Wow, this makes the evil Boosh using Gitmo as a detainee holding pen look like a mere scuffing of human rights compared to the full-on abuse of this American citizen's rights.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Yep, you read that correctly. Obama is going to kill an American living abroad without so much as a trial in absentia. No presumption of innocence here, not so much as a fair-thee-well to the time honored principle of at least attempting to capture this guy. No, they are gonna zap him but good. Niiiiice going, Obama. So much for those happy, fairyland ideals of undoing the nasty brutality of the previous administration. Hypocrites.
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said."
So before we get any further, let's give Jophiel his chance to pithily dismiss this in a two sentence response with the typical smiley face at the end. As for the rest of you, I can't wait to hear how you rationalize this to justify the killing of someone without his due process.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama: Judge, jury, and executioner
Obama: Judge, jury, and executionerFollow
Every time I read one of ToUtem's posts, I get the feeling he doesn't actually believe whatever he writes but is just trying to get a rise out of liberal posters. As for due process:
Ask the right people for permission and, what do you know? You can blow them up.
The bigger question, I think, is if this will prompt a backlash in America. According to the article, the cleric in question is popular with English-speaking Muslims.
Quote:
As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.
Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.
At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.â€
Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.
At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.â€
Ask the right people for permission and, what do you know? You can blow them up.
The bigger question, I think, is if this will prompt a backlash in America. According to the article, the cleric in question is popular with English-speaking Muslims.
So from my quick read the cleric has been put on a wanted dead list, for planning and participating in terrorist attacks. Seems like there might be evidence that wasn't released, and may a trial in absentia was held? Just not a public one.
Disclaimer: I am not in favor of star chamber courts.
Now if I was the cleric and not guilty I just may return and demand a trial to clear my name.
Disclaimer: I am not in favor of star chamber courts.
Now if I was the cleric and not guilty I just may return and demand a trial to clear my name.
Jonwin wrote:
Now if I was the cleric and not guilty I just may return and demand a trial to clear my name.
Obviously, on this specific event, my opinion doesn't matter as I'm not American, but if this were the Canadian government and we were talking about a Canadian citizen, I trust my government enough to assume they've been diligent in their research before giving a go ahead to kill a Canadian citizen.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Totem wrote:
So before we get any further, let's give Jophiel his chance to pithily dismiss this in a two sentence response with the typical smiley face at the end.
No need for two sentences when I can just type "What Locke said".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Every time I read one of ToUtem's posts, I get the feeling he doesn't actually believe whatever he writes but is just trying to get a rise out of liberal posters.
Ya think?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Totem wrote:
Wow, this makes the evil Boosh using Gitmo as a detainee holding pen look like a mere scuffing of human rights compared to the full-on abuse of this American citizen's rights.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Yep, you read that correctly. Obama is going to kill an American living abroad without so much as a trial in absentia. No presumption of innocence here, not so much as a fair-thee-well to the time honored principle of at least attempting to capture this guy. No, they are gonna zap him but good. Niiiiice going, Obama. So much for those happy, fairyland ideals of undoing the nasty brutality of the previous administration. Hypocrites.
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said."
So before we get any further, let's give Jophiel his chance to pithily dismiss this in a two sentence response with the typical smiley face at the end. As for the rest of you, I can't wait to hear how you rationalize this to justify the killing of someone without his due process.
Totem
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Yep, you read that correctly. Obama is going to kill an American living abroad without so much as a trial in absentia. No presumption of innocence here, not so much as a fair-thee-well to the time honored principle of at least attempting to capture this guy. No, they are gonna zap him but good. Niiiiice going, Obama. So much for those happy, fairyland ideals of undoing the nasty brutality of the previous administration. Hypocrites.
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said."
So before we get any further, let's give Jophiel his chance to pithily dismiss this in a two sentence response with the typical smiley face at the end. As for the rest of you, I can't wait to hear how you rationalize this to justify the killing of someone without his due process.
Totem
I find it terribly character-telling, however, that something you would be giving kudos to another leader for, you are now willing to chastise lil liberal black Sambo for. Have a conviction eh.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
I find it terribly character-telling, however, that something you would be giving kudos to another leader for, you are now willing to chastise lil liberal black Sambo for. Have a conviction eh.
My Babel fish with the special ToUtem add-on says he does approve, which is why he thinks it'll get a rise out of Liberals.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Now if I was the cleric and not guilty I just may return and demand a trial to clear my name.
Why, because the innocent have nothing to fear from the law?
Samira wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I find it terribly character-telling, however, that something you would be giving kudos to another leader for, you are now willing to chastise lil liberal black Sambo for. Have a conviction eh.
My Babel fish with the special ToUtem add-on says he does approve, which is why he thinks it'll get a rise out of Liberals.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
This sounds like an excellent opportunity for Gbaji to come bounding in, howling "You know if Bush did it....!!!!"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I think the issue at hand is that had this been made public when Bush was in office the furor over the decision would have been splashed across every local news program in America for days at a time. There'd be Congressional calls for investigation, subpoenas to testify on Capital Hill and a general outcry from the left that would be covered in every possible outlet.
The current administration makes the decision and there's barely a word about it in the broader news establishment. The hypocrisy certainly doesn't lie with anyone on the Right. We're generally all for this sort of emphatic and prudent decision making. I know I don't have an issue with it. My issue is with the media and the leftists who aren't giving this the same treatment they would had Bush done it.
The current administration makes the decision and there's barely a word about it in the broader news establishment. The hypocrisy certainly doesn't lie with anyone on the Right. We're generally all for this sort of emphatic and prudent decision making. I know I don't have an issue with it. My issue is with the media and the leftists who aren't giving this the same treatment they would had Bush done it.
Jophiel wrote:
This sounds like an excellent opportunity for Gbaji to come bounding in, howling "You know if Bush did it....!!!!"
Meh, mock it all you like, it's not inaccurate.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
This sounds like an excellent opportunity for Gbaji to come bounding in, howling "You know if Bush did it....!!!!"
Meh, mock it all you like, it's not inaccurate.
Edit to add - it's conjecturing on the conjecture that gjabi will indeed come bounding in howling:D
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 4:13pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
You get a good view from up there on the cross.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
But it's the Rights who keep harping on "not dealing with terrorists"!! So Obama dispenses with the diplomacy and goes for the throat. You should be praising his concessions to the conservative war machine, not ******** about it!!
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 10:13am by Debalic
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 10:13am by Debalic
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
But it's the Rights who keep harping on "not dealing with terrorists"!! So Obama dispenses with the diplomacy and goes for the throat. You should be praising his concessions to the conservative war machine, not ******** about it.
Not me. I'm pleased as punch that he has continued the airstrikes in Pakistan, that he hasn't been able to close gitmo and that he is willing to put a contract out on a guy. I think there's plenty he's doing unilaterally to make us weaker, but on dealing with terrorism & terrorists, I have few complaints. I am not in the slightest sense ******** about his actions there. I was careful, and I believe successful, to specifically criticize the media, not the administration.
Samira wrote:
You get a good view from up there on the cross.
Yeah, but the spikes hurt like a son of a *****.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Meh, mock it all you like, it's not inaccurate.
It's not "accurate", either. It's a meaningless, nothing statement that can't be proven or disproven so it allows you to cry big ole crocdile tears over how oppressed you are without backing anything up.
Wow, crying Pubbies saying how badly the mean ole Democrats/Media treats them. There's a shocker. Accurate, even!
If you agree with what the administration did, just say you agree. If you disagree, say so. From the looks of it, you agree but still want something to whine about.
Edit: I was delayed while typing this and missed your later post stating your approval of Obama on the topic. Though I doubt we'll see as much from Totem, Gbaji, Varus, etc etc.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 9:51am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Meh, mock it all you like, it's not inaccurate.
It's not "accurate", either. It's a meaningless, nothing statement that can't be proven or disproven so it allows you to cry big ole crocdile tears over how oppressed you are without backing anything up.
Wow, crying Pubbies saying how badly the mean ole Democrats/Media treats them. There's a shocker. Accurate, even!
If you agree with what the administration did, just say you agree. If you disagree, say so. From the looks of it, you agree but still want something to whine about.
Edit: I was delayed while typing this and missed your later post stating your approval of Obama on the topic. Though I doubt we'll see as much from Totem, Gbaji, Varus, etc etc.
I don't believe that it has to be a whine to point out a double standard. I don't believe that I am whining about it. I think that a reasonable person should be able to look at the furor over the precedent-ed detention of unlawful combatants & intelligence gathering in a time of war ("warrant-less" wiretapping) and compare it to the lack of attention that stories like this get and notice a difference in the discourse. I believe that a reasonable person should be able to look at the coverage of and reaction to Predator attacks under Bush and Predator attacks under Obama and notice a difference in the discourse.
I think a great example of the difference in treatment is Chris Matthews (granted, no one really listens to him, so he's probably not the best example, but great none the less). He harshly criticizes Rush Limbaugh for using the word regime to describe the Obama administration when he himself describe the Bush administration the same way 8 years ago. Short memories, perhaps.
Quote:
I don't believe that it has to be a whine to point out a double standard.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Totem was clearly whining though.
Even that I don't know if I can totally get behind. Toutem is Toutem. He was clearly being an ***, but I didn't get the sense of whining, so much as generally moogle-pokery, for which he has a singular penchant.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I don't believe that it has to be a whine to point out a double standard.
When you're basing your double standard off conjecture rather than something that actually happened, I don't think there's anything to call it besides "whining".
Quote:
I believe that a reasonable person should be able to look at the coverage of and reaction to Predator attacks under Bush and Predator attacks under Obama and notice a difference in the discourse.
I'd be interested in seeing critical news articles on Predator drones under Bush and what they were being critical of before comparing the two.
A brief survey of articles in the Google News archives doesn't show anything particularly damning.
Quote:
I think a great example of the difference in treatment is Chris Matthews (granted, no one really listens to him, so he's probably not the best example, but great none the less).
Sure, Chris Matthews is an idiot.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 10:29am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I don't believe that it has to be a whine to point out a double standard.
When you're basing your double standard off conjecture rather than something that actually happened, I don't think there's anything to call it besides "whining".
It's not really conjecture, though. Look at the graphs at the tops of the following search pages...
Gitmo Protests
Predator Attack Protests
The incidence of coverage is not nearly as high now, and the policies/incidence of attack are just as high now as they were under Bush.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I believe that a reasonable person should be able to look at the coverage of and reaction to Predator attacks under Bush and Predator attacks under Obama and notice a difference in the discourse.
I'd be interested in seeing critical news articles on Predator drones under Bush and what they were being critical of before comparing the two.
A brief survey of articles in the Google News archives doesn't show anything particularly damning.
It's not simply critical coverage of the actions, it's coverage of the critics too. They were always front and center. They're not there anymore. Should we take that to mean there is no more outrage or that there is no desire to embarrass the president?
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I think a great example of the difference in treatment is Chris Matthews (granted, no one really listens to him, so he's probably not the best example, but great none the less).
Sure, Chris Matthews is an idiot.
Common ground!
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The incidence of coverage is not nearly as high now, and the policies/incidence of attack are just as high now as they were under Bush.
I think you meant "warrentless wiretap protests" but, anyway, it's obvious that the amount of news stories was at a constant slide in both categories. It's not as though there was a huge plateau with Bush and a sudden cliff with Obama, it just became "old news". Although I would expect the amount of Gitmo protests to taper off to some degree since Obama is at least working towards that end.
Jophiel wrote:
It's not simply critical coverage of the actions, it's coverage of the critics too. They were always front and center. They're not there anymore.
In all honesty, I don't recall a great deal of outrage over the drones. Maybe it was there and I just don't remember it.
Not that =4 equals "the media" but you can use your premium and so a search for "drone" here and see what a non-issue it was under Bush. We've actually had more critical discussion of the drone program under Obama than under Bush. Not especially surprising to me since Obama's use of drones has been a lot greater.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Debalic wrote:
But it's the Rights who keep harping on "not dealing with terrorists"!! So Obama dispenses with the diplomacy and goes for the throat. You should be praising his concessions to the conservative war machine, not ******** about it.
Not me. I'm pleased as punch that he has continued the airstrikes in Pakistan, that he hasn't been able to close gitmo and that he is willing to put a contract out on a guy. I think there's plenty he's doing unilaterally to make us weaker, but on dealing with terrorism & terrorists, I have few complaints. I am not in the slightest sense ******** about his actions there. I was careful, and I believe successful, to specifically criticize the media, not the administration.
You got my unedited post in your reply. Without premium to add smileys, I was reduced to adding superfluous exclamation points to imply sarcasm. In that, being a typical Pubbie and conservative, you must adhere to your party line, in the same way that all us libs are baby-killing, anti-firearm welfare whores.
It's too hot today; I can't do this.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Jophiel wrote:
I think you meant "warrentless wiretap protests"
Blew the paste of the new link. In either case, all three show the same thing.
Jophiel wrote:
It's not simply critical coverage of the actions, it's coverage of the critics too. They were always front and center. They're not there anymore.
In all honesty, I don't recall a great deal of outrage over the drones. Maybe it was there and I just don't remember it.[/quote]
Not surprising. We save the baby killer hyperbole for the abortion debate.
Recent Visitors: 183
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (183)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama: Judge, jury, and executioner
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC