goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2013, 08:06:41 AM
-
by Chris Hedges:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthdig.com%2Fimages%2Feartothegrounduploads%2Fmr-fish-WhenInRome-320.jpg&hash=1b9c2d867b359ce4131e495f57a819e6594b4063)
On Wednesday a few hundred activists crowded into the courtroom of the Second Circuit, the spillover room with its faulty audio feed and dearth of chairs, and Foley Square outside the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan where many huddled in the cold. The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support”—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces,” again a term that is legally undefined. Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and denied due process until “the end of hostilities.” In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime. Anyone detained under the NDAA can be sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any “foreign country or entity.” This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens. It empowers the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth.
Section 1021(b)(2) was declared invalid in September after our first trial, in the Southern District Court of New York. The Obama administration appealed the Southern District Court ruling. The appeal was heard Wednesday in the Second Circuit Court with Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Lewis A. Kaplan and Amalya L. Kearse presiding. The judges might not make a decision until the spring when the Supreme Court rules in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, another case in which I am a plaintiff. The Supreme Court case challenges the government’s use of electronic surveillance. If we are successful in the Clapper case, it will strengthen all the plaintiffs’ standing in Hedges v. Obama. The Supreme Court, if it rules against the government, will affirm that we as plaintiffs have a reasonable fear of being detained.
If we lose in Hedges v. Obama—and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Court—electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome. If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. Democrat or Republican. Occupy activist or libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two decades I was a foreign correspondent. I know the beast.
“The stakes are very high,” said attorney Carl Mayer, who with attorney oscar Afran brought our case to trial, in addressing a Culture Project audience in Manhattan on Wednesday after the hearing. “What our case comes down to is: Are we going to have a civil justice system in the United States or a military justice system? The civil justice system is something that is ingrained in the Constitution. It was always very important in combating tyranny and building a democratic society. What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons. Probably the most frightening aspect of the NDAA is that it allows for detention until ‘the end of hostilities.’ ” [To see videos of Mayer, Afran, Hedges and others participating in the Culture Project panel discussion, click here.]
Advertisement
Five thousand years of human civilization has left behind innumerable ruins to remind us that the grand structures and complex societies we build, and foolishly venerate as immortal, crumble into dust. It is the descent that matters now. If the corporate state is handed the tools, as under Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA, to use deadly force and military power to criminalize dissent, then our decline will be one of repression, blood and suffering. No one, not least our corporate overlords, believes that our material conditions will improve with the impending collapse of globalization, the steady deterioration of the global economy, the decline of natural resources and the looming catastrophes of climate change.
But the global corporatists—who have created a new species of totalitarianism—demand, during our decay, total power to extract the last vestiges of profit from a degraded ecosystem and disempowered citizenry. The looming dystopia is visible in the skies of blighted postindustrial cities such as Flint, Mich., where drones circle like mechanical vultures. And in an era where the executive branch can draw up secret kill lists that include U.S. citizens, it would be naive to believe these domestic drones will remain unarmed.
Robert M. Loeb, the lead attorney for the government in Wednesday’s proceedings, took a tack very different from that of the government in the Southern District Court of New York before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Forrest repeatedly asked the government attorneys if they could guarantee that the other plaintiffs and I would not be subject to detention under Section 1021(b)(2). The government attorneys in the first trial granted no such immunity. The government also claimed in the first trial that under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF), it already had the power to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021(b)(2), the attorneys said, did not constitute a significant change in government power. Judge Forrest in September rejected the government’s arguments and ruled Section 1021(b)(2) invalid.
The government, however, argued Wednesday that as “independent journalists” we were exempt from the law and had no cause for concern. Loeb stated that if journalists used journalism as a cover to aid the enemy, they would be seized and treated as enemy combatants. But he assured the court that I would be untouched by the new law as long as “Mr. Hedges did not start driving black vans for people we don’t like Loeb did not explain to the court who defines an “independent journalist.” I have interviewed members of al-Qaida as well as 16 other individuals or members of groups on the State Department’s terrorism list. When I convey these viewpoints, deeply hostile to the United States, am I considered by the government to be “independent”? Could I be seen by the security and surveillance state, because I challenge the official narrative, as a collaborator with the enemy? And although I do not drive black vans for people Loeb does not like, I have spent days, part of the time in vehicles, with armed units that are hostile to the United States. These include Hamas in Gaza and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in southeastern Turkey.
I traveled frequently with armed members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador and the Sandinista army in Nicaragua during the five years I spent in Central America. Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists. These officials did not view us as “independent.” They viewed us as propagandists for the enemy. Section 1021(b)(2) turns this linguistic condemnation into legal condemnation.
Alexa O’Brien, another plaintiff and a co-founder of the US Day of Rage, learned after WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that Stratfor operatives were trying to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida, and sympathetic websites as well as jihadist ideology. If that link were made, she and those in her organization would not be immune from detention.
Afran said at the Culture Project discussion that he once gave a donation at a fundraising dinner to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic organization. A few months later, to his surprise, he received a note of thanks from Sinn Féin. “I didn’t expect to be giving money to a group that maintains a paramilitary terrorist organization, as some people say,” Afran said. “This is the danger. You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration. This is why people cease to speak out.”
Advertisement
The government attempted in court last week to smear Sami Al-Hajj, a journalist for the Al-Jazeera news network who was picked up by the U.S. military and imprisoned for nearly seven years in Guantanamo. This, for me, was one of the most chilling moments in the hearing.
“Just calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you a journalist, like Al-Hajj,” Loeb told the court. “He used journalism as a cover. He was a member of al-Qaida and provided Stinger missiles to al-Qaida.”
Al-Hajj, despite Loeb’s assertions, was never charged with any crimes. And the slander by Loeb only highlighted the potential for misuse of this provision of the NDAA if it is not struck down.
The second central argument by the government was even more specious. Loeb claimed that Subsection 1021(e) of the NDAA exempts citizens from detention. Section 1021(e) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
Afran countered Loeb by saying that Subsection 1021(e) illustrated that the NDAA assumed that U.S. citizens would be detained by the military, overturning two centuries of domestic law that forbids the military to carry out domestic policing. And military detention of citizens, Afran noted, is not permitted under the Constitution.
Afran quoted the NDAA bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said on the floor of the Senate: “In the case where somebody is worried about being picked up by a rogue executive branch because they went to the wrong political rally, they don’t have to worry very long, because our federal courts have the right and the obligation to make sure the government proves their case that you are a member of al-Qaida and didn’t [just] go to a political rally.”
Afran told the court that Graham’s statement implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens could be detained by the military under 1021(b)(2). “There is no reason for the sponsor to make that statement if he does not realize that the statute causes that chilling fear,” Afran told the judges.
After the hearing Afran explained: “If the senator who sponsored and managed the bill believed people would be afraid of the law, then the plaintiffs obviously have a reasonably objective basis to fear the statute.”
In speaking to the court Afran said of 1021(e): “It says it is applied to people in the United States. It presumes that they are going to be detained under some law. The only law we know of is this law. What other laws, before this one, allowed the military to detain people in this country?”
This was a question Judge Lohier, at Afran’s urging, asked Loeb during the argument. Loeb concurred that the NDAA was the only law he knew of that permitted the military to detain and hold U.S. citizens
-
It was the picture that convinced me!
-
It was the picture that convinced me!
the thumbs down thing as a symbol for death is a myth!
-
It was the picture that convinced me!
the thumbs down thing as a symbol for death is a myth!
:sdeek:
-
It was the picture that convinced me!
the thumbs down thing as a symbol for death is a myth!
Good God man! You don't say?!
-
It was the picture that convinced me!
the thumbs down thing as a symbol for death is a myth!
Good God man! You don't say?!
it's right there on about.com
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/basics101/tp/urbanlegends.htm (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/basics101/tp/urbanlegends.htm)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net%2Fimages%2Fstash-1-50f5f7eb6b287.gif&hash=0b2e3b64beb93bdc09c2c83803fd450f9835a822)
-
The NDAA gives the CIA the ability to detain and interrogate terrorist suspects in foreign countries. As long as you don't go to some shithole in the Middle East, denounce the United States, and join forces with al Qaeda or the Taliban, you'll be fine.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
-
my libtard views only extend so far. i'm a complete fascist about national security. i trust our democratically elected government and its agents to not hunt and kill me and other people who, similarly to me, don't spend their time looking at bomb websites.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
-
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
ultimately you're right, but i'm not concerned about it at this point. we've seen worse times for american's civil liberties and i'm confident that we'll see better times again.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
So if the government feared its constituents we could control it? Funny how that works.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You're talking yourself into a corner here. Iraq was one of the most fascist, murderous, genocidal, regimes there was.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You're talking yourself into a corner here. Iraq was one of the most fascist, murderous, genocidal, regimes there was.
I'm not advocating going to war with every country who has a fascist, murderous, genocidal leader. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have spies and drones in those places, though.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You're talking yourself into a corner here. Iraq was one of the most fascist, murderous, genocidal, regimes there was.
I'm not advocating going to war with every country who has a fascist, murderous, genocidal leader. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have spies and drones in those places, though.
Any country that flew a drone into our airspace and blasted anybody or anything would be at war with us. The only reason we get away with it is because we are still the badass in the neighborhood (maybe not for long).
-
Seems like the ndaa is fascist and potentially murderous. No wonder "liberal progressives" support it.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
regardless of fear, our govt shouldn't have these powers. If someone is a terrorist, we have a court of law to handle that.
This is like College BB. If you don't like the rough ridin' injuries, concussions, low scoring, etc, enforce the rules you already have rather than adding one that shits up the rough ridin' game.
I would rather our policy be isolationism when it comes to countries that are influenced heavily by such terrorists. I have a feeling that if we left them alone, they would leave us alone and all of our personal rights would remain intact. What have we gained by being in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? What are the positives of the last 14 yrs militarily from our activity in that region?
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
regardless of fear, our govt shouldn't have these powers. If someone is a terrorist, we have a court of law to handle that.
This is like College BB. If you don't like the rough ridin' injuries, concussions, low scoring, etc, enforce the rules you already have rather than adding one that shits up the rough ridin' game.
I would rather our policy be isolationism when it comes to countries that are influenced heavily by such terrorists. I have a feeling that if we left them alone, they would leave us alone and all of our personal rights would remain intact. What have we gained by being in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? What are the positives of the last 14 yrs militarily from our activity in that region?
There is nothing wrong with feeling like this is the logical option, but unfortunately, ALL of our foreign policy problems stem from one commonality... Israel. We won't be getting out of anyone's hair very soon.
-
Nothing like waging wars, limiting citizens rights, and mongering up fear all in the interest of two religions hating each others faces. A problem that will never resolve until one or the other no longer exists.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You do understand (well clearly you don't) that the United States supports some of the most brutal regimes in the world, right? You do understand that our very own president literally bows to a ruler(s) of a regime that's considered one of the most repressive towards women in the world, right? You do understand that our president has signed off on executive orders authorizing the CIA to support "freedom fighters" in places like Syria, factions of fighters (really CIA rent a rebels) whose backgrounds are rife with human rights atrocitites and knuckle dragging brutalization of women, right? You do understand that the World's Largest Arms Dealer Barry W. Obama just "sold" F-16 fighters to Egypt, where treatment of women has reached new repressive lows since the Muslim Brotherhood took over, right?
Keep all of your strawmen away from the fire, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You do understand (well clearly you don't) that the United States supports some of the most brutal regimes in the world, right? You do understand that our very own president literally bows to a ruler(s) of a regime that's considered one of the most repressive towards women in the world, right? You do understand that our president has signed off on executive orders authorizing the CIA to support "freedom fighters" in places like Syria, factions of fighters (really CIA rent a rebels) whose backgrounds are rife with human rights atrocitites and knuckle dragging brutalization of women, right? You do understand that the World's Largest Arms Dealer Barry W. Obama just "sold" F-16 fighters to Egypt, where treatment of women has reached new repressive lows since the Muslim Brotherhood took over, right?
Keep all of your strawmen away from the fire, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
No, what you don't understand is that it's a f*cked up world. Direct democracy cannot exist in some countries simply because of the culture. These religion-based governments and societies will always have problems as long as they're governed by the Koran. That's why I support the separation of church and state.
-
Denounce, or renounce Beems?
Yes, with such clear cut terms as "substantially support" leading the way, why should anyone worry?
What's the definition of "substantially support" . . . whatever the government decides it is, in secret.
Fear is the easiest way to try to control someone. You're trying to incite fear in people. Fear the government. Fear President Obama. It's pathetic and sad.
You do understand that people filing suit against the administration, and the groups oppossing these laws are people/organizations filled with some of the most hardcore progressive liberals this country has to offer right?
It's sad and pathetic what many in robotic left become when they get their bullet and their badge.
You can be as hardcore about National Security as you want Bubbles . . . and not allow an administration and a government to garner the power to literally trample over civil liberties as they see fit.
We are operating in regions where women aren't even allowed to go to school or wear shorts and a t-shirt in public. If those types of societies were more progressive and liberal, we wouldn't have these types of discussions. The reality is that this is a f*cked up world, and the United States is left with cleaning up a lot of the mess. Like I've said before, you're more outspoken against the perceived hypocrisy of the Democrats/left than you were about the actual war in Iraq.
You do understand (well clearly you don't) that the United States supports some of the most brutal regimes in the world, right? You do understand that our very own president literally bows to a ruler(s) of a regime that's considered one of the most repressive towards women in the world, right? You do understand that our president has signed off on executive orders authorizing the CIA to support "freedom fighters" in places like Syria, factions of fighters (really CIA rent a rebels) whose backgrounds are rife with human rights atrocitites and knuckle dragging brutalization of women, right? You do understand that the World's Largest Arms Dealer Barry W. Obama just "sold" F-16 fighters to Egypt, where treatment of women has reached new repressive lows since the Muslim Brotherhood took over, right?
Keep all of your strawmen away from the fire, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
No, what you don't understand is that it's a f*cked up world. Direct democracy cannot exist in some countries simply because of the culture. These religion-based governments and societies will always have problems as long as they're governed by the Koran. That's why I support the separation of church and state.
. . . and that has nothing to do with anything in terms of this topic, absolutely nothing.
-
Its been really surprising to see beems return as a neo con.
-
Its been really surprising to see beems return as a neo con.
I'm a realist. There's a need for drones and the CIA. You can bitch about it until you're blue in the face, but you'll never convince me that special operations and drone programs are worse alternatives than going to war and putting American troops on the ground.
-
Drone Programs and putting boots on the ground basically have nothing to do with this topic, but keep flailing away Neo-Con.
-
Drone Programs and putting boots on the ground basically have nothing to do with this topic, but keep flailing away Neo-Con.
Special operations were included in my post. This law is in place so the CIA can interrogate and detain suspects in other countries (mainly al Qaeda and other terrorist networks). As far as calling me a "neo-con," I must be the first neo-con in history to oppose the Iraq war. Keep flailing away about how much you hate Obama and anyone who supports his presidency, wing nut.
-
Drone Programs and putting boots on the ground basically have nothing to do with this topic, but keep flailing away Neo-Con.
Special operations were included in my post. This law is in place so the CIA can interrogate and detain suspects in other countries (mainly al Qaeda and other terrorist networks). As far as calling me a "neo-con," I must be the first neo-con in history to oppose the Iraq war. Keep flailing away about how much you hate Obama and anyone who supports his presidency, wing nut.
Again, some of the smartest people in this country oppose this law Beems, you're just flailing away because you're a closet Neo-Con, and you just can't admit it . . . you're all about dictatorial power in the hands of the executive branch, just as long as the executive branch is controlled by Democrat.
The law itself is an open ended law that allows the executive branch to subjectively brand anyone they choose as a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant", your "just take their word for it" approach to this subject is laughable in its naivette. This administration has chucked a lot of people into 3rd world hell holes like the "Black Hole of Bagram" without charge, but apparently people like you don't mind just as long as a Democrat is doing it.
Sad
-
Its been really surprising to see beems return as a neo con.
I'm not. He's a democrat. His principles are as fleeting as the breeze. What's the polling say is popular this week? Okay, that's the new democrat platform. Ignorance is bliss and what not. It just so happens the neocons and dems have the same position on this topic.
-
Remember how much the Dems hated the Iraq war and stuff? Why aren't there similar protests for the drone war, the rent a rebels, etc?
-
Remember how much the Dems hated the Iraq war and stuff? Why aren't there similar protests for the drone war, the rent a rebels, etc?
It couldn't be because some lousy ass hole with a (D) next to his name is President, right?
-
Remember how much the Dems hated the Iraq war and stuff? Why aren't there similar protests for the drone war, the rent a rebels, etc?
it isn't the same, the countries we are bombing now don't treat women well.
-
Conservatives/libertarians who (rightly) oppose the NDAA and what it stands for would do well to remember two things:
1. Not all liberals/progressives support it. Some of us really rough ridin' hate it and pity the people who think it's a good idea. Work with us to help take down these anti-freedom initiatives instead of assuming we all can't think for ourselves.
2. Don't support any Republican candidates who want this sort of legislation. Make it a deal-breaker in future primaries and elections.
-
Beems you are the one who is blindly following barry Obama. Dax just keep educating the lost.
-
This is the front page of HuffPo today. It's an article complaining about Gitmo and other human rights tragedies. Plenty of libtards are concerned about it, but can do no more than peaceniks conservatives like dax did to stop our entry into either of the two wars that Bush started.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1110.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh451%2Fging55%2FScreenShot2013-02-16at12629PM.png&hash=1d99a6c0ab45e4c3e12fe566f952e3d74bcc1183)
-
Its okay bubbles, close your eyes and picture GWB and scream out loud, "the president is a war mongering baby killer." The first step in overcoming denial is acceptance.