains a threat, as the FBI repeatedly reminds the country with sting operations that lure hapless wannabes into dramatic plots they couldn’t execute without undercover agents. Each arrest stokes the public’s fear. Furthermore, rights violations are largely clandestine and invisible. Their targets are “others,” meaning foreigners, terrorists, common criminals and various people not like “us.”

Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, polling (http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Civil-Liberties-and-Security.aspx) by the AP and the National Opinion Research Center found that those surveyed supported, by 65 to 21 percent, a government policy to read, without warrants, any emails to people inside the U.S. from countries known for terrorism. By 48 to 37 percent, respondents favored warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens’ Internet searches “to watch for suspicious activities,” not further defined. In other words, I’m willing to give up your rights for my security.

It’s not generally understood that constitutional rights are not divisible, that those denied to others, including suspected terrorists, are also denied to “us.” For example, Ernesto Miranda of the Miranda warning, who secured our right to silence during police interrogation, was not a model citizen. He had a long record and had kidnapped and raped a mentally defective teenager. Yet his right now belongs to us all.

A certain appreciation of constitutional law is required to grasp what has happened under the Bush and Obama administrations, and neither the press nor the school system educates well on these issues. It has been widely noted that global warming went unmentioned in the presidential debates, but hardly anyone has observed that both poverty and civil liberties (and the Supreme Court) were also ignored by the candidates and moderators.

It took a comedian, Jon Stewart, to raise Bush-era surveillance policies with Obama, on The Daily Show on Oct. 18 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/barack-obama-pt--2). “We have modified them,” the president said. “Now, they’re not real sexy issues.”

Stewart replied: “You don’t know what I find sexy.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_...vil_liberties/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_does_obama_get_a_pass_on_civil_liberties/)

[Winehole23]

Red team evades the very same questions, yet you keep saying the same thing over and over again . . .


*squawk*

[SA210]

Red team evades the very same questions, yet you keep saying the same thing over and over again . . .


*squawk*

Your comments would make sense if I supported Red team.

[Winehole23]

your slapping has been a bit one-sided in this thread.

[SA210]

your slapping has been a bit one-sided in this thread.

This thread is about blue team hypocrisy. These are things blue team are supposed to be against. It's expected from Red team.

[Winehole23]

appreciate the confirmation

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aaEpvCvLs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FnRahHqTRw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh0nIYNAyY

"Is that a question in the debate?" lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205327&p=6189751

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....


Kuchinich is about as "blue" as it gets.

[SA210]

lol Moron, I don't see Kucinich in any of those videos evading questions on these issues, if you'd like I can show you videos of Kucinich being the only consistent one against these issues whenever questioned that's on the blue team, but yall never listen to Kucinich anyway, because he's the Ron Paul of the Dems. Hooray for your fake victory :lol

Btw, I like how you evade as well how all these morons reacted lol

[SA210]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/20185_553308918028813_7606736_n.jpg

[Winehole23]

more SA210 type carpet bombs

[admiralsnackbar]

Ron Paul would beat the shit out of Obamney on foreign policy in a debate. Ron Paul would call out Obamney on supporting the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drone attacks, nation building, and being the policemen of the world.

Isolationism, by definition, is not a foreign policy.

[Halberto]

Isolationism is different from non-intervention.

[Jacob1983]

Ron Paul supports non-intervention. If he supported isolationism, he wouldn't support talking to Cuba about trade and other shit. Thank you. So if you don't support nation building and bullying the world into submission then you're an isolationist?

[Clipper Nation]

Isolationism, by definition, is not a foreign policy.
And Ron Paul isn't an isolationist... in fact, he sees actual free trade (as opposed to the special interest crony trade we have now with NAFTA) as an important component of the economy....

Calling someone an isolationist for not rushing off to war with every country that sneezes funny is like calling someone a hermit for visiting the neighbor's house and not breaking all their stuff....

[admiralsnackbar]

Fair enough, gentlemen -- I stand corrected.