Reply With Quote
Whatever, taker. It's pointless trying to communicate with you.
So you acknowledge you never posted a link in this thread.
Whatever, taker. It's pointless trying to communicate with you.
You said you posted a link.
You didn't.
Did you really think you did, or did you just figure two pages is too long for anyone to bother verifying your rather silly assertion?
.
Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
On topics from Guantánamo to drone strikes, I couldn’t let the president act as if he were some helpless official at the mercy of Congress.
Medea Benjamin
CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin is surrounded by security as she shouts at President Barack Obama during his speech on national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Having worked for years on the issues of drones and Guantánamo, I was delighted to get a pass (the source will remain anonymous) to attend President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University. I had read many press reports anticipating what the president might say. There was much talk about major policy shifts that would include transparency with the public, new guidelines for the use of drones, taking lethal drones out of the purview of the CIA, and in the case of Guantánamo, invoking the “waiver system” to begin the transfer of prisoners already cleared for release.
Sitting at the back of the auditorium, I hung on every word the president said. I kept waiting to hear an announcement about changes that would represent a significant shift in policy. Unfortunately, I heard nice words, not the resetting of failed policies.
Instead of announcing the transfer of drone strikes from the CIA to the exclusive domain of the military, Obama never even mentioned the CIA—much less acknowledge the killing spree that the CIA has been carrying out in Pakistan during his administration. While there were predictions that he would declare an end to signature strikes, strikes based merely on su ious behavior that have been responsible for so many civilian casualties, no such announcement was made.
The bulk of the president’s speech was devoted to justifying drone strikes. I was shocked when the president claimed that his administration did everything it could to capture suspects instead of killing them. That is just not true. Obama’s reliance on drones is precisely because he did not want to be bothered with capturing suspects and bringing them to trial. Take the case of 16-year-old Pakistani Tariz Aziz, who could have been picked up while attending a conference at a major hotel in the capital, Islamabad, but was instead killed by a drone strike, with his 12-year-old cousin, two days later. Or the drone strike that 23-year-old Yemini Farea al-Muslimi talked about when he testified in Congress. He said the man targeted in his village of Wessab was a man who everyone knew, who met regularly with government officials and who could have easily been brought in for questioning.
When the president was coming to the end of this speech, he started talking about Guantánamo. As he has done in the past, he stated his desire to close the prison, but blamed Congress. That’s when I felt compelled to speak out. With the men in Guantánamo on hunger strike, being brutally forced fed and bereft of all hope, I couldn’t let the president continue to act as if he were some helpless official at the mercy of Congress.
“Excuse me, Mr. President,” I said, “but you’re the Commander-in-Chief. You could close Guantánamo tomorrow and release the eighty-six prisoners who have been cleared for release.” We went on to have quite an exchange.
While I have received a deluge of support, there are others, including journalists, who have called me “rude.” But terrorizing villages with fire missiles that vaporize innocent people is rude. Violating the sovereignty of nations like Pakistan is rude. Keeping eighty-six prisoners in Guantánamo long after they have been cleared for release is rude. Shoving feeding tubes down prisoners’ throats instead of giving them justice is certainly rude.
At one point during his speech, President Obama said that the deaths of innocent people from the drone attacks will haunt him as long as he lives. But he is still unwilling to acknowledge those deaths, apologize to the families, or compensate them. In Afghanistan, the US military has a policy of compensating the families of victims who they killed or wounded by mistake. It is not always done, and many families refuse to take the money, but at least it represents some accounting for taking the lives of innocent people. Why can’t the president set up a similar policy when drone strikes are used in countries with which we are not at war?
There are many things the president could and should have said, but he didn’t. So it is up to us to speak out.
Did Obama reject perpetual war in his speech, or just rename it? Read John Sifton for more.
Medea Benjamin
May 24, 2013
Arguing over like this is pointless because nothing is going to happen. Nothing is going to change. Both Obama and Bush have blood on their hands yet there is no accountability, responsibility, or consequences for their actions. But as I said, nothing is going to change so it's basically useless and pointless to about it. Obama supporters don't care or give a just like Bush supporters didn't care too.
So why do you do nothing but about it?
Because it's my reason for living.
I can't say I doubt that.
.
Cenk, telling the truth, yet again.
"CNN's Carol Costello on Saturday scolded prominent anti-war activist Medea Benjamin of Code Pink for repeatedly interrupting President Barack Obama during a major national security speech."*
Does CNN's Carol Costello understand the meanings of the words "rude" and "journalism?" Maybe Code Pink's Medea Benjamin can teach her that speaking out and what it means to not be complacent and unquestioning with leadership. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
TYT News: Code Pink Shows What's Wrong with CNN
.
Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
On topics from Guantánamo to drone strikes, I couldn’t let the president act as if he were some helpless official at the mercy of Congress.
Medea Benjamin
CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin is surrounded by security as she shouts at President Barack Obama during his speech on national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Having worked for years on the issues of drones and Guantánamo, I was delighted to get a pass (the source will remain anonymous) to attend President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University. I had read many press reports anticipating what the president might say. There was much talk about major policy shifts that would include transparency with the public, new guidelines for the use of drones, taking lethal drones out of the purview of the CIA, and in the case of Guantánamo, invoking the “waiver system” to begin the transfer of prisoners already cleared for release.
Sitting at the back of the auditorium, I hung on every word the president said. I kept waiting to hear an announcement about changes that would represent a significant shift in policy. Unfortunately, I heard nice words, not the resetting of failed policies.
Instead of announcing the transfer of drone strikes from the CIA to the exclusive domain of the military, Obama never even mentioned the CIA—much less acknowledge the killing spree that the CIA has been carrying out in Pakistan during his administration. While there were predictions that he would declare an end to signature strikes, strikes based merely on su ious behavior that have been responsible for so many civilian casualties, no such announcement was made.
The bulk of the president’s speech was devoted to justifying drone strikes. I was shocked when the president claimed that his administration did everything it could to capture suspects instead of killing them. That is just not true. Obama’s reliance on drones is precisely because he did not want to be bothered with capturing suspects and bringing them to trial. Take the case of 16-year-old Pakistani Tariz Aziz, who could have been picked up while attending a conference at a major hotel in the capital, Islamabad, but was instead killed by a drone strike, with his 12-year-old cousin, two days later. Or the drone strike that 23-year-old Yemini Farea al-Muslimi talked about when he testified in Congress. He said the man targeted in his village of Wessab was a man who everyone knew, who met regularly with government officials and who could have easily been brought in for questioning.
When the president was coming to the end of this speech, he started talking about Guantánamo. As he has done in the past, he stated his desire to close the prison, but blamed Congress. That’s when I felt compelled to speak out. With the men in Guantánamo on hunger strike, being brutally forced fed and bereft of all hope, I couldn’t let the president continue to act as if he were some helpless official at the mercy of Congress.
“Excuse me, Mr. President,” I said, “but you’re the Commander-in-Chief. You could close Guantánamo tomorrow and release the eighty-six prisoners who have been cleared for release.” We went on to have quite an exchange.
While I have received a deluge of support, there are others, including journalists, who have called me “rude.” But terrorizing villages with fire missiles that vaporize innocent people is rude. Violating the sovereignty of nations like Pakistan is rude. Keeping eighty-six prisoners in Guantánamo long after they have been cleared for release is rude. Shoving feeding tubes down prisoners’ throats instead of giving them justice is certainly rude.
At one point during his speech, President Obama said that the deaths of innocent people from the drone attacks will haunt him as long as he lives. But he is still unwilling to acknowledge those deaths, apologize to the families, or compensate them. In Afghanistan, the US military has a policy of compensating the families of victims who they killed or wounded by mistake. It is not always done, and many families refuse to take the money, but at least it represents some accounting for taking the lives of innocent people. Why can’t the president set up a similar policy when drone strikes are used in countries with which we are not at war?
There are many things the president could and should have said, but he didn’t. So it is up to us to speak out.
Did Obama reject perpetual war in his speech, or just rename it? Read John Sifton for more.
Medea Benjamin
May 24, 2013
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
