Jump to content
The Education Forum

Obama's First Full Day as a Tyrant Who Ordered the Assassination of American Citizen Samir Kahn


Guest Tom Scully

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

I read the following piece today and I have two questions.

If President Obama has not behaved like, and exhibited the mindset of a tyrant, then what hasn't he done? Has he not signed off

on the extra judicial assassinations of enough American citizens to earn that description?

If you do not consider Obama a tyrant, if you think he was justified in ordering the deaths of American citizens under the circumstances his own administration has leaked to the news media, than what is he, and is the consideration (even support) you are giving hiim after what he has done, compatible with your objection to the government sponsored obstruction of justice and cover up related to the Kennedy Assassination?

http://www.salon.com...d/singleton/May 30, 2012 09:05 AM EDT

How extremism is normalized

The Obama administration has converted once unthinkable government claims into permanent political fixtures

By Glenn Greenwald

There is one important passage from yesterday’s big New York Times article on President Obama’s personal issuance of secret, due-process-free death sentences that I failed to highlight despite twice writing about that article. The fact that I did not even bother to highlight it among all the other passages I wrote about is itself significant, as it reflects how rapidly true extremism becomes normalized:

That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that
while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.

Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.

Please just re-read that bolded part. This is something that we already knew. The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage had previously reported that Obama OLC lawyers David Barron and Marty Lederman had authored a “secret document” that ”provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war” (“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal”). Attorney General Eric Holder then publicly claimed: “‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” Both of those episodes sparked controversy, because of how radical of a claim it is (Stephen Colbert brutally mocked Holder’s speech: “Due Process just means: there’s a process that you do”).

But that’s the point: once something is repeated enough by government officials, we become numb to its extremism. Even in the immediate wake of 9/11 — when national fear and hysteria were intense — things like the Patriot Act, military commissions, and indefinite detention were viewed as radical departures from American political tradition; now, they just endure and are constantly renewed without notice, because they’ve just become normalized fixtures of American political life. Here we have the Obama administration asserting what I genuinely believe, without hyperbole, is the most extremist government interpretation of the Bill of Rights I’ve heard in my lifetime — that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the State cannot deprive you of your life without “due process of law” is fulfilled by completely secret, oversight-free “internal deliberations by the executive branch” — and it’s now barely something anyone (including me) even notices when The New York Times reports it (as the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer asked yesterday: “These Dems who think executive process is due process: Where were they when Bush needed help with warrantless wiretapping?” — or his indefinite detention scheme?)....

So why are you not "normalized" when the outrage and illegality performed by your government took place for the most part between 22 November, 1963, and the distribution of the Warren Report in late 1964, but you exhibit indications of normalization, or even indifference to Obama's tyranny, even accepting that it is now policy?

The difference between the effect of the Kennedy Assassination and obstruction of criminal investigation and cover up, and Obama ordering the assassination of American citizens is that either it cannot stand, cannot be accepted, or the United States system or government and laws died with those Obama assassination orders. Either "our way of life" ceased when those orders were given and carried out, cynically and criminally with the justification that Americans have to be assassinated by presidential order in order to "defend and preserve our way of life," or such criminality is now a condition of such preservation.

It should be obvious now that "our way of life" has been altered by such criminality on the part of the POTUS to a degree that it is no longer recognizable, or that it is no longer of a quality or an ideal worth preserving or defending.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously I think that's a great point, post.

There's a lot of stuff going on in the world that is terrible and perhaps the most terrible thing is the way events are minimised and maximised in the media, but it is (to me) obvious how controlled focus is that has much less to do with humanitarianism than it does with wealth. Unless they coincide they are not the focus.

eg

Tens of thousands flee 'extreme violence' in Congo

http://www.guardian....-violence-congo

America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror

http://www.guardian....campaign-terror

edittypos

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Tom Scully

One of the biggest indications this president is a despot is his complicity with and shielding of the "excesses" of the prior presidential administration of George W. Bush. If anything, he has further consolidated his own authority under a veil of intensified secrecy. Indications are that nothing will stop the spree of officially sanctioned, clandestine murder at the direction of the president and his subordinates. The president took an oath to preserve and to protect the constitution.....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cia/

Top CIA Spy Accused of Being a Mafia Hitman

......“In protecting Prado, the CIA arguably allowed a new type of mole — an agent not of a foreign government but of American criminal interests — to penetrate command,” Wright writes.....

......More startling, the Miami murders allegedly continued after Prado joined the CIA. One target included a cocaine distributor in Colorado who was killed by a car bomb. Investigators believed he was killed over concerns he would talk to the police.

Years later, in 1996, Prado was a senior manager inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station, before the Al-Qaida mastermind was a well-known name. Two years later, the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania elevated Prado to become the chief of operations inside the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, headed by then-chief Cofer Black, later an executive for the notorious merc firm Blackwater. “As the title implied, the job made Prado responsible for all the moving pieces at the CTC — supervising field offices on surveillance, rendition, or other missions, and making sure that logistics were in order, that personnel were in place,” according to Wright.

Prado was also reportedly put in charge of a “targeted assassination unit,” that was never put into operation. (The CIA shifted to drones.) But according to Wright, the CIA handed over its hit squad operation to Blackwater, now called Academi, as a way “to kill people with precision, without getting caught.” Prado is said to have negotiated the deal to transfer the unit, which Wright wrote “marked the first time the U.S. government outsourced a covert assassination service to private enterprise.” As to whether the unit was then put into operation, two Blackwater contractors tell Wright the unit began “whacking people like crazy” beginning in 2008. Prado also popped up two years ago in a report by Jeremy Scahill of The Nation, in which the now ex-CIA Prado was discovered to have built up a network of foreign shell companies to hide Blackwater operations, beginning in 2004. The Nation also revealed that Prado pitched an e-mail in 2007 to the DEA, explaining that Blackwater could “do everything from everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations,” carried out by foreign nationals, “so deniability is built in and should be a big plus.”......


  1. Revenge? .Meyer Lansky's Stepson Killed Near Miami .

    Evening Independent - Oct 12, 1977
    Richard Schwartz, was shot one time as he sat in his car behind a restaurant he owned in this exclusive resort city between Miami and Miami Beach, ... Evidence Tape Erased .‎ Ocala Star-Banner
    Lansky Stepson Is Shot To Death .‎ Spokane Daily Chronicle
    Victim's Lawyer Suggests Revenge In...‎ The Hour
    Lakeland Ledger - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

  2. Lansky's Stepson Recovering From 'chest Pains' .

    St. Petersburg Times - Jul 5, 1977
    MIAMIRichard Schwartz, stepson of reputed underworld financial wizard Meyer Lansky, was in "satis factory condition" Monday at Jackson Memorial Hospital ... Lansky's Stepson Is Held in Miami On...‎ New York Times ($3.95)

  3. SCHWARTZ SAYS MACK GOT $2650 IN MIAMI TV CASE; Tells...

    $3.95 -
    New York Times - Feb 14, 1958
    He testified that Richard A. Mack had wrongfully accepted $2650. At right is Mrs . Schwartz. SCHWARTZ SAYS MACK GOT $2650 IN MIAMI TV CASE Tells Inquiry ... Fired Counsel Charges Money Given...‎ Altus Times-Democrat
    Full Probe Pledged In Bribe Allegation .‎ Free Lance-Star
    House Investigators Retrieved Files...‎ News And Courier
    News-Dispatch - Spokesman-Review

  4. Lansky Leaves Funeral .

    St. Petersburg Times - Oct 15, 1977
    Underworld figure Meyer Lansky, wearing a yarmulke, enters car Friday after attending funeral services for his slain stepson Richard Schwartz in Miami Beach ... Lansky Attends Stepsons Funeral .‎ Sarasota Herald-Tribune

http://byliner.com/evan-wright/stories/how-to-get-away-with-murder-in-america-excerpt

How to Get Away with Murder in America (Excerpt)

by Evan Wright + Follow

Byliner | June 2012 Submitted by Will Palmer + Follow

Drug lords, dirty pols, obsessed cops, and the quiet man who became the CIA’s master killer.

Buy Evan Wright's How to Get Away with Murder in America for $2.99.

In 2008, Jon Roberts, a convicted cocaine trafficker, made a startling claim to me: that more than three decades earlier he had participated in a murder with a man named Ricky Prado, who later entered the Central Intelligence Agency and became a top American spy. The murder to which Roberts referred was one of Miami’s most infamous, that of Richard Schwartz, stepson of the legendary mobster Meyer Lansky. Schwartz was killed on the morning of October 12, 1977, behind a restaurant near Miami Beach. He was exiting his car when a person unknown approached him and fired twice with a shotgun, at such close range that cotton wadding from the shells impregnated Schwartz’s flesh. The murder has never been solved.

Roberts claimed that Prado was the shooter, provided by a local Cuban drug kingpin named Alberto “Albert” San Pedro, for whom Prado worked as an enforcer and occasional hit man. Roberts confessed to planning the murder with two mafiosi, Gary Teriaca and Robert “Bobby” Erra. According to Roberts, the three of them waited near the scene of the shooting in his boat, in order to take Prado’s weapon and dispose of it in Biscayne Bay.

The politics of Roberts’s story made sense. Months earlier, Schwartz had fatally shot Teriaca’s younger brother in a dispute at the Forge restaurant, in Miami Beach. As Roberts explained it, the three of them participated in the murder to avenge the death of Teriaca’s brother. Prado entered the picture because his boss, San Pedro, was eager to prove his loyalty to the Mafia.

What made Roberts’s story unbelievable was his claim that four years after the shooting, Prado joined the CIA. In Miami, thugs often claim ties to the CIA. The agency recruited hundreds of Cuban immigrants for the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and many of them later became drug traffickers. But Roberts’s story was different. He claimed Prado was a criminal first and then became a career CIA officer. This seemed doubtful until I discovered that there was a CIA officer named Enrique Prado (“Ricky” or “Ric” for short), whom federal agents had targeted in a 1991 RICO and murder investigation into his alleged career—before he entered the agency—as an enforcer for San Pedro.

The investigators had obtained evidence implicating Prado in the murder of Schwartz and several others, as well as in numerous acts of extortion and arson undertaken in support of San Pedro’s drug-trafficking enterprise. Prado was interviewed by federal investigators at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and served with a subpoena to appear before a grand jury.

But somehow the subpoena was quashed. No charges were ever filed against him. Within a few years, the CIA promoted Prado into the highest reaches of its Clandestine Services and made him a supervisor in the unit tasked with hunting Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, he was the chief of counterterrorist operations. With the rank of SIS-2—the CIA equivalent of a two-star or major general—he was among a small circle of officers who helped implement the CIA-led invasion of Afghanistan and directed SEAL Team Six on missions there. Throughout his later years at the agency and then at Blackwater, the private military contracting firm where Prado held a senior position, he worked closely with J. Cofer Black, now a top adviser to Mitt Romney.

The story Roberts told, and the two halves of Prado’s life in the 1990s—murder suspect/stellar CIA officer—made no sense. When I initially searched for the case files of the investigation into Prado —conducted jointly by the FBI and the Miami-Dade Police Department—I discovered they’d disappeared from the MDPD’s records bureau. When I located them elsewhere through a tip from a federal investigator, they were far more extensive than I had expected. There were some three thousand pages, including interviews with eyewitnesses who placed Prado at numerous crimes. I eventually interviewed more than two dozen people involved with the investigation—cops, FBI agents, federal prosecutors, and witnesses—who provided a disturbing portrait of a case abandoned because of CIA intervention, political maneuvering, and possibly corruption. The evidence against Prado was so compelling that one investigator from the case described him as “technically, a serial killer.”

“It was a miscarriage of justice that Prado never faced charges,” says Mike Fisten, the lead homicide investigator on the case. “The CIA fought us tooth and nail, and basically told us to go ......”....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

charters_case_title_main_declaration.gif

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.archives....transcript.html

charters_case_title_main_declaration.gif

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Tom,

Get real.

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

You disgrace yourself. You could have chosen not to post, because you clearly are apathetic or uninformed.

Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Foreign Military ...

travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject ... The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its ...

http://www.state.gov...1/09/174857.htm

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 30, 2011

…QUESTION: So, you mean to tell us that Awlaki was not stripped of his U.S. citizenship, although he committed high treason?

MS. NULAND: You know, it's interesting; I looked into this with our lawyers before coming down here. You might be interested to know that there is no law currently on the U.S. books that allows for the revocation of U.S. citizenship based on one's affiliation with a foreign terrorist group. Now, an American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case.

QUESTION: But there is precedent. I think, just chess master Bobby Fischer was stripped of his citizenship, I believe, at one time.

MS. NULAND: I can't speak to any comparison here or there. I'm simply giving you the current state of U.S. law.

Andy.

QUESTION: But you called him an operational figure. Doesn't that imply action?

MS. NULAND: Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case…"

http://www.huffingto...d_b_996902.html

The Assassination of Al-Awlaki, American Citizen and al Qaeda Martyr Posted: 10/06/11

.....Perhaps the issue would not have the same pertinence if the U.S. State Department had indeed stripped Al-Awlaki of his citizenship as was proposed by Rep Charlie Dent (R.PA) in April 2010. Dent introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to Al-Awlaki. He said Al-Awlaki "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al Qaeda "since before 9/11," and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts. But the proposal never made it out of subcommittee.

It was once possible to lose one's U.S. citizenship by fighting in another country's army against the United States but the Supreme Court has found that unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Ironically, the virulently anti-semitic cleric's citizenship was protected by a case that involved a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen fighting to keep his U.S. citizenship after voting in an Israeli election.

There is no doubt that Al-Awlaki was a radical advocate for terrorism and has probably been responsible for inciting the deaths of many innocents. But the summary execution of a citizen, based on evidence that is being withheld from the public because of security implications, has been described by a commentator in the UK Guardian as "abandoning our own values" in the pursuit of the war against terror. Obama has repeatedly said that we do not have to make a false choice between security and values, but his subsequent actions seem to raise uneasy questions about accountability and due process.....

....The justifications for killing Al-Awlaki will continue, but in the meantime, little has been said about the death of his companion, also a U.S. citizen. Samir Khan was an editor of the al Qaeda publication Inspire and has never been accused of plotting attacks against Americans. He was collateral damage in an increasingly murky world where citizens' civil rights are being overlooked in the pursuit of security, and hopes of peace being destroyed in the process.....

These are the gravest compromise of the Bill of Rights guarantees in my lifetime, and it is stopped and reversed at this point, with the president accused and put through the process of accountability per the constitution, removed from office after impeachment and the charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

How does that possibly happen? All it takes is a much larger number who react as I am, than who don't react, or give support to further progression of this lawless taking by not objecting, or even worse, supporting the seizing of our rights, or trivializing these vile crimes against the constitution so many have given their lives to defend.

Take your blinders off, pull your head out of the sand, and push back against the elimination of your former constitutional guarantees.

Actually participate on this forum, instead of doing your seemingly endless, disruptive, unnecessary requotes followed by nothing, almost in every instance, more meaningful than,

..................

Get real.

--Tommy :sun

Read and consider the title of the thread. The president of the United States authorized the extra judicial murder of the man named in the thread title. You can make believe the thread is not about a discussion about the history of U.S. officials being complicit in the assassination of Americans, including President Kennedy. The President has been seeking the unconstitutional ability to arrest and imprison indefinitely, anyone he selects, without the condition of any criminal charge or review of an impartial magistrate.

Your post,

..................

Get real.

--Tommy :sun

.....is just more of the disruption of the forum you are so well known for.

A president who took the oath of office, to preserve and to protect the Constitution of the United States, and then, just months after taking the office he was elected to serve in, makes what amounts to anti-constitutional threats in a speech at the very place where the Bill of Rights is enshrined, is reasonably described as a tyrant, and he does not even yet have the blood of Samir Khan and

Government Asks for Another Delay in Targeted Killing FOIA Lawsuit

www.aclu.org/.../government-asks-another-delay-targeted-killing-foi...

May 18, 2012 – ... about the targeted killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan.

Problems With Preventive Detention

By Dan Froomkin

1:10 PM ET, 05/22/2009

There is one big difference between how George W. Bush indefinitely detained suspected terrorists without charges and the way Barack Obama endorsed yesterday: Obama wouldn't go it alone.

"In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man," Obama said.

At issue is what to do about, in the president's words, "people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States." People who have "made it clear that they want to kill Americans...who, in effect, remain at war with the United States."

Said Obama: "We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified...

"If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

All that may sound like a big step up from the unilateral, absolutist path Bush pursued. And in some ways, it certainly is.

But -- after torture -- indefinite detention without charges was the Bush administration's most radical departure from traditional American legal principles. It's hard to see how Obama and Congress could set up a process that would make it okay. Indeed, you could argue that trying to codify it and normalize could actually make it worse.

Another term for this is preventive detention. The government would hold people indefinitely not because of something they did, but because of what they might do.

Obama's remarks on this issue were by far the most alarming of several deeply troubling bits in his otherwise soaring speech about national security and American values yesterday.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Tom Scully

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-drone-strikes-10558354

Secrets and World Ties: Obama's Killer Contradiction

By Tom Junod

....The issues we are facing when we consider the implications of the Lethal Presidency have always seemed to me the largest possible. The power that the administration has claimed and strenuously defended — the power to identify and kill the nation’s enemies, from a remove of secrecy — is the power of kings, and it’s one of the powers the elemental principle of due process exists to address....

http://www.esquire.com/archives/blogs/politics/by_tag/lethal%20presidency/15;1

July 9, 2012, 7:46 AM

The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama

By Tom Junod

....Of course, the danger of the Lethal Presidency is that the precedent you establish is hardly ever the precedent you think you are establishing, and whenever you seem to be describing a program that is limited and temporary, you are really describing a program that is expansive and permanent. You are a very controlled man, and as Lethal President, it's natural for you to think that you can control the Lethal Presidency. It's even natural for you to think that you can control the Lethal Presidencies of other countries, simply by the power of your example. But the Lethal Presidency incorporates not just drone technology but a way of thinking about drone technology, and this way of thinking will be your ultimate export. You have anticipated the problem of proliferation. But an arms race involving drones would be very different from an arms race involving nuclear arms, because the message that spread with nuclear arms was that these weapons must never be used. The message that you are spreading with drones is that they must be — that using them amounts to nothing less than our moral duty.

The former official in your administration — the one familiar with targeting — has suggested a question intended to encapsulate the danger represented by the expansive nature of the Lethal Presidency:

"Ask the administration if the president himself is targetable." But here's something simpler, and more human. You have made sure that you will not be the only Lethal President. You have made sure that your successor in the White House will also be a Lethal President, as well as someone somewhere else in the world.

What if the next Lethal President is not as good and as honorable as you? What if he is actually cruel or bloodthirsty?

What if he turns out to be — like you, Mr. President — just a man?

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/excuses_for_assassination_secrecy/

by Glen Greenwald

....Of course, the right way to provide “accountability” when the President wants to execute a citizen is for him to have to show evidence to a court that the execution is warranted — at the very least, to obtain an indictment — and have a court provide oversight (exactly the way progressives spent the entire Bush years vehemently demanding be done for mere eavesdropping and detention, let alone assassinations)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom as we all know the U.S has a history of targeted assassinations like

targeted killing of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Cuban President Fidel Castro

attack on the barracks where Muammar al-Gaddafi was known to be sleeping

During the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein

Salvador Allende of Chile possible u.s involved

Phoenix Program

Patrice Émery Lumumba possible u.s involved

Rafael Trujillo possible u.s involved

Ngô Đình Diệm and his brother possible u.s involved

Gary Webb cia?

Frank Olson cia

Mary Meyer cia?

Some here would add also JFK/MLK/RFK to that list

6 on this list are americans or the one's we know of

But Al-Awlaki called for the death of americans did we have a canch of catching him and bringing him to trial NO. Here was an American calling for the death of his fellow americans. He became an enemy then and the u.s government had the right to go after him any way possible.

As i said before i do have trouble with the government targeting americans but if they are beyond our reach to bring him to trial and they calling for the death of americans i say take him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During Gerald Ford's brief presidency, he signed an Executive Order expressly forbidding assassination as an option by U.S. government entities. This was in response, of course, to the revelations of the Church Committee regarding CIA attempts to kill Fidel Castro.

Think about how far we've come in less than 40 years; in the mid-1970s, a majority of Americans realized that assassination was wrong, period, no matter how allegedly evil or despotic the target was. Now, we are perfectly willing not only to assassinate American citizens who have not even been charged with a crime, but to openly brag about it.

Btw, even if we accept the argument that Al-Awlaki was truly a danger to us all, how do we explain the subsequent murder of his 16 year old son, shortly afterwards? Was the kid a deadly "terrorist" too? How can anyone justify that? Maybe he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? No wonder they can sell singile bullet theories to people....

America has lost its moral compass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread, in my opinion has a great deal of underlying implications. Some of which have bothered me for a very long time. Len Colby wrote, in two prior posts, and which I have excerpted.

Len Colby post # 38 excerpt

I actually agree with Tom that the “targeted killing” policy is morally objectionable the notion that this makes the Obama “more or less indistinguishable morally from” the Hitler regime is absurd hyperbole, worse he arrogantly calls those who differ “sheeple” who are NOT “observant, sane individuals”.

Len Colby post # 44 excerpt

My feelings are actually mixed on this. I think such killings are justified but only in extraordinary circumstances when apprehending the target is not a viable option and there is compelling evidence that leaving them free will lead to the deaths of innocent civilians. Besides the the moral questions one problem is that others will take the place of those killed. I guess in Tom's wrapped view that makes me no better than Borman and Goring.

end

The reason I posted Len's comments? Because I totally agree with every sentence in the above passages. And I sure as hell, am not ashamed of it.

What does make me ashamed, is when opinion and fact are introduced into a 'beyond controversial thread' such as this one, that it seems what is implied is, "Well, Obama is not a true liberal when it comes down to human rights, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney." That implication, in my mind is the sickest piece of spin the human mind can conceptualize.

Mitt Romney first of all, has zero foreign policy experience and in a projected Romney White House would arguably resemble former President Bush in letting his team, ala Cheney, Rumsfeld ie the Neocons, run the show, with all that sentence implies. What decisions did they make? Which were virtually the same themes that Bugliosi sounded in his tome which stated George Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

For the sake of avoiding an elongated post, I will leave it at that.

Backtracking a little, lamenting what used to be and we would never have done that in the 1990's, 1980's or even 1970's, is an anachronism. It isn't the 70's, 80's, 90's, it is 2012 and we are, albeit at least partially through the efforts of forces such as the creators of the Project For A New American Century engaged in a conflict with radical Islam. I also very much agree with the point made by.......

Pat Speer....

"Not to be bum anyone out, but we have to be realistic. Obama knows that he stands no chance of being re-elected, and avoiding America's further slide to third-world status, if he doesn't make the pampered fat electorate feel comfy and cozy at night. If word got out that he knew where Awlaki was hiding, but failed to kill him because of "The Constitution" or some other piece of paper, it would be all over. He'd be denounced as unfit by the bulk of the media--the same jokers that are now questioning his actions--and many independents would be swayed.

Let's remember Jimmy Carter. He TRIED to rescue the hostages held in Iran, but that wasn't good enough. Despite the fact he'd been an officer on a nuclear submarine at the height of the cold war, and Ronald Reagan had merely been an actor in propaganda films during WWII, the right wing, along with their friends in the media, were able to convince the American public he was weak, militarily, and Reagan was strong. Reagan then used this to get elected, whereby he proceeded to pump hundreds of billions into wasteful projects designed to reward his cronies and supporters, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy. This led us to where we are."

"Obama knows this, and is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. As long as no one running against him would balk at killing Awlaki (outside of Ron Paul) he knows he has to do it.

I mean. given the choice between a dead Awlaki and a President Perry, I'd choose a dead Awlaki. While Awlaki's role in terrorist attacks was never proven, he had plenty of opportunity to denounce violence and Al Qaeda, and refused to do so even though his life had been threatened. May he rest."

END

But again, it appears to me that if you accept Tom Scully's premise as originally stated, then you are boxed into a mindset that Obama is a tyrant, and [here's the part that makes me very angry,] "might as well vote for Mitt Romney because it doesnt matter which party is in office." I hope that is not what Tom meant.

If you think it doesen't matter which party is in office, if we, in late January 2012, are referring to President Romney you will see a complete jettisoning of the beginning of what had brought us back from the financial abyss. The new Republican foreign/domestic policies will be economically compassionate conservatism without the "compassion,"and a foreign policy that will attempt to get the war on terror hooked up even more dramatically to Israel, where the inevitable neocon foreign policy in regards to "radical" Islam is to kick-start the status quo of 2012 into a conflict of Biblical proportions, and I do mean literally.

It is no secret that the separation of church and state is a constitutional edifice, that, in effect prevented

what George W. Bush, and other usefull idiots wanted: a mechanism wherein without that constitutional provision could, indeed more than likely would lead to a WASPish religion, in which some elements would be like a Western Inquisition of the third millenium, where if you are Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and especially Muslim, or a political moderate to liberal, you would be required to "sign an oath" or possibly even a decade or so from now, "wear something" that attests to your "identity."

At that point, reflections on Obama's presidency may very well be similar to what many are now parallel's to former President Carter's time in office. With the same subsequent point, maybe he wasn't as bad as "we" thought he was.

In which case, the nightmare of American foreign policy of 2012 under President Obama, would seem like a day at the park in comparison. President Kennedy faced criticism from the left regarding his policies as being not liberal enough, [see the intellectual crowd that created the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.] Looking back at that dichotomy over half a decade has proven his liberal critics didn't know what he knew, and JFK's ability to utilize the political process to, at least attempt a united front politically on such issues shows that there is a reason leaving the White House, and "looking like you've aged dramatically,"

in four years are not mutually exclusive.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

This thread, in my opinion has a great deal of underlying implications. Some of which have bothered me for a very long time. Len Colby wrote, in two prior posts, and which I have excerpted.

Len Colby post # 38 excerpt

I actually agree with Tom that the “targeted killing” policy is morally objectionable the notion that this makes the Obama “more or less indistinguishable morally from” the Hitler regime is absurd hyperbole, worse he arrogantly calls those who differ “sheeple” who are NOT “observant, sane individuals”.

Len Colby post # 44 excerpt

My feelings are actually mixed on this. I think such killings are justified but only in extraordinary circumstances when apprehending the target is not a viable option and there is compelling evidence that leaving them free will lead to the deaths of innocent civilians. Besides the the moral questions one problem is that others will take the place of those killed. I guess in Tom's wrapped view that makes me no better than Borman and Goring.

end

The reason I posted Len's comments? Because I totally agree with every sentence in the above passages. And I sure as hell, am not ashamed of it.

Scully responds:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp

Robert Jackson, speaking in the court room at Nuremberg:

....The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole......

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

Monday, April 14, 2008

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

......

I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House.....

http://www.thenation.com/article/166674/us-israel-and-iran

Although President Obama says “now is not the time for bluster” about Iran, his administration “has adopted a strategic approach that is moving the United States closer to war,” “The Nation” magazine warns in a March 26th editorial.

While Iran has the right to enrich uranium under international law, Mr. Obama has made it U.S. policy to stop Iran from doing so despite the fact all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran has abandoned its earlier nuclear weapons program.

“Another questionable proposition” (embraced by the Obama administration”) is that “an Iranian nuclear weapon is a threat to Israel, and therefore Israel and the U.S. have the right to launch a preventive military strike,” the magazine says in its lead editorial.

“This approach embraces the Bush administration’s illegal doctrine of preventive war---the claim that a country can start hostilities to pre-empt imminent attack but merely to forestall a potential threat.”

“Such talk may only encourage Tehran to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent, because it is the same rhetoric that led to the invasion of Iraq,” the magazine continued.....

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=105'>http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=105

Letter to NY Times re: Bin Laden's Killing By Benjamin B. Ferencz published: May 2011 source: New York Times

To the Editor:

Your superb report “Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden” leaves key questions unanswered. Jubilation over the death of the most hunted mass murderer is understandable, but was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination?

The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler’s worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy. The public is entitled to know the complete truth.

BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ

New Rochelle, N.Y., May 3, 2011

The writer was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=103'>http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=103

We have come a long way from Nuremberg, and have miles to go before we sleep

Hope is the engine that drives human endeavour. After some 20 million people were killed in WW1, League of Nations diplomats recognized the need to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy. They advised that future wars of aggression should be punished as an international crime. The common response from powerful states was: “The time is not yet ripe.” An additional 50 million victims perished in WW2. In response, an International Military Tribunal was set up in Nuremberg to try German leaders responsible for crimes against peace (aggression), crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The implementation of slowly emerging principles of international criminal law by distinguished jurists from four victorious powers (the US, the UK, the Soviet Union and France) was an expression of hope that future illegal war-making might be deterred.

The main architect for the trials was Robert M. Jackson, on leave from the US Supreme Court. “It is high time,” he reported to President Harry Truman in 1945, “that we act on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal. [...] We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.” In December 1946, the UN affirmed the Nuremberg principles and judgement. Committees were directed to draft a Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, including the crime of aggression, and to plan for a permanent international criminal jurisdiction to try offenders. The rule of law, coupled with the humanitarian aspirations articulated in the UN Charter, would, hopefully, lead to a more peaceful and humane world order. That was the hope....

.....

Dwelling on shortcomings is counterproductive. So what to expect for the future? The prevalent paltry excuse that aggression had not been defined has now been eliminated. Giving the ICC jurisdiction over the crime of aggression remains on the political agenda – even if the time frame is imprecise. The arguments against criminalizing military aggression were shown to be lacking in persuasiveness what they made up in profusion. The allegation that the crime of aggression would overburden the Prosecutor was rejected. So too the contention that the Prosecutor – bound to act only on the basis of law, and subject to strict judicial controls – would be politically motivated. That concern seemed particularly ironic coming from the nations that dominate the Security Council. The truth is that powerful nations sought plausible excuses, because it would seem too absurd to argue that they preferred war to law. The world and their own citizens pay dearly in blood and treasure for such short-sighted intransigence. How many millions more must die in uniform or as innocent civilians before the time is ripe to bring criminals before the bar of justice? Allowing aggressors to remain immune from prosecution by the ICC surely does not deter illegal war-making, but rather encourages it.

To be sure, the long historical record of glorifying war causes many doubts about the utility of trying to alter the way that people think about such vital issues. Skepticism may be understandable, but it does not justify inaction. Unavoidable temporary shortcomings should not obscure progress and the need for change. International criminal courts were inconceivable just a short time ago; today, they exist to punish outrageous crimes committed in various parts of the world. Deterrence is more important than punishment. The ICC’s authority to try perpetrators of genocide, crime against humanity and major war crimes – without prior Security Council consent – was left untouched (and hence reconfirmed) in Kampala. Aggression remains in the Statute as a recognized and confirmed international crime. If the Security Council fails to determine whether armed force by a state has violated the UN Charter, then the ICC need wait only six months before it launches its investigation. No one can persuasively repeat the canard that aggression is not punishable simply because it is undefined......

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=101'>http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=101

A Duty to Uphold the Law, Even in War By Benjamin B. Ferencz published: April 2010 source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704425.html

.....The Nuremberg trials held that warmaking in violation of international law was no longer a national right but had become an international crime for which responsible leaders could be held accountable. Law had to apply equally to all. My supreme commander in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned when he became president: "The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently reiterated that he "would rather deter a war than fight one." Deterrence is the best way to protect the lives of our service members and the unavoidable loss of countless civilians.

All Americans should have been proud when President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His administration has a chance to again inspire the world, as we did at Nuremberg. If not now, when?.....

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=1

Ending Impunity for the Crime of Aggression By Benjamin B. Ferencz published: September 2009

....The International Law Commission (ILC), composed of independent experts from many countries, after extensive deliberation reached the conclusion that aggression was a customary law crime and "it should be left to practice to define the exact contours of the concept of crimes against peace... as identified in article 6 of the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal." [8] The ILC also concluded that until an act of aggression by a State has taken place, no individual can be held accountable for the crime. [9] "It would thus seem retrogressive to exclude individual criminal responsibility for aggression... 50 years after Nuremberg." [10] Those who argue for greater certainty fail to note that many valid criminal statutes contain vague phrases, such as “fair trial”, “due process” and similar clauses that require judicial interpretation. Indeed, the Rome Statute itself limits its jurisdiction to “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”. [11] War crimes include “outrages against personal dignity” [12] Such nebulous descriptions have remained uncontested even though they would hardly qualify as models of legal precision. The argument that aggression can not be tried by the ICC because the crime has not been adequately defined is simply not persuasive......

http://www.clydefitchreport.com/2012/06/ferencz-condemns-drone-attacks-a-crime-against-humanity/

Ferencz Condemns Drone Attacks: “A Crime Against Humanity”Posted June 21, 2012 by Roger Armbrust

“Innocent people are being blown up… somebody has to write about these things.”

Nicole Kidman speaks these words in the film “Hemingway and Gellhorn.” She plays Martha Gellhorn, perhaps the world’s greatest war correspondent, reacting to the Russians attacking Finland in World War II.

The words hold true today with America’s obsessive drone attacks in its worldwide aggressive war on “terror.”

In news article after news article, reports site American drones killing “suspected terrorists” and often innocent people. In rare cases, the U.S. has actually reported the demise of a leading insurgent. Meanwhile, authorities on international law have responded to the drone attacks, including the latest CIA drone maneuvers in Pakistan and Yemen, with everything from condemnation to wary questioning of their legality.

“The illegal use of armed force knowing that it will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians is a crime against humanity, and those responsible should be held accountable by national and international courts,” Benjamin B. Ferenzc told Peculiar Progressive by email on June 16, when asked for a statement about America’s drone attacks. “The use of any weapon that will unavoidably kill a disproportionate number of non-combatants is an inhumane act that should be condemned and punishable as a crime against humanity under customary international law.”

Ferencz was the Army’s chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders following World War II. He told the court that the defendants’ chief crime was “aggressive war” which led to all other offences they committed. Sixty years later, in the summer of 2006, he claimed that George W. Bush should be charged with the same crime for ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq. Now Ferencz is condemning his country’s drone assaults. Since drone strikes began under George W. Bush as early as 2001, Ferencz’s complaint of crimes would include both Bush and Barack Obama.

Ferencz isn’t alone in his criticisms. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and twenty-five fellow Members of Congress on June 13 wrote to President Obama demanding the White House’s legal justification for “signature” drone strikes, which could significantly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians or those who have no relationship to a potential attack on the U.S.

In their letter, the Congress members specifically sought “the process by which ‘signature’ strikes are authorized and executed (drone strikes where the identity of the person killed is unknown); mechanisms used by the CIA and JSOC to ensure that such killings are legal; the nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured; and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analyzed.”

The lawmakers went on to say:

We are concerned that the use of such ‘signature’ strikes could raise the risk of killing innocent civilians or individuals who may have no relationship to attacks on the United States. Our drone campaigns already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight. We are further concerned about the legal grounds for such strikes under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

The implications of the use of drones for our national security are profound. They are faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths, and are frequently the only direct contact with Americans that the targeted communities have. They can generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment.

Peculiar Progressive had checked on June 19 with Kucinich’s office to see if Obama had responded to the letter, but had not heard back as of noon.

In a June 1 news story, the Times of India states that “a July 2009 Brookings Institution report shows that 10 civilians die for every one suspected militant from US drone strikes.” Also, the report cites another study by the New American Foundation which “concluded that out of 114 drone attacks in Pakistan, at least 32 per cent of those killed by the strikes were civilians.”

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism shows drone strikes going back to 2001 in Yemen. Its latest figures as of June 18 for Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia show:

CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2012

Total US strikes: 332

Obama strikes: 280 ........

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=39

Benjamin Ferencz interviewed on radio by Mort Mecklosky By Benjamin B. Ferencz and Mort Mecklosky published: December 2003

Mecklosky: I believe I have Ben Ferencz on the line. Ben?.....

....M: OK. I’m glad I found you. You were a prosecutor following WWII at the Nuremberg Trials, yes?

F: That’s correct.

M: OK. Nazi war crimes, okay. And we’re talking international law. I understand that it’s a violation of international law to go to war without approval of the UN Security Council when not under armed attack. Is that true?

F: Well, there are differences of opinion. In my opinion, any violation of the United Nations charter is a violation of international law. Since the charter supercedes all national laws and has been accepted and ratified by all of the member states. The charter says specifically that you are prohibited from the use of armed force except under very restricted circumstances. And those are if you are subjected to a direct attack by someone else and until the Security Council can respond to restore order, you can defend yourself. Those were not the conditions which existed in the case of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Now, there are some international lawyers who take a different view and they say the charter was written before the nuclear age and you can’t expect any nation to wait to be destroyed before it responds to a nuclear attack. And therefore they invented the excuse that Saddam is creating weapons of mass destruction and has them and is ready to go and we have to, therefore, intercede even though it does not comply with the UN charter. So we do have this division of opinion and since we don’t have any enforcement mechanism on an international scale despite the charter requirement that we set up an international military force we’re stuck with the kind of situation we have today.

M: Now, if Saddam Hussein or any nation has the nuclear weapons and we consider them a threat are these people saying we can go and invade them and go to war against them? Is that their position?

F: Well, that seems to be the administration’s position, that preemptive strikes are permissible. It’s preemptive self-defense. My difficulty with that is that laws have to apply equally to everyone and if we assume that we have that right you must assume that other nations have the same right. And that would certainly pose an immediate threat from such countries as North Korea, which we know has such weapons, and India and Pakistan and Israel and France and England and all the other nations that may have nuclear weapons now or in the near future so this doctrine of preemptive self-defense, to me, is a prescription for self-annihilation in the long run.

M: According to that we can then, in their minds, go to war against North Korea or any of the other nations that have nuclear weapons if someone here feels that they are a threat.

F: That would be the logic of the president’s recently declared policy for the United States.

M: How many lawyers, international lawyers of international law agree with that, or are most of them critical of the US and its invasion?

F: I think most of them are critical, there are a few who d agree with that for example State Department lawyers and Pentagon lawyers but most – not only those, there are some academic lawyers who take the same point of view and it’s a conservative point of view – of those who believe that armed force is more important than the force of law.

M: Alright, so in your view, the US is guilty of violating international law.

F: In my opinion, yes, if we did have a legal test of that I would reach that conclusion.

M: Now what happens if we assume some nation has the nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction and following the invasion we find out we don’t have them? What’s the procedure to punish such a nation that’s gone to war?

F: We say, “Ooops, I’m sorry about that, kid.” And to those who were killed, and to their survivors you say, “Well, we meant well, but it didn’t work out as we expected.”

M: Alright so in your words the US repudiated International Criminal Court.

F: Well that they have certainly done.......

http://www.benferencz.org/index.php?id=4&article=46

Letter to the Editor of The New York Times regarding an Op-Ed on Preemptive Attack on Iraq By Benjamin B. Ferencz published: August 2002 source: The New York Times, August 1, 2002

.....On January 16, 1991, as combined military forces led by the United States launched their successful assault against Iraq, then-President George Bush proclaimed to the nation that we had an opportunity "to forge for ourselves and future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations." ///

A preemptive military strike not authorized by the Security Council would clearly violate the UN Charter that legally binds all nations.

In debating the options for Iraq, let us never forget that the rule of law remains our best safeguard for a more peaceful and humane world.

What does make me ashamed, is when opinion and fact are introduced into a 'beyond controversial thread' such as this one, that it seems what is implied is, "Well, Obama is not a true liberal when it comes down to human rights, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney." That implication, in my mind is the sickest piece of spin the human mind can conceptualize.

Mitt Romney first of all, has zero foreign policy experience and in a projected Romney White House would arguably resemble former President Bush in letting his team, ala Cheney, Rumsfeld ie the Neocons, run the show, with all that sentence implies. What decisions did they make? Which were virtually the same themes that Bugliosi sounded in his tome which stated George Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

Scully replies (Please read the whole article, I could have written it!)

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

The Arkansas primary fight illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment

Thursday, Jun 10, 2010 08:30 AM EDT By Glenn Greenwald

.....

And while the campaign has not yet broken down the results by precinct, the effort appears to have paid off.

On Tuesday, Lincoln beat Halter in all but one of the Arkansas counties with the largest African American populations, said Janine A. Parry, director of the Arkansas Poll; by comparison, in the May 18 primary, he took two.

“Lincoln did very well in those counties, despite the efforts by Halter and the unions to really court black voters,” Parry said. “In a race this tight, that kind of activity makes a difference.”

In other words, Obama exploited the trust that African-American voters place in him to tell them something that is just absurd: that Blanche Lincoln, one of the most corporatist members of Congress, works for their interests. Bill Clinton did the same with the Arkansas voters who still trust him. In light of all this, the next time some “conservative” Democrat such as Lincoln plays the Villain Rotation game and opposes some Good, Progressive Bill which the White House pretends to support — but, gosh darn it, just can’t get the 60 votes for — are we going to have to endure the excuse from Obama loyalists that Obama has no leverage over Democratic members of Congress?

What’s going on here couldn’t be clearer if the DNC produced neon signs explaining it. Blanche Lincoln and her corporatist/centrist Senate-friends aren’t some unfortunate outliers in the Democratic Party. They are the Democratic Party. The outliers are the progressives. The reason the Obama White House did nothing when Lincoln sabotaged the public option isn’t because they had no leverage to punish her if she was doing things they disliked. It was because she was doing exactly what the White House and the Party wanted. The same is true when she voted for Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, serves every corporate interest around, and impedes progressive legislation. Lincoln doesn’t prevent the Democratic Party from doing and being what it wishes it could do and be. She enables the Party to do and be exactly what it is, what it wants to be, what serves its interests most. That’s why they support her so vigorously and ensured her victory: the Blanche Lincolns of the world are the heart, soul and face of the national Democratic Party......

.......

For the sake of avoiding an elongated post, I will leave it at that.

Backtracking a little, lamenting what used to be and we would never have done that in the 1990's, 1980's or even 1970's, is an anachronism. It isn't the 70's, 80's, 90's, it is 2012 and we are, albeit at least partially through the efforts of forces such as the creators of the Project For A New American Century engaged in a conflict with radical Islam. I also very much agree with the point made by.......

Pat Speer....

"Not to be bum anyone out, but we have to be realistic. Obama knows that he stands no chance of being re-elected, and avoiding America's further slide to third-world status, if he doesn't make the pampered fat electorate feel comfy and cozy at night. If word got out that he knew where Awlaki was hiding, but failed to kill him because of "The Constitution" or some other piece of paper, it would be all over. He'd be denounced as unfit by the bulk of the media--the same jokers that are now questioning his actions--and many independents would be swayed.

Let's remember Jimmy Carter. He TRIED to rescue the hostages held in Iran, but that wasn't good enough. Despite the fact he'd been an officer on a nuclear submarine at the height of the cold war, and Ronald Reagan had merely been an actor in propaganda films during WWII, the right wing, along with their friends in the media, were able to convince the American public he was weak, militarily, and Reagan was strong. Reagan then used this to get elected, whereby he proceeded to pump hundreds of billions into wasteful projects designed to reward his cronies and supporters, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy. This led us to where we are."

"Obama knows this, and is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. As long as no one running against him would balk at killing Awlaki (outside of Ron Paul) he knows he has to do it.

I mean. given the choice between a dead Awlaki and a President Perry, I'd choose a dead Awlaki. While Awlaki's role in terrorist attacks was never proven, he had plenty of opportunity to denounce violence and Al Qaeda, and refused to do so even though his life had been threatened. May he rest."

END

But again, it appears to me that if you accept Tom Scully's premise as originally stated, then you are boxed into a mindset that Obama is a tyrant, and [here's the part that makes me very angry,] "might as well vote for Mitt Romney because it doesnt matter which party is in office." I hope that is not what Tom meant.

If you think it doesen't matter which party is in office, if we, in late January 2012, are referring to President Romney you will see a complete jettisoning of the beginning of what had brought us back from the financial abyss. The new Republican foreign/domestic policies will be economically compassionate conservatism without the "compassion,"and a foreign policy that will attempt to get the war on terror hooked up even more dramatically to Israel, where the inevitable neocon foreign policy in regards to "radical" Islam is to kick-start the status quo of 2012 into a conflict of Biblical proportions, and I do mean literally.

It is no secret that the separation of church and state is a constitutional edifice, that, in effect prevented

what George W. Bush, and other usefull idiots wanted: a mechanism wherein without that constitutional provision could, indeed more than likely would lead to a WASPish religion, in which some elements would be like a Western Inquisition of the third millenium, where if you are Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and especially Muslim, or a political moderate to liberal, you would be required to "sign an oath" or possibly even a decade or so from now, "wear something" that attests to your "identity."

At that point, reflections on Obama's presidency may very well be similar to what many are now parallel's to former President Carter's time in office. With the same subsequent point, maybe he wasn't as bad as "we" thought he was.

In which case, the nightmare of American foreign policy of 2012 under President Obama, would seem like a day at the park in comparison. President Kennedy faced criticism from the left regarding his policies as being not liberal enough, [see the intellectual crowd that created the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.] Looking back at that dichotomy over half a decade has proven his liberal critics didn't know what he knew, and JFK's ability to utilize the political process to, at least attempt a united front politically on such issues shows that there is a reason leaving the White House, and "looking like you've aged dramatically,"

in four years are not mutually exclusive.

Scully replies..... I am not a democrat. I believe in the Bill of Rights. Anyone who compromises those rights is my political and ideological enemy.

I do not use the excuse of scale..... the first death by extra judical, presidential fiat, in secret, the victim who this thread is titled in the name of, was one crime against the bill of rights, too many. Someone has to step forward and say no, this will not stand, this is unAmerican, this is the perogative of a despotic king. I guess I am among those who are first to object, to challenge.

Forty years, Robert, and nothing, despite your willingness to compromise, to practice undertanding, to accept the, "if you think we're a bad choice, the other candidate is even worse, a villain," what has really changed. Tell me what I have to lose. I have divorced myself from this. I won't waste the fuel to rive to the polls to vote for....what? My time is better spent looking for a relatively reasonable place to live out the rest of my life in.

How about Belize, what do you think of Belize?

"[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -Gore Vidal 1972

A book was written the last time the financial "community" in the U.S. blew up the system and ushered in wide economic rooted suffering in American households, This is what a party I would support, would fight for. The book was written by Guy W. Mallon, the father of Henry Neil Mallon of Bush praise, reported about just four months before his sudden death at age 69.....

WANTS 20 BILLIONS GIVEN TO CITIZENS; Lawyer Urges a ...

New York Times - Aug 12, 1933

... measures for overcoming the depression are proposed by Guy W. Mallon, ... consumers' dividend"-approximately $700 per average family of 4.3 persons, .

BTW, a vigorous and informative debate in reaction to an article critical of Greenwald's Blanche Lincoin article I quote above, is here.:

My politcal support has to be based on more than the old cannard of fearing republicans, At least they are what they appear to be, they don't posture as something they are not and have no intention of being, "serving for the good of the people."

BTW, Mark, the Supreme Court ruled it is not even a crime to call for the death of Americans. Al Awalki was charged with no crime at the time he was vaporized by drone fired missle. The thread is not centered on Al Awalki. Citizenship can only be given up by the native citizen, not by government order, and a charge of treason must be proved in a U.S. sanctioned court and only after hostile testimony of two witnesses.

And, no, Robert, when it comes to bill of rights, guaranteed protections against government abuses or takings, IMO, it is not different this time, in 2012, it is propagand recited to justify the crimes against our rights committed by oath of office violators such as Obama and most of the elected in both houses of the congress. it isn't different this time, than on 8 December, 1941, or during the missles of October, in 1962, or at the height of the Union losses during the U.S. Civil war.

I stick to beliefs that have a two century precedent, they seem to be all I have left, considering what the last two presidents, especially have taken from me, and from everyone else who senses and resists the loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread, in my opinion has a great deal of underlying implications. Some of which have bothered me for a very long time. Len Colby wrote, in two prior posts, and which I have excerpted.

Len Colby post # 38 excerpt

I actually agree with Tom that the “targeted killing” policy is morally objectionable the notion that this makes the Obama “more or less indistinguishable morally from” the Hitler regime is absurd hyperbole, worse he arrogantly calls those who differ “sheeple” who are NOT “observant, sane individuals”.

Len Colby post # 44 excerpt

My feelings are actually mixed on this. I think such killings are justified but only in extraordinary circumstances when apprehending the target is not a viable option and there is compelling evidence that leaving them free will lead to the deaths of innocent civilians. Besides the the moral questions one problem is that others will take the place of those killed. I guess in Tom's wrapped view that makes me no better than Borman and Goring.

end

The reason I posted Len's comments? Because I totally agree with every sentence in the above passages. And I sure as hell, am not ashamed of it.

What does make me ashamed, is when opinion and fact are introduced into a 'beyond controversial thread' such as this one, that it seems what is implied is, "Well, Obama is not a true liberal when it comes down to human rights, so you might as well vote for Mitt Romney." That implication, in my mind is the sickest piece of spin the human mind can conceptualize.

Mitt Romney first of all, has zero foreign policy experience and in a projected Romney White House would arguably resemble former President Bush in letting his team, ala Cheney, Rumsfeld ie the Neocons, run the show, with all that sentence implies. What decisions did they make? Which were virtually the same themes that Bugliosi sounded in his tome which stated George Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

For the sake of avoiding an elongated post, I will leave it at that.

Backtracking a little, lamenting what used to be and we would never have done that in the 1990's, 1980's or even 1970's, is an anachronism. It isn't the 70's, 80's, 90's, it is 2012 and we are, albeit at least partially through the efforts of forces such as the creators of the Project For A New American Century engaged in a conflict with radical Islam. I also very much agree with the point made by.......

Pat Speer....

"Not to be bum anyone out, but we have to be realistic. Obama knows that he stands no chance of being re-elected, and avoiding America's further slide to third-world status, if he doesn't make the pampered fat electorate feel comfy and cozy at night. If word got out that he knew where Awlaki was hiding, but failed to kill him because of "The Constitution" or some other piece of paper, it would be all over. He'd be denounced as unfit by the bulk of the media--the same jokers that are now questioning his actions--and many independents would be swayed.

Let's remember Jimmy Carter. He TRIED to rescue the hostages held in Iran, but that wasn't good enough. Despite the fact he'd been an officer on a nuclear submarine at the height of the cold war, and Ronald Reagan had merely been an actor in propaganda films during WWII, the right wing, along with their friends in the media, were able to convince the American public he was weak, militarily, and Reagan was strong. Reagan then used this to get elected, whereby he proceeded to pump hundreds of billions into wasteful projects designed to reward his cronies and supporters, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy. This led us to where we are."

"Obama knows this, and is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. As long as no one running against him would balk at killing Awlaki (outside of Ron Paul) he knows he has to do it.

I mean. given the choice between a dead Awlaki and a President Perry, I'd choose a dead Awlaki. While Awlaki's role in terrorist attacks was never proven, he had plenty of opportunity to denounce violence and Al Qaeda, and refused to do so even though his life had been threatened. May he rest."

END

But again, it appears to me that if you accept Tom Scully's premise as originally stated, then you are boxed into a mindset that Obama is a tyrant, and [here's the part that makes me very angry,] "might as well vote for Mitt Romney because it doesnt matter which party is in office." I hope that is not what Tom meant.

If you think it doesen't matter which party is in office, if we, in late January 2012, are referring to President Romney you will see a complete jettisoning of the beginning of what had brought us back from the financial abyss. The new Republican foreign/domestic policies will be economically compassionate conservatism without the "compassion,"and a foreign policy that will attempt to get the war on terror hooked up even more dramatically to Israel, where the inevitable neocon foreign policy in regards to "radical" Islam is to kick-start the status quo of 2012 into a conflict of Biblical proportions, and I do mean literally.

It is no secret that the separation of church and state is a constitutional edifice, that, in effect prevented

what George W. Bush, and other usefull idiots wanted: a mechanism wherein without that constitutional provision could, indeed more than likely would lead to a WASPish religion, in which some elements would be like a Western Inquisition of the third millenium, where if you are Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and especially Muslim, or a political moderate to liberal, you would be required to "sign an oath" or possibly even a decade or so from now, "wear something" that attests to your "identity."

At that point, reflections on Obama's presidency may very well be similar to what many are now parallel's to former President Carter's time in office. With the same subsequent point, maybe he wasn't as bad as "we" thought he was.

In which case, the nightmare of American foreign policy of 2012 under President Obama, would seem like a day at the park in comparison. President Kennedy faced criticism from the left regarding his policies as being not liberal enough, [see the intellectual crowd that created the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.] Looking back at that dichotomy over half a decade has proven his liberal critics didn't know what he knew, and JFK's ability to utilize the political process to, at least attempt a united front politically on such issues shows that there is a reason leaving the White House, and "looking like you've aged dramatically,"

in four years are not mutually exclusive.

Robert,

In Tom's eyes you must be a Nazi like sheeple who is an enemy of the Bill of Rights.

LOL

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I must respectfully disagree with you. Obama's health care measure had two very good provisions; getting rid of the pre-existing condition nonsense and permitting adult children to be insured up to age 26. However, the rest of his health care initiative leaves much to be desired. He hasn't done anything else significant on the domestic policy front to help the 80% of Americans who are truly struggling.

Obviously, his foreign policy mirrors that of Bush. And Clinton. And the elder Bush. And Reagan. As the mainstream media reminds us continuously, American's two carbon copy "competing" political parties have agreed to a "bipartisan" foreign policy. There can never be any disagreement between the Democrat and Republican candidates, unless it is for Romney, this go round, to attack Obama as not being war mongering enough. How many defenseless countries does Obama have to bomb and/or occupy before Americans stop listening to Hollywood and see this guy for what he is? Another typical establishment puppet.

When Obama starts talking about 80% of the people not being paid enough to meet the ever increasing costs of living, and tries to actually do something about the sinful disparity in wealth, then he may get my support. As long as he continues to boast about a nonexistent "recovery," he is merely playing politics. 100 million people of working age are now unemployed. That's about 36.3% of the populuation. If you factor out retirees, stay at home parents and high school kids who don't work, that still leaves you with a true unemployment rate of probably at least 25%.

Our problems are unsolvable, because all those in a position to solve them are massively benefiting from the present system. As long as we have this incredible inequity of income (best illustrated by the fact the richest 400 Americans have more collective wealth than the bottom 50% of the population), nothing else matters. We simply must ahare the wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As contradictory as it may seem, there is very little on this thread I disagree with. I certainly consider Tom Scully a friend, and as clichè as it sounds, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."

I believe the only real point I am trying to make is best summed up in a question for Tom Scully.

If there is no ultimately no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, does it not make all of our participation on the JFK Debate Forum and determining the truth regarding the assassination of President Kennedy practically a pastime for imbeciles?

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During Gerald Ford's brief presidency, he signed an Executive Order expressly forbidding assassination as an option by U.S. government entities. This was in response, of course, to the revelations of the Church Committee regarding CIA attempts to kill Fidel Castro.

Think about how far we've come in less than 40 years; in the mid-1970s, a majority of Americans realized that assassination was wrong, period, no matter how allegedly evil or despotic the target was. Now, we are perfectly willing not only to assassinate American citizens who have not even been charged with a crime, but to openly brag about it.

Btw, even if we accept the argument that Al-Awlaki was truly a danger to us all, how do we explain the subsequent murder of his 16 year old son, shortly afterwards? Was the kid a deadly "terrorist" too? How can anyone justify that? Maybe he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? No wonder they can sell singile bullet theories to people....

America has lost its moral compass.

Don,

As I've said before my feelings are mixed over this. 1975 was a different world back then the only previous attacks by foreign powers on the US since the War of 1812 were Pearl Harbor, a failed Japanese attack on the Aleutian Islands and Japanese fire balloons which only killed 6 people. Only the latter effected the lower 48. All these attacks, including those from 1812 - 14 were carried out by uniformed armed forces of nation sates.

AQ is a very different enemy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...