Slashdot Mirror
Military Drone Attacks Are Not 'Hostile'
sanzibar writes "Not satisfied with the legal conclusion of the DOJ, the Obama administration found other in-house lawyers willing to declare a bomb dropped from a drone is not 'hostile'. The strange conclusion has big implications in determining the President's compliance with the law. If drone strikes are in fact hostile and the Libyan campaign continues past Sunday, he may very well be breaking the law."
"You know, you can call a shovel an ice-cream machine, but it's still a shovel, Mom and Dad"
Pullleeez! If one was used on the US we would absolutely consider it a hostile act.
This is even worse than claiming that waterboarding isn't torture. WTF? I can't believe that I donated money to this douche in 2008.
The use of explosives by anyone on this forum would be considered "hostile" and would land them in jail. They can label it whatever they want, but you drop a bomb somewhere, you better expect a "hostile" reply.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
... a federal court just ruled that a gun fired with your gloves on is not "lethal", finally exonerating O.J. Simpson from the murder he was found guilty of in a civil trial.
It is a coercive, destructive, military act, 100% consistent with what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "war". Therefore I don't give a crap whether somebody re-defines it as "hostile" or "friendly" or a "love tap". It's illegal as hell.
Enough (of the right) lawyers and you get to modify reality.
That's pretty neat.
"No, dropping a cinder block thru your windshield was NOT a hostile act,
just clumsy, oopsie!"
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole
it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before
drones existed.
"It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy," he added.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Step 1: Buy one of those remote controlled helicopters.
Step 2: Jury rig a water balloon bombing system.
Step 3: Drop a paint filled balloon on my boss's car.
and it won't be a problem right? A small pulse jet powered drone can be built cheaply and a pipe bomb should do the trick. It won't be hostile at all. Obama is a jack ass and his supporters are all idiots.
Bush at least consulted with Congress. All the rubes who bought all of Obama's hopey change, please feel free to self-identify.
We need the oil. Every thing is made from it. Even our food. Everything runs on it. If access to this resource is not kept secure, whether it's in Libya or the Middle East, the economy will completely collapse. Obama knows this and will do everything he can to prevent.
At some point we're going to get another irrationally warmongering hawk president. Can we get an iron-clad precedent set that in matters that matter the president isn't above the law, and can't just run around making stuff up?
It's too bad that would have to happen with this president and not the previous one, who happened to be Houdini of inventing BS from thin air. Free-speech zones. WMD. Blocking Scientific Papers. Etc. But we can't just agree to ignore the law for presidents we like.
The ______ Agenda
Other than the size of the delivered bang?
You're wrong, it is a law.
War Powers Resolution
I was just thinking after my last post... if we are
exploiting a loophole based on lack of technology
at the time of writing of the law... then there are
many, many things... that are VERY lethal yet,
not hostile.
I would presume lasers aren't hostile either since
the earliest military use (documented) that I have
found with a light google scrub is late 70's, early
80's.
Any others want to chime in with new military tech
that comes after the 1973 War Powers Resolution?
Duh, robots! When they say drones, do they mean
piloted or unpiloted? So... Skynet will be able to
purge the world of humans in an unhostile fashion.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
If I had karma, I'd mod you up. Interesting story, I wasn't familiar with the origins.
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Further, if it was a law from 1973 that was addressing copyright and technology it would be a priority for congress to close the loop hole. Basically people in power want something a certain way it will be that way irregardless of the law and the interests of the people. Money really is king.
It's called the War Powers Resolution for a reason... it was a resolution, of Congress... which does not have the signature of a President... it was not vetoed... or even pocket vetoed... because it was never presented to a President for his signature... preventing any possibility of a veto override.
As much as I loathe this President... I do have to give him credit for standing up against the WPA... it’s a shame he’s not competent enough to recognize the reality of the WPA and state it... rather than playing these games.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
It passed the House on July 18, 1973.
It passed the Senate on July 20, 1973.
President Nixon vetoed it on October 24, 1973.
His veto was overridden by the Senate on November 7, 1973. Thus immediately the bill became law, without the need for Nixon's signature.
And this is a high resolution scan of the final bill.
You need to do some reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973 Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284â"135) Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75â"18)
that kid is a genius
I'm sorry, I'm reading the article, and a few offshoots, but I'm honestly not seeing it: What's the basic argument that makes it NOT a hostile action?
This doesn't seem in any way different than what the previous guy would have said in the same situation.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
not only does he have some awesome lawyers, he is an awesome lawyer.
jim - "dude i just blew up starbucks"
laywer obama -"its OK! not hostile!"
jim - "but like, eleven people died"
lawyer obama -"chill. did i ever tell you about that time i was bombing libya? well, starbucks is a little bit like libya."
I am at a loss for words. That has to be one of the stupidest thoughts I have ever read.
I can't wait until the first poor defendant goes before a judge as says "If crack was in fact a drug" then of course id be a drug dealer.
It makes me sad to begin thinking that the set of birthers who think Obama never went to law school may be on to something.
do they have to give the money back?
hos-tile /hästl/ /hästl/
adjective
Unfriendly; antagonistic
- a hostile audience
- he wrote a ferociously hostile attack
Of or belonging to a military enemy
- hostile aircraft
Opposed
- people are very hostile to the idea
Is this even debatable?
Would the republicans actually vote against war in Libya? Why would they do that?
and immoral.
He knows this Congress is particularly spineless about taking initiative to deny him - so he'll just continue doing whatever he wants to further his own agenda.
How's that Hope & Change working out for y'all?
Obama (PBUH) is a constitutional scholar. He knows what's legal and isn't. Just ask Tony Rezko..........if you can find him.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/where-world-tony-rezko
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I like the bit about how it's been argued (repeatedly) that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. I wonder if Obama will play chicken with a GOP that hates him so dearly.
My preference is for the argument that since we have a standing Army, it is the President's to command and if Congress doesn't like it, they can cut funding and force the President to bring the military home. Unfortunately, they wouldn't dare cut defense. Well, they might dare if they hate the president enough.
i heard that Bush's people were harassing journalists, specifically Greg Jackson, a research assistant for Ron Suskind, who was writing Way of the World, a bit if an expose about the pre-Iraq war intelligence.
they, according to suskind, detained Jackson, took his notes, and confiscated some of his stuff.
i voted for Obama so that kind of thing would stop.
and so the war would stop. and so that the assault on civil liberties would stop.
im a 100% fucking idiot. i am voting for uhm... oh wait, we don't have write-in ballots here, and we barely have 3rd parties allowed on the ballot.
'kinetic military action'. .. it sounds so, you know, dirty! like someone might get hurt!
Pres. Bush got authorization from Congress before starting any wars or doing any extended attacks on nations. Pres. Obama hasn't even tried to get authorization.
It's easy to get Congressional approval when you lie to them, and Obama has until tomorrow. ;)
While this particular episode seems bizarre in isolation, it's just part of a larger battle (no pun intended) that has been happening for a long time now - the battle between the legislative branch and the Executive branch regarding ultimate control over the military. It is up to Congress to declare war - however presidents, as the head of the US armed forces, have the right to deploy troops into hostile situations without declaring war. Congress has voted that these deployments can only last a certain number of days before they must be declared an act of war (or, more accurately, before Congress must approve the continuation of the deployment). No president has been willing to recognize that congressional act as valid.
It doesn't matter whether Congress and the Presidency are of opposite parties or of the same party - in this situation the two branches have consistently disagreed.
#DeleteChrome
Maybe you were unaware that "the previous guy" disagreed on this point, and took a very careful view of complying with the "War Powers Resolution". In other words, unlike Obama, Dubya got congressional approval for his war(s). Whatever vague point you were trying to make, your post is factually misleading.
Well, yes. Remember that the US government is very pro freedom - the freedom of the US government to do whatever it wants and the freedom of everyone else to shut up and like it.
America, Fuck Yeah!
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
This is not surprising in the least. The United States government once went into a fisheries dispute with Canada claiming the scallops were a migratory species of marine life because they could propel themselves using water squirts.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
ICBMs are only big drones that launch warheads at a target.
He's not going to Congress because the majority of Congress won't support it. It seems also that the majority of Congress won't come out and oppose it, as they know that it basically condemns the Libyan rebels to stalemate at best and death at worst; they're generally more upset that Obama is skipping past them. Obama's position is little different from every president since Nixon vetoed the measure, though they have provided reports "consistent with" as opposed to "as required by" the War Powers Resolution. Obama is trying to work with a technicality of language and the separation of powers, whereas previous presidents have tried to be a little more friendly.
I agree with the action in Libya. We can't help everywhere, but we can help here. I'm not sure how I feel about deliberately targeting Qaddafi as the head of another sovereign nation, but he has few friends anymore aside from perhaps Hugo Chavez (numerous countries have already recognized the National Transition Council as the legitimate government and expelled diplomats who continue to back Qaddafi), and not many people will shed a tear over his death, whenever and however it comes. If he's still in power when NATO ceases operations, odds are that a huge swath of the Libyan people will bear the brunt of his anger. Without ground forces, which no one wants to send in, it's only going to be a lucky bomb or someone in his inner circle that takes him out. Otherwise, the rebels remain a poorly-trained force with little discipline whose front-line members think that simply grabbing a gun and shooting in the direction of highly-disciplined, well-trained, pro-Qaddafi forces is sufficient.
It may go a bit better. The rebels have made a few gains recently in western Libya, with pro-Qaddafi forces pulling back rapidly enough that they've left behind clothing and ammo. The major problem now is money and lack of arms flow, something that Tripoli has less of an issue handling.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
How can a drone attack not be hostile, but a hack / cyber-attack be defined as an act of war? (ref http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/pentagon_declares_cyberattack_an_act_of_war.php
Please order drone attack on the "lawyers" who are making this assertion, because after all, it's not hostile.
This is the point where it passes into 'hilarious' .....
we are now living in a monty python comedy skit - not real life any more.
Read radical news here
Oh, wait, it's the new one.
Circumcision is child abuse.
So dropping a physical bomb from a physical drone flying above a group of physical people who get turned into smaller physical components when the bomb lands is not a hostile act against the nation that it happens in YET hacking into or damaging a computer network in a nation is an act of war?
So it would be legal for terrorists to use drones to drop bombs on americans but an act of war for the US to release Stuxnet against Iran.
Woohoo?
I mean, I'm just a jobless IT professional in Vancouver, Canada and I figured these 'loopholes' out, how the fuck could the people making these kinds of declarations not realize the potential flaws here?
In the gentle words of the virgin mary: COME AGAIN?
This is beyond disgusting. I think it would be considered a hostile act if someone sent a drone at the white house right? Not just hostile, but an act of terrorism. Where are they coming up with these ridiculous ideas and what makes them think any of them will fly?
Yes, actually. Many of the new Republicans that got elected in 2010 feel Afghanistan and Iraq are the limits of what we can do and that the US is spending too much blood and treasure on foreign matters when we can't get our own house in order. I'm willing to bet they could get a non-negligible number of Democrats to agree with them.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
This demonstrates how Obama's presidential behavior is in reality not significantly better than the behavior of Bush. He talked a very different game, but in practice he winds up making the same sort of unethical choices as Bush. Political parties are irrelevant when they both breed and foster this same bad behavior.
To fuck over Obama, same reason they do everything. They demanded that he intervene in Libya specifically so that they could use it against him. If he had refused to intervene, they would have used that against him too. Their one and only goal is to destroy him. They've come out and said so on multiple occasions. People just tend to assume it's a joke, or something.
To drop bombs on the US. It isn't hostile so don't worry about it. Have a nice day.
That's what liberals consider the Constitution. If they are willing to bend the Constitution on matters such as interstate commerce or or various amendments, you knew it was only a matter of time when they redefined what a war was (ie its only a war when we say its a war).
They wouldn't, because they know how unpopular foreign military actions are among segments of the Democratic party. They're not worried about losing those votes, since they'd never have them in the first place, but Obama certainly would, which is undoubtedly why he doesn't want to take this to Congress in the first place. The masterstroke is of course the cognitive dissonance this bit of news is causing in liberal circles - lacking Congressional approval for the war in Libya, he ends up looking worse than Bush, at least on this one point (Bush actually sought and got Congressional approval for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). If he were to seek Congressional approval, he'd get it - from the Republicans, which would only serve to further alienate him from the anti-war segments of his party.
Basically, Obama has dug himself into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hole by going to war in the first place, and it behooves the Republicans to capitalize on it.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
He seems to think the Executive Branch gets to decide when it is and is not in compliance with the Law, and that the Exec is responsible for interpreting Laws... and making them for that matter.
A prime example of his autocratic approach is that he has dozens of Tsars exercising unilateral, unaccountable control over everything.
Now, he thinks he can just invent facts, such as "dropping bombs from drones isn't hostile, and therefore I am in compliance with the Law."
When I was younger, I thought that Jimmy Carter was the worst president ever. I feel good for JC that he's going to get to go meet his maker knowing that is definitely not the case.
Of course it's not war if you use robots. That's world domination.
"When the president does it, it means it is not illegal."
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
A bomb by any other name would kill as dead.
What a lying, conniving, son of a bitch. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Bush was a power hungry, interventionist, war monger. And so is Obama. Democrats are burying their heads in the sand and putting their fingers in their ears because they can't accept that they were lied to, and bought it hook, line, and sinker. Democrats are no different than Republicans in putting "their team" over the country and over principle.
Four years ago we had a growing anti-war sentiment in this country, supported by the Democrats and the Libertarians and the major national media outlets. But now that Democrats and big media got their candidate in, they have shifted from supporting anti-war sentiment to supporting the war mongering policies of this administration with nothing more than lip service to its opposition. Blood is on their hands. We are backing the next Osama bin Laden in Libya. We are bankrupting ourselves.
Go ahead. Vote for a Republican or Democrat. Go ahead and throw your vote away.
Pres. Bush never lied to Congress, at least about either Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not saying whether or not I think either war was justified and a good idea, but at some point we need to stop repeating the mantra about Pres. Bush lying to get support to start the Iraq War - it simply is not true. He said nothing more than what every major intelligence agency around the world had been saying for over a decade - that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was actively developing more. We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq but we did find evidence of active development of them. Anyway, this is getting way too off topic.
Obama isn't trying to 'stand against' the WPA, he's trying to say it doesn't apply to him. He supported it in the past, and if he said it didn't apply, he would look like a hypocrite.
The constitution says that only congress may declare war, but from the beginning, the US has engaged in conflicts without declaring war. In fact, congress has only declared war five times. The original words in the constitution draft were that only congress could "make war," but it was changed to say only congress could "declare war," in recognition of the fact that sometimes the president should be allowed to fight without declaring war.
No one knows where the line between what the president can do and what congress must authorize exists, though. The WPA is nothing more than congress's opinion, because they don't have the right to restrict the president further than the constitution.
Now, if congress really cared, they could bring the matter up to the Supreme Court, and get an injunction prohibiting the president from further action in Libya. But they haven't, which is how you know their words are nothing more than an attempt to win cheap political points.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The USA is OK with using cluster bombs even after lotsa others decided they are a crappy idea.
We decimated japan in ww2 with incendiary bombs and nuclear weapons.. McNamara suggested if we had lost people would have considered our acts war crimes.. but we won...
I think so long as the USA is able to convince people that they are 'the good guys' they can use whatever tactics they want and will be able to rationalize what they do and in the end nobody will stop them until they are seen as the bad guy...
if the USA was the bad guy there would be no debate,.. Military Drone attacks would be considered hostile acts of war and not be tolerated..
Still waiting for my change. I am getting a little worried it isn't going to come.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
It does not need a president's signature. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war:
Article II, Section 2
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
some of his (former) supporters are intellectually honest/consistent enough to not support the libyan quagmire.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't dare cut defense. Well, they might dare if they hate the president enough.
You had it right the first time. They wouldn't dare cut defense, Too many companies involved in the production of equipment, ammunition, fuel, etc. belong to or are benefactors of a lot of GOP in the House and Senate.
M O O N... That spells Slashdot.
Harold Koh is one of the big lawyers supporting the air strikes for the Administration. He condemns Republicans for going to war without authorization when in academia, but was brought into the Administration with President Obama, and since has changed his tune a bit. It should be interesting to see (1) if a Republican president keeps him on whenever one next gets elected and (2) whether he will return to academia and try to walk back his current position.
There are some interesting theories as to whether the air strikes are legal or not. The question isn't whether they are hostile, it's whether they are "hostile" as that word is used in a particular context--probably the war powers resolution, IIRC. But there are some interesting end-runs you could potentially do around that, such as through the UN--maybe Congress approved the UN charter, which validates the security council resolution authorizing the action, for example. That shouldn't work--there are limits that the Supreme Court puts on how far Congress can delegate its powers, and there's no way they can delegate the declaration of war, particularly if they do so ambiguously.
Ultimately, if the House wants to stop it, they can always cut the funding.
On the upside, $10M a day is going mostly to our military industrial complex, which pumps some money into the economy. Also on the upside, getting rid of tyrants.
Still, I get the image of a big freeciv display in the situation room...
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
how has this not been settled with missiles yet?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Exactly what I was thinking... I don't actually see any factual information that even says we are using drones to bomb targets... just speculation and political BS from the opposition. How many people actually read the two articles i wonder?
I donated significant money to the Obama campaign. If this doesn't stop by Sunday, and congress hasn't approved this action, I'd think that congress should file articles of impeachment. Sorry, but the President cannot be above the law.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
No, the majority of Congress will emphatically support military action on Libya.
The reason he isn't going to Congress is that if he does, it will establish a precedent and dilute presidential authority. It's the same reason Bush went well beyond what the authorization for military action that Congress passed authorized him to do, but did so without going back to Congress; even though no one in Congress was about to vote against any action against Al Q.
Given the Republicans' track record when it comes to bankrolling foreign military actions, I'll be honestly (and pleasantly) surprised if their drive towards full-tilt isolationism pans out to anything more than hyperbole - yeah, they'd get enough anti-war Democrats to grudgingly agree with them, but I wouldn't expect this to go anywhere beyond cutting funding for the war in Libya: the Democrats certainly wouldn't - couldn't - bring themselves to initiate impeachment proceedings for him violating the War Powers Act.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
I find this situation hysterically funny. They gave Bush these powers with Card Blanche, and he put us into two war fronts, one of which he should be prosecuted for. (Iraq) Obama uses it for legitimate purposes and they flip flop like a fish out of water.
What good could come of this? I hope Republicans flip out over this and revoke the "war powers" laws and get rid of them for good. This will be perfect for the next time a hawkish Republican wants to run wild for his war profiteer buddies, we can point back to this and laugh them down.
In the mean time, I hope Obama can hold the course. This a break for the free world and a chance for Democracy to break out in the Middle East. Yes, it means that corporate puppets that are propped up right now will be ousted. The peoples of the region have a chance to be rid of tyranny. Now ironically, look who is being obstructionists about this? Republicans who trump they are protecting us from those that "hate us for our freedoms". Hahaha! Now that the region has a chance at freedom, they want to play politics with it or just beat it down?
I love the priceless double talk out of the Republican corporate lackeys. I am waiting for how this will be the "christian thing to do" to abandon these rebels for freedom. Hide and watch how they spin this around, I would wager money someone will start playing some weird religious angle on this soon as well.
Take the Red Pill.
Has anyone even bothered to actually read the articles being cited? No where does it actually say the White House (or Obama) stated that using drones to blow stuff isn't considered hostile. Nor does it even state what exactly was disagreed on by him and his staff.
Well. The Libyan people are *already* poor and downtrodden...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
hard to say. i personally don't think a drone is any more a member of the armed forces than a bullet.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
I'd propose the opposite to be true. He knows he doesn't have the votes in this Congress to get authorization, so he plays 'Twister' with the law to avoid a showdown he'd lose. It's as simple as that.
What's most odd is that at the start of the operation he most likely would have gotten the authorization.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
The same reason Bush never went to Congress to authorize it's massive (and massively illegal) warrantless wiretapping, he thinks he has the right to do it without Congressional authorization, or he intents to carve out that right for himself for future wars. If he went to Congress, he couldn't claim that right in the future.
Yes, Obama is just as bad as Bush - far worse actually.
The legal question relates to the wording in the War Powers Resolution (linked to by the NY Times article). Do drone strikes constitute an introduction of US Armed Forces into hostilities (or imminent hostilities)? The key language for me is "introduction of Armed Forces", not "hostilities".
It is arguable that "introduction of Armed Forces" refers to servicemen & women being within danger of attack from a hostile force. The context of the War Powers Resolution (passed in the Vietnam aftermath) justifies this interpretation, not merely that we have fired weapons against a troublesome dictator.
Assad, you're next!
"That's not the point. The point is, who will stop me?"
Who indeed? The law is, de facto, not what's on the statute books, it's what's enforced. With actual force.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I just came to an epiphany. The cold war bankrupted both the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Soviet Union fell first, and the United States is only a dead man walking. Why? Because the humongous war machine resulted from the cold war refuses to shut down and in time, has been growing and feeding on everything in its path -- it needs to constantly find purposes to justify its existence.
Unless we start to drastically cut the defense (read: war) spending now, the writing is on the wall.
What he's saying is that when the president does it, it's not illegal.
While Obama should've gone back and gotten authorization from Congress to extend the mission in Libya, he acted properly initially, because otherwise there'd be a lot of blood on our hands (see: Bush Sr. in Iraq) as the resistance capital Benghazi was about to fall had we not intervened.
Of course, as far as I know we never declared war on Pakistan either, but Congress has been happy to sign checks for drones to fire missiles inside Pakistan territory. Is this not also "putting US Armed Forces into hostilities"? And if you want to be technical, Congress has not passed a bill declaring war on anyone since World War II. It's all "authorization to use force", which is more of the kind of Orwellian terminology in use post-WWII, such as changing the Department of War to the Department of Defense.
In my opinion, this is not "hostilities" in the sense of invading a country. We are in Libya at the request of the Libyan people to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Obama may have slipped up on the technicalities, but the technicalities are only being brought up now because of politics. The cause is a just one.
Hold your horses, Tex. Note this quote from TFA:
It's NOT just about the word "hostilities". The law in question apparently defines "hostilities" to mean something in its own context. Such documents typically say something like, " 'Hostilities' shall be defined in this law as follows:......."
I don't have the actual law in front of me, but let's not jump to conclusions about alleged definition wrangling based on GOP comments alone (such as the quote from J. Boehner in the article). We haven't done our homework yet to justify nailing Obama for definition wrangling.
Table-ized A.I.
You all cheered when Seal Team 6 took out Bin Laden - How is using an armed predator different?
Say what you want about Bush and his wars of aggression, but the Senate approved them.
Obama really thinks that by calling a fork a spoon, he can change reality.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
In other words, unlike Obama, Dubya got congressional approval for his war(s).
Dubya fed us a huge pile of lies for his favorite war, and completely dropped the ball on his less favorite one.
Did Bush seek and get Congressional approval for both wars, or did he not? You're trying to deflect the issue with a "yeah, but...". Bush sought approval, and didn't move until he had it. Obama claims that he doesn't even need it. That's the issue here. You can hate Dubya's guts, but if you're honest, you have to admit that Bush complied with the WPA, and Obama is flaunting it. In other words, Barack Obama is governing in a manner that both he and his supporters condemned Bush for.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Paul voted to end affirmative action in college admissions.
Yep, to the betterment of all students.
Anti Same-Sex marriage, Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and anti-abortion
This is the one thing that is somewhat evangelical, but so what if his position is to remove all power from the federal state? Then he can't say boo about any of those issues, it's up to the states (as it should be).
People get that confused about Palin too, even though she also is against abortion she has said before in an interview that it should be up to regions to decide about abortion for themselves.
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.
That's not evangelical. That's common sense, when you look at the hash the feds have made of education. That's $40m that could be going to students or even weed for the needy, all money better spent than paying a bunch of buerocrats to dictate how education is to be handled exactly the same from beverly hills to the inner city of NYC. Her's a thought, perhaps different regions have different approaches that would better serve students. Break up the NEA and send that money out to the states for education that makes sense.
Anti-EPA
I am a staunch environmentalist and think the EPA is past its prime, too much absurd regulation.
Anti-Civil Rights Act
Hmm... really?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is why we have three branches of government. If one misbehaves or missteps, the other two keep it in check. Unfortunately, Congress has been castrated for years (decades?) and pretty much do whatever their party and president wants. The other two should be flipping their fucking lids over the current actions. Both the idea that the president doesn't need The US Congress to give permission to send the US Military to conduct actions, because NATO gave him permission and the idea that military action isn't military action. Instead, a few are complaining and much of the media and populace are looking at those loud few as nutcases much the same way everyone looks at, say, Ron Paul... and in the end, the president will have too many friends to counter his wishes.
This President is 100% - after all, he's won a Nobel Peace Prize, how can he be wrong about what is hostile and what is not?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Other than the size of the delivered bang?
They'll now be classified as "weapons of mass non-hostility".
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Dubya fed us a huge pile of lies for his favorite war, and completely dropped the ball on his less favorite one.
Name 1 lie that Bush told. Or STFU. Did he have an intelligence report suggesting that Iraq was trying to get uranium? Yes. Did Iraq violate the armistice and thereby legally restarted the hostilities which ended in '93? Yes. Did Iraq lock missiles on planes patrolling the no-fly zone? Yes. Did Iraq take pot shots at planes patrolling the no-fly zone? Yes. Did Iraq prevent inspectors from unfettered access in violation of the armistice agreement? Yes. Did Bush ever definitively state that Iraq without a doubt had WMD's? No.
The fact that Messiah-in-chief is more arrogant and less competent than ANY President in modern memory is at this point unquestionable. If you still don't believe it, you'll have to wait until the second coming. Because this time around, your lord and savior is not getting a second chance.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I don't understand why you're complaining, it's the best government money can buy.
Are you seriously trying to say that the only action by the US military has been drones? Please put the crack pipe down.
Are the drones in fact flown by serving members of the armed services?
Assuming arguendo that drone-fired weapons don't constitute "hostilities," what about F-15's? Helicopters and ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles? F-16's and EA-18's? (Note: that's the DOD's press release, so it's probably reliable.)
Here's a great graphic breaking down just who is sending what. Breakdown for the US: 12 ships, 153 airplanes, 228 cruise missiles. It doesn't break down by aircraft type, but it's a fair bet they're not all UAVs.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Certainly the Federal Government overstepped its bounds by forcing integration, and race quotas have historically been a hindrance to racial harmony. But at the same time, forced integration did a lot to familiarize different people-groups with each other and I suspect that the quotas were a big help to minorities in the beginning.
Then what is the problem with getting rid of the act now?
I totally agree, that at the time the forced integration probably helped race relations through familiarity. But that time is over, we are all "familiar" with each other as it were, the country is more concerned about quality and less about race than it ever has been.
So after reading over his statement and yours, RP makes an excellent point that the law is no longer any use. Should we not git rid of stupid old laws that are just holding people back?
The final act of freedom for minorities will be to stop calling them victims and truly treat them as equal instead of saying we have to fix the game for them to play equally. Bullshit I say, people are people and bright people of all races can get ahead today. That is a society truly free of racism, which is by definition a society that does not take race into consideration for anything.
And in the end - his argument is still not at all evangelical in nature, but instead a simple proposal based on analysis.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey-- that's right. Obama should just use contractors. Or activate skynet.
Bush has complied with WPA, but he obtained the requisite consent with fraud. If Congress had any balls, they should have retroactively revoked any consent and charged him accordingly.
That said, at least he did gave outward respect for the law, whereas Obama pretty much openly flaunts his non-compliance. So both are dickheads on that count, but Obama is a bigger one for sure.
the difference is that we(US forces) don't specifically target civilians, they(terrorists) do. you need to pull your head out of you ass and get the facts. the ROE i'm deploying under this month are absurdly restrictive. i guarantee AQ doesn't give two shits as much about civilians as we do.
300,000? where are you getting that number?
AQI targeted more then just US/Coalition forces in IZ. they targeted anyone that didn't agree with them.
Samarra, IZ 2007-2008ish, as an example. the second the US started paying more then AQI, and actually backing the locals up and gave them free reign to do what needed doing, the locals turned on them(AQI). heads were rolling in the streets(literally). because, AQI was killing them if they didn't take up arms with and support them.
a portion of that civilian death total, IZ at least, is civilian on civilian(non terrorist/insurgent) killings. grudges, tribal and criminal issues being settled. not US/Coalition Forces. that's what i saw anyhow.
we(US) are by no means clean and infallible(*cough* Libya ). but to implying that we are some how targeting more civilians then AQ... you're just being silly.
Alright, I'm reading through the text of the War Powers Resolution.. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html ..and while I do think the actions taken are hostile, the War Powers Resolution refers to introducting US "Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
So, the question becomes: Is sending un-manned drones into an area for hostile actions, covered by the War Powers Resolution, since there aren't any actual forces (i.e. military personnel) in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated?
Again, I think there ARE hostile things going on. But the laws we're looking at may not apply when we don't have men physically in the area.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before drones existed.
No, he is inventing a loophole based on the theory that because the law was written in 1973, before drones existed, that it does not apply to warfare conducted using drones. The problem with that approach is that I remember the discussion about the War Powers Act from while Reagan was President and some of those who wrote that law were still in Congress. It was very clear from those discussions that the purpose of the Act was to enforce this opinion, “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’” By the way, the originator of that quote was Senator Barack Obama.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Now, if congress really cared, they could bring the matter up to the Supreme Court
Can they do so right away? My impression was that SCOTUS can only be appealed to after a lower court decision. And Congress members have filed a lawsuit to the effect.
The Constitution at no point defines what constitutes declaring war. It is a perfectly reasonable argument that the Congressional act authorizing the use of force against Saddam was legally a declaration of war. It is certainly a stronger argument than the one that the Obama Administration is trying to use here.
I have noticed that no one has mentioned another element of Obama's argument: that he does not need Congressional authorization in Libya because he has UN authorization.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/
There's one for you, though it's pretty easy to tell if you follow American Politics much.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is the supreme court can listen to any case they choose, any time. They have chosen to force cases such as this to go to lower courts first, for their own convenience, but it is not set up that way in the constitution.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They are firing shells, missiles, burning fuel, and consuming resources including time and attention. Once, shells, missiles strike their target, they are gone for good: burned up. The fuel is burned up. The time is burned up. None of these things can then benefit us or anyone else in the future.
If we spend money on tools that we need to make more things in the future, then spending the money may help our economy. But only if the amount of money we can draw from those added resources exceeds what we spent.
Every time the US declares war (or fails to declare it), its really a war against its own people. Its an excuse to funnel billions of dollars down a rat-hole that has no oversight, and no end in sight. Can you think of another country just before WW1 and WW2 that was addicted to war? Look what happened to them.
Our leaders think they can gamble at any stakes and take all the winnings for themselves. And if they lose, they can parachute out to some haven and leave the people with the crushing debt of their mistakes.
What planet are you from? Are you forgetting that the Republican polices got us into two wars and a horrible recession? How about the GOP's view on the "Freedom" for those in Gitmo and waterboarded?
Remember - there is no spoon
Of course not, because it's a fork.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This should be voted up. People will always seek validation of their illegal acts, no matter what is necessary to accomplish that. Even if it requires semantic gymnastics.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Watch him cease hostilities tomorrow, the 90th day, and then restart the 90 day clock a day later with new airstrikes.
They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd bomb a muslim nation who never attacked America... and they were right!
TL;DR parent needs to take off his tinfoil hat.
We have freedom, and the love and admiration of the surviving family members of the bombed. We are bombing the Love into them.
If they kill the wrong people, are you going to hold them accountable? Are you personally going to close the doors on their cells? No? Do you know the individuals who are? No? Then exactly how careful do you think they need to be when they have to account to nobody for anything?
'
Its kind of a funny story actually.....
There is no solution. You see a lot of dickheads on this and other forums spout that X should do Y and then totally fail to follow through on their chain of thought.
Take when a story about Syria or North-Korea comes up, people often say the west should intervene. But when the west intervenes, then it is bad. Are they the same people? That would be an intresting bit of research for Slashdot to perform. How consistent are people in their opinion?
Politicians know the answer, they KNOW people are fickle. If the west had not gone into Libya it would have been slammed, if it had gone in on Kadhaffi's side (the guy is very useful in keeping immigrants from Africa in passing through to Europe) it would have been slammed, and now it has gone in on the rebels side it is getting slammed. Both for doing it AND not doing enough.
How can you possibly "win" with a public like this? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Recently the leader of Hezbollah came out in suppor of the Syrian leadership, causing a bit of an issue for arab apologists since apparently it is therefor okay for muslims to kill muslims but not for jews to kill muslims. And this isn't the first time Syria has attacked its own people, if anything, they are restraining themselves this time. Who do you support? It don't matter much, whatever side you support, you end up supporting the killing of people.
And it ain't just the Middle East, you got Germany making statements about human rights when they still shelter nazi war criminals from their just punishment. Since no german government has ever been serious about going after their nazi criminals, and during an election of the most famous german they had to exclude Hitler but assured the world he would NOT have been in top three otherwise... well... just who are they trying to kid?
But that is the world we got, everyone got butter on his head and their paws in the till and then someone tries something and the world got to react and whatever you do, it is wrong.
Really, let all those who critize the Libyan action come up with a better plan that doesn't result in just as big a mess.
NIMBY is the enemy of effective leadership. We don't want a nuclear powerplant, we don't want a coal powerplant, we don't want a hydro power plant, we don't want wind power, we don't want to cut down on your power usage, we don't want to be dependent on foreign power.
Get out of that one.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The administration's argument is that the meaning of "hostilities" under the law is any engagement that puts US troops at risk from enemy action.
Then the Prez can throw the football at any time? If we do a sneaky enough first strike with nukes, no US troops are put at risk... Imagine the abuses of this change in definitions.
Nukes are an extreme case and a "first strike" would conceivably take less than 60 days anyway. So, other constraints, hopefully, would prevent the use of nukes for first strikes (not the War Powers Resolution).
The more immoral aspect of this definition, in my view, is that it's a definition that only a bully could love. Translated into plain English it says something like, "If US troops attack and the victim is powerless to defend itself by retaliating, then these attacks can go on indefinitely with no oversight."
A more proper, humane, ethical interpretation would read more like the golden rule. Something along the lines of "...the meaning of 'hostilities' under the law is any engagement that the US has considered an act of war when targeted at US troops, civilians or interests."
By that standard, it's pretty clear that drone attacks, cruise missile strikes, even passively assisting with attacks (such as providing money or material support/training to rebels or terrorists) would likely all qualify as "hostilities" according the the flexible standards that Congress used to justify the "War on Terrorism." And that seems reasonable to me.
Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy
Healthy. Tell that to the people killed by the non-hostile drones.
They can just make some drones, load them with bombs, and drop those bombs into NYC, Washington, without worrying whether that can be interpreted as a hostile act or not.
Yanks have really lost it. I feel sorry for ordinary people, because they're going to be the ones suffering for politicians' actions (as it is always the case).
The drones are remote controlled, thus the idea seems to be that human soldiers are not put into a war zone.
But, by that measure, wouldn't a fully robotic attack, like a first strike with ICBMs also not be hostile? At least at the time it's launched, the missile crew isn't in a war zone. That may change rather quickly.
Does this also mean that if your artillery outranges the opposition by a goodly range it's not hostile as the gun crew isn't in a war zone? Does this change if the other side buys some improved base bleed shells that have longer range?
It's a very odd measure of "hostile" no matter how you slice it.
US Presidents do this sort of thing which is why they get to be called "Commander in Chief". Congress didn't vote for Panama, Grenada, the stupid waste of marine's lives in an impotent "show the flag" exercise in Lebanon, or the Navy escort of Iraqi oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. I'm sure there's a few from Clinton's time as well (Somalia etc) - Reagan set the bar low and that's what every President since has followed. There's no real need for LBJ or Bush trickery to attempt to fool the world when it's only a small war.
That consideration is completely wrong if you consider the last couple of hundred years of US history. Just because it's what you want it to be is not enough to make it real. Take a step back and consider all of the overseas military actions by US forces in your lifetime and then consider that of all of those I'd guess that only a single one was approved by congress.
A bomb dropped from a drone is not hostile in the same way as water-boarding is not torture.
I guess it must be a special reality bending field once you are the commander in chief of the military of a nation involved in non-war conflicts against hostile unlawful fighters and on humanitarian missions to protect civilians.
Obama uses it for legitimate purposes...
And what would those be? He is bombing a sovereign country, in which there was a civil uprising. Do you know how many countries in the world have uprisings every year? Libya happens to have a slimeball as a leader (just like Iraq, which you do not think legitimate) - do you know how many countries have slimeballs for leaders?
Even if the attack on Libya were somehow legitimate, this bombing is wrong - and outright stupid - in so many ways it's hard to know where to start. Here are three:
For once, Congress actually wants to reign this crap in, and the President protests. What does he want? Perhaps Congress should just declare war on entire the rest of the world? That would free his hands nicely...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
We also pay for this shite with debt and fabricated currency. You can keep printing money all you like and running it through the 'economy' it ain't gonna make anything better.
Liberty.
It's not surprising that the change in definition comes from the same nation that defined as "theft" the download of nearly anything. Don't forget that Obama has a former RIAAA lawyer in his staff: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/riaa-lawyer-solicitor-general/
Did you expect some magical man with an instant fix? Obama stands for the USA as he knows it with a few minor improvements. Lawyers work by making compromises. All the stuff about him making radical changes was just Republican propaganda.
When Nixon's ideas look as if they are too socialist for the Democrats you know it's going to take a very long time for the USA to dig it's way out of the current hole. Don't go looking for any mythical great leader because it takes a hell of a lot more than one guy at the top to turn an entire nation around.
You're straining pretty hard to keep yourself convinced that Obama is some kind of good guy and republicans are pure evil.
Is it working?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
We're all pretty clear that dropping bombs is hostile. But what are their grounds for claiming that it isn't?
If what you said were true, then most private consumption would also be bad for the economy: it's spending that only produces stuff to be consumed which will be gone later.
So it's not quite as simple as that. War spending creates jobs, which is good for the economy. The Second World War is how the US managed to get out of the Great Depression.
That said, "good for the economy" as measured with traditional indicators like GDP does not necessarily translate directly to "good for the people". Probably everyone outside the military-industrial complex would agree that the money going towards military spending could be used for much better spending instead.
However, simply cutting military spending will destroy jobs. So you need to have a plan for what you want to do instead of military spending.
+1, I think most people (not this crowd, but most people in general) misunderstand that military spending is a drag on the economy.
They are firing shells, missiles, burning fuel, and consuming resources including time and attention. Once, shells, missiles strike their target, they are gone for good: burned up. The fuel is burned up. The time is burned up. None of these things can then benefit us or anyone else in the future.
If we spend money on tools that we need to make more things in the future, then spending the money may help our economy. But only if the amount of money we can draw from those added resources exceeds what we spent.
This is a good argument, but it is not true. Munitions have a shelf-life. When they reach the end of their shelf life they need to be disposed of safely. Doing so is about ten times as expensive outside a war than inside one. For some reason, nobody cares about the environment in a war.
I have no idea if the munitions used are actually end-of-life.
I think the people who didn't get shelled and bombed to death by Gadaffi's attempts to attack civilians with the weapons we blew up kinda benefited...
I bet Hillary Clinton has provided Obama with a definition of "hostility" from the Clinton Family Dictionary.
This is dangerous. The US isn't the only country with armed UAV technology. If the US is declaring that bombs dropped by UAVs are not acts of war, then the same would apply to other countries, especially China, Iran, Russia, and Israel. So what will the US say if Iran uses a UAV to take care of someone in Iraq they don't like, or of Israel uses UAVs in say Egypt or Syria? How about closer to home, what if Mexico got some UAVs and started bombing gun stores in Texas that were supplying the drug cartels in Mexico?
Ehmm, yeah.
By your very logic, I could just stop buying bread from the local baker because I only intend to convert it into (mostly useless) crap anyway, and the efficiency with which my body converts said bread into energy is really quite lousy.
Don't get me wrong, I can think of tons of things that are more useful than weaponry, but your argument makes no sense. The money doesn't disappear, it moves around in circles, that's what an economy does. When a government spends 300 million on a bridge, that money ends up somewhere, it doesn't disappear into thin air.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The constitution says that only congress may declare war, but from the beginning, the US has engaged in conflicts without declaring war. In fact, congress has only declared war five times.
Wrong, and frequently cited by people who, well, just are not very deep thinkers
The Constitution does not say that congress must pass a bill with a certain magical set of wizard words which will then invoke a war. When a president goes to congress and says, in effect, "I believe we need to go bomb or shoot some other country" and the congress answers, in effect, "we agree, here's the money, and you are authorized to go blow something up", the Constitution has been satisfied. The congress is not required to issue a proclamation that starts with "We the people of the United States do hereby declare war..."
Not that I mean to argue with you (I tend to agree with your point), but that seems like a poor example. Most of Europe was "addicted to war prior" to WW2- which is to say, they were busy making the most war during their most vibrant periods of growth, scientific and technical development, and cultural influence. Post WW2 (after which European nations have been far less enthusiastic about war-making) Europe an nations have gradually drifted away from the role of world leaders and become largely middle-rate world powers.
Correlation isn't causation and all the jazz, but it's hardly a water-tight argument against war.
Not "torture", silly person. It was merely "enhanced interrogation".
Similarly, Libya isn't "war", it's "enhanced peacekeeping".
(Now bend over for you "enhanced screening", citizen...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Then why not pull out of some of the FAR MORE EXPENSIVE on-the-ground operations there, vs pulling out of a relatively cheap ariel action in Libya?
The phrase "good for the economy" is political BS. The economy is just a term to describe how people trade with each other. Frederick Batist had an interesting point. The argument was against protectionism but it applies here.
What is the goal for most people. It is to be able to have whatever they want with the minimum of discomfort. But in the real world nature barely gives us enough to survive. So we have to labor to transform natural resources into things we want. Basically people want goods to be in abundance at a low cost.
But what do producers want? They want to make lots of money so they can buy stuff they want. They would like competitors to be minimal and prices to be maximum. At least for what they sell.
This lead to a very easy way to see if a policy is good for people. If it creates abundance of goods people want at a low price it's good if it creates artificial scarcity it's bad.
So where does military spending fit in? Using this criteria it is easy to see that unless you are protecting the material wealth of this country it is a waste. It would be much better for those people to be working to build things people want. Jobs are not necessarily good for the people of this country. Only jobs that add things people want do that. It would be much better to have people be landscapers than soldiers or weapons manfacuters.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The value of goods produced and held is, as a whole, the wealth of the participants in the economy. Everything has some value to the holder, but it varies over time, often decreasing as things get old, eaten, worn out, etc.
The interesting part is the allocation of resources towards producing that which maximizes the perceived wealth created and held, and when it comes to munitions they tend to be very expensive for the perceived wealth; using those resources for basically any other production would create more value and make the economy wealthier.
The second world war was not essential to getting out of the depression, basically any other production on the same basis would have accomplished the same.
Another misconception is that jobs are intrinsically good for the economy. Make-work jobs are in themselves merely a covert wealth redistribution scheme. As far as the wealth of the economy is concerned, although less palatable, simply taxing the employed and paying the unemployed to sit around doing nothing would be neither more or less valuable (if we assume that munitions have near zero value to the participants in the economy).
Redistribution through building infrastructure or various public works is slightly less wasteful, but ultimately the least inequitable method of managing reduced demand would be to divide the actual work through more general reduced working hours, rather than the binary employed-unemployed tax-makework structure. In the end, as the whole point of an economy is to generate the most wealth for as little work as possible, it would be good to have a method to deal with the end-game in that function, just in case it turns out that demand for goods isn't infinite but balanced against the value of free time.
You're missing his point. People say that spending money on warfare is good for the economy, because it pumps money in some sectors. It's true that this is good at least for those people working in those sectors, and for those people who can sell them stuff, and so on.
But it's still a poor investment; in the same way as buying a bridge that leads nowhere or having people dig holes and then fill them again. It buys you nothing of worth, pumping money into the economy is, basically, the only thing you gain. You do get the research and development results, but you could also get interesting results from R+D into bridge building or hole digging.
What constitutes a better investment is a matter of debate, but you'd want something where the end result of the work is something that is useful to society, instead of just the work process itself being useful. Education is something that is often brought up, as are all kinds of infrastructure works (power distribution, internet, roads, railways, sustainable energy).
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
And this is just one. The media was filled with government officials claiming ties between Saddam and Al-Quaida. There were none. More lies. Blix told two months before the invasion that there were no WMD in Iraq. Bush said that it was untrue.
I'm pretty sure that you can weasel your way out of this trying to claim that Bush might possibly had no personal knowledge of all this, but that's irrelevant. The machinery that he commanded was creating lies, smoke-screens and a media frenzy to come to one conclusion: the attack on Iraq. He is ultimately responsible for this. Maybe Bush didn't lie, the Bush administration surely did, and that's what matters.
Either you are defending from an attack or you want to raid the other guy for his resources. Its been true as far back as history goes: from the earliest history the first armies were raiding parties that went to other fields and other lands to "seize the day" and "take their stuff".
But modern times have seen a change. No one wants to be seen as empires anymore. So now when we fight a war, the money and lives get stolen from a countries own people. But none of the riches and conquered lands enrich the raiders. They go home empty handed. It doesn't matter to those that arranged and profited from the war: they already got paid. And the people are left holding the tab.
Thats why the times you quote actually looked good for Britain and France. They took wealth out of India and Indochina and wherever else they were trying to expand their empires. But in the end, it was short term profit because they could not keep what they took. It made the wealthy class rich for generations. And thats why its good to be King.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt
Corruption appears to be an intrinsic part of any government beyond a certain size.
The people trying to argue that Bush or Obama was worse/better are really not helping. They're both trampling all over the constitution, they've both got us involved in multiple dubious wars, they both have done things that serious stain the reputation of the US (e.g., Gitmo), they've both curtailed the liberty of US citizens. Declaring one better than the other is missing the point.
We desperately need a third option.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
So your argument is its cheaper to shoot someone than to do anything else with the bullets. I would like to hear that used as a defence in civil court. I would like to hear any of the arguments for killing people in this thread and tfa used in civil court. "Your honour, it was not hostile of me because I built a remote control robot and made the robot shoot my next door neighbour for playing loud music, in addition, it was the cheapest way I could find to dispose of the bullets" ... "Not guilty!"
I like Obama and support this effort but I cannot fathom this stance at all. Considering the position of the AG and Legal counsel, I think that president should seek authorization from Congress. I know that Republicans only rubber stamp wars they start and sans any reason or logic, take the opposing position on every thing Obama does. We have to see where Republican really intend to take this country. What is tier vision? Letting tyrants murdering their people, snubbing allies, cutting off grandma while giving wealthy a tax break, and accelerating the government into default. He can point all that out at election time.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Military Drone Attacks Are Not 'Hostile'
Neither are our DDoS attacks ,,
-Love, LulzSecurity
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
or if you did it on purpose. all they care about is that you killed their kid.
then they go strap a suicide jacket on and have a run at the nearest barracks
but a large number just get tired of all the accidental deaths
it wants it's arguments back
"relatively low cost"
"take a state sponsor of terrorism out of the picture"
come to think of it, 1964 called too.
man are you like some kind of Highlander, who pops up throughout history making the same arguments at the beginning of every 10-year war?
im sorry that us dum dums in the 'citizenry' have the 'audacity' to discuss the law of war. we should just bow our heads, grab our guns, cheer for the king, and make one last run over the top.
what are your feet made of? springs! steel springs!
fast as a leopard!
What everyone is not recognising yet is this: money pumped towards our largest corporations do NOT benefit large sections of the population any more... they only benefit those at the tip top. The manufacturing is contracted out to other countries and any stateside employees that are not management are paid absolutely as low as humanly possible. You can trot out "but...but...but Stock Market" arguments, but like it or not only a slightly larger percentage of the population is in the stock market at all and don't you know who holds the majority of stock? It's not regular people... it's top managers, CEOs, and board members!
There was a time when big contracts would trickle down enough it would help the normal person, but that's not today. If the government was trying to help normal joes they would get rid of all ideas like tax abatement and use the same money to encourage small businesses that HAVE to be part of their communities.
If remote drone attacks, inherently less trustworthy than operating manually, is not hostile, then flying aircrafts into skyscrapers are not hostile either, rendering the entire Afghanistan war built on hypocricy, deceit and lies. Wait, that was Iraq and the lies about WMDs and Saddaim Hussein-Al Qaida connection wasn't it?
Why aren't these criminals caught and properly punished? What is wrong with you America?
This is hypocricy of the worst sort, even if "hostile" is per international treaty definitions, BECAUSE it's per the same definition of "hostile" in both circumstances!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Say what you want, at least Bush was honest. This bozo needs to be impeached for violating the war powers act.
a hellfire missile in my ar$e is definitively hostile.
It is a scam to take money from taxpayers and give it to gunsmiths.
http://nukesylo13.com/component/content/article/23-impeach-bush/294-war-is-a-racket
Corruption is an intrinsic part of any government. Period.
Size just makes it easier for corruption in government to affect everyone, as opposed to just a few people.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Sorry, I ran out of mod points on Friday. :(
Broken window fallacy, etc.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Actually in Military R&D this is largely not the case. Because of the nature of the programs they are mandated to do the vast majority of the work in the US. They can get certain parts from outside the US, but nothing really critical.
I'm going to point out that this was done entirely by white house internal staff. Everybody outside the white house basically said you're out of your fucking mind.
When they swoop down and fire a hellfire missile into your house, it's just their way of saying, I love you.
"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Silly us, we thought the President had to follow the laws. Clearly, we were wrong.
So what does that make this? Libyagate? Wargagate?
"DoAsYouWouldBeDoneBy" - we can all recite it as one word before we get out of elementary school.
If an Arab country did this to the United States - if, say, they hacked together remote control meant for toy planes and managed to crash a dynamite-filled Piper Cub into the American part of the naval base at Rota, Spain - and took out of a few planes or ammo sheds, plus some people - would American politicians, commentators, and citizens on the street refer to that as an "Act Of War"?
If the presence or absence of a pilot in the delivery vehicle would not matter to the USA as it put out the fires, swept up the wreckage, and mopped up the body parts, in referring to it as an "Act of War" ... then it's an act of war.
Congress has been giving up the power to control the executive's authority to kill foreigners (and get Americans killed) for two-thirds of a century. You have to remember that congressfolks are "Just people" - yes, most are millionaires, but in terms of knowledge and experience, they haven't a hundredth of the background and experience than the ivy league PhD's and 30-year diplomats and military scholars that the executive has toiling away in offices producing (tailored) position papers, CIA analysts producing "threat estimates", and so on. Congress has to devote its staff budget to people who can get stuff done back in the district. And they are *terrified* of looking weak.
So, they just keep their heads down and make no fuss, and the executive goes right ahead as they please. If you don't even have hearings on what the executive is doing, the ugly prospect of having a vote on the matter (where you will either be hated later for getting Americans killed for nothing, or hated for not opposing tyranny and a threat), is avoided.
In short, it's legal "de facto" (in fact) even if an elementary-school kid could show you how it is war, and unlawful without a declaration of such, "de jure".
Every time the US declares war (or fails to declare it), its really a war against its own people.
And if the US were the only ones playing this game, you'd have a point. But there are others also playing the war game. Hence, there will always be costs to choosing not to act as well as choosing to act.
"We have to start a war! We built all these weapons and they're going to go bad!"
I think the GP's point was to put those resources into constructive things like infrastructure. Not waste them on things that go boom. Whether or not munitions have a shelf live does not negate the fact that they are money and resources spent and lost. Have too many bullets? Don't buy so many.
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Judge from that what you will, in the end the supreme court will make its own judgement. The money for a war is a separate issue.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I call bullshit. Ten times more expensive? Why not just fire them into the dirt a day before they "expire"?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Can someone send a drone attack on the White House? You know so we can test this theory of a drone attack not being hostile...
So Obama's a blatant liar. Can't he be impeached for this?
Twinstiq, game news
Possible lead contamination of the groundwater?
Did ANYONE who had commented in this thread actually read the linked article? Nowhere does it say that drone strikes are not hostile, it says that they don't meet the legal definition of "hostilities", which is a very different statement.
If the POTUS calls American Slashdot readers who don't RTFA morons every day for 91 days, he's being hostile, but it doesn't require congressional approval to continue because it's not hostilities as defined by the your War Powers Resolution.
Actually, 'Change we can believe in' was Obama's campaign slogan and something they pushed very hard, not 'Republican propaganda'. Remember the 'first 100 days' feeding frenzy, where all the changes Obama was supposed to be making was discussed at great length? The only problem is the geniuses that believe him and voted him into office.
The intelligence report on uranium was false. It was flaunted at the UN as absolute proof that Iraq was after WMD. It was untrue.
That's not enough to make it a lie. The person conveying the report would have to know that it was false. Neither the President nor the Secretary of State knew it at the time. They both had good-faith belief that it was the truth. Thus they weren't lying. They were mistaken. The worst you can accuse them of is being wrong on an intelligent guess that they made. Calling it a "lie" is a lie in itself.
Plame-gate showed that this was known at the time.
It wasn't known to those making the statement in public. Therefore it was NOT a lie (although it was clearly a mistake).
The media was filled with government officials claiming ties between Saddam and Al-Quaida.
Al Queda, despite current claims of it being a cohesive network, was then described as a network of loosely connected semi-independent nodes. Some of those nodes did provably receive training by Saddam's forces. The fact that Saddam and Osama were at odds notwithstanding. The claim of the link, therefore, stands.
Maybe Bush didn't lie, the Bush administration surely did, and that's what matters.
Not really. No one questions the fact that Bush wanted to go to war with or without evidence of WMD. In fact, Clinton should have gone in there if he were at all responsible. The case for taking Saddam was overwhelming and compelling long before any evidence of WMD existed. He violated the cease-fire agreement on multiple occasions and in multiple ways. This alone indicated that his commitment to a peaceful course was nonexistent. Bush was NOT responsible for a lie he didn't tell. There is EVERY evidence to believe that he had a good-faith belief that Iraq had WMD's. The fact that the invading force was fully equipped to be dealing with a chemical-warfare-ridden battle field is but one piece of that evidence. You ARE stretching your case. Which, by your standard, make you a lair. There is no evidence that Bush, however, stretched the case.
Oh, and he is responsible for Iraq. Both for its failures and its successes. Make no mistake. The anti-war fervor was based on the belief, at the time, that we were losing the war. Bush's biggest failure was not the invasion itself. It was not replacing Rumsfeld early enough with a more competent leader. US didn't mind that war as much as we minded the possibility of losing it.
You are trying to pigeon hole the argument into 1 issue. But that simply isn't supported by the reality. The case for the war was compelling on multiple issues. The possibility of WMD (in the situation where Saddam was prevents inspectors from examining the sites where WMD's could have been stored) was of marginal importance at best. It was a regime which openly sought to wage war against the US. It had the will, the resources, and if it were left to its devices, it would have, with time, acquired the means. Bush was not wrong on policy. He was only lousy on its initial execution. Which makes him a bad President. But the fact that he was right on policy still makes him a much, much, much, much better President the current one.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The perversion of language is the first step on the dark road to authoritarianism. Doublethink your way out of this one commi's. Orwell would be proud to see your life imitate his art.
No, Orwell would be proud to have his art prevent such imitation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
Deleted
War spending creates jobs, which is good for the economy. The Second World War is how the US managed to get out of the Great Depression.
Why not simply pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in again? Far fewer deaths and less destruction of real things.
Your argument is the broken window fallacy. The depression was caused by debt. It would have been much better to simply turn the printing presses on and repudiate the debt. That is effectively what they did, but killed millions in the meantime.
Deleted
Bush has complied with WPA, but he obtained the requisite consent with fraud.
This is an outrageous lie. And if Bush had any balls he'd sue the likes of you for liable.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Obama's only argument is that he is the final fact-finder on the legal interpretation of the President's power. He doesn't even bother claiming legal compliance. His only argument is that his actions are acceptable by international standards. He went so far as to ignore the legal advice of WH's internal lawyers. He's pretty much stated (although he didn't use this language) that he is above the law.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You mean, he hasn't complied with WPA? Because the fraud part is extensively documented.
if this going to be low cost, then how about we set a cap?
They are doing just fine. WW1 was not caused by some particular country, WW2 was an echo of WW1 and both sides were guilty. US included. War crimes of winners succeeded where other side lost. See terror bombing or unrestricted submarine warfare as example. 50 years later we are still experiencing echos of war around 38th parallel in Korea.
"This is the one thing that is somewhat evangelical, but so what if his position is to remove all power from the federal state?"
So what is that he's a hypocrit, and therein lies the problem.
Um, no. You are totally misunderstanding what "hypocrisy" means.
If RP had said he was against gay marriage, but then got married to a man, that would be hypocrisy.
But opposing gay marriage while eliminating the ability of the federal government to say anything about it is not hypocrisy, it is at worst indifference. If you also were against gay marriage then you might be mad at him for not imposing that rule on others, but it's not going against what he believes in to support the rights of states to decide what is right.
Just like Palin that you also mention, she's a hypocrit. She cries about free speech and how she's a major supporter of it, oh, but she wants Julian Assange silenced
She never said she wanted him silenced. What she does say is that the leaks should not have happened, which is true in all sorts of ways.... leaks like that are really bad and do affect national security (and in this case diplomatic relations).
But Assange is just a mouthpiece, he doesn't matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, I mean that he HAS complied with WPA. And you have committed an actionable civil offense. Libel is not protected speech. Accusing someone of a crime they you know they didn't commit is bona fide libel. A necessary component of fraud is prior knowledge that the claims made during a transaction are false. Bush did not at any point lie. He may have been mistaken. That is not fraud. I am certain that you knew that already as is evidenced by your prior comments. Therefore, if Bush really wanted to (and I wish he would), his legal team would be 1 filing away from getting a libel judgement against you. Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I do read.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.
At no point in time did anyone in the Bush administration insinuate that Iraq was involved in any role (direct or supporting) in the 9/11 attack. Iraq was involved with some of the Al Queda nodes. This is confirmed information. The report states that no connection existed between Iraq and Al Queda. That's blatantly false. You are using the anonymity of the Internet to spread lies about policy which you don't care to characterize accurately in order to smear an administration which you don't like viscerally. That's a statement purely about you -- not about Bush.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Whenever these kind of topics come up, I get a sense of a lot of people just frustrated with the 2 parties, and promising to vote for a third party next time, but in the end, we all get sucked into the 2-party dynamics when it's time to vote. It's happened to me also. I for one, will join the Libertarian Party, not with the hopes that it will win an election in 2012, but with the hopes to influence its direction through participation to make it viable and a real alternative for reasonable people that want change but also some form of government that makes sense, not the current mess we have. I just don't feel currently represented by anybody. I'm socially liberal (a.k.a. no government authority should tell me what to do with my life) and fiscally conservative in the 43% tax bracket seeing how my hard-earned money is being wasted. It's pretty depressing.
i mean, thats why i voted against John McCain, he told us the Iraq War would only be short and he got outraged when anyone suggested it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
The economy is secondary to the main function of governments (that rely on economy) to provide shelter, food, water, healthcare and work for their citizens.
"Spending more is good" when you have 1/4th of the people on a planet 4x the size of Earth. Then we would have an other few hundred years to debate.
The government (US and many others) fail to provide this. What it does is that it puts more money into the hands of useless people : bankers, oil companies, pointless subsidies. Instead of looking after jobs, that they stay in the country, and to teach people that the purpose of their lives should not be to have a bigger car, house, penis than the guy on the other side of the fence.
That way we could maybe go back to a more normal economy where even expensive things do not break on day 2, or just 1 day after the guarantee expires. That would be a great step to save the planet, at which point you would not battle for money but would try to do something useful. Anyone else here who had jobs, supporting completely useless industries? Outsourcing? How about something that creates something actually good for others and you... oh yeah, you never had the chance, because you had to work on something useless, that made more money than that other useful job, to pay your loan, your kids education ... etc
About the only real change was replacing a playboy prince with somebody who thinks he should actually do something with the Presidency other than treat it as a paid holiday. The USA is still the USA and is not going to be changed much in any way without time and effort. I can't help it if people believe in magic. It was pretty obvious from day one that those who saw him as a messiah were wrong and those who saw him as a socialist really did not have the merest clue about him and where the Democrats have been going for the past few decades. Both sides of politics are to the right of Republicans at the time of Nixon.
No, I mean that he HAS complied with WPA.
Then you should probably re-read my comment and point out where I have said that he didn't.
A necessary component of fraud is prior knowledge that the claims made during a transaction are false. Bush did not at any point lie. He may have been mistaken.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence telling that Bush was just as much involved in cherry-picking the desirable sources (i.e. those that would tell horror stories about WMDs), despite the fact that he knew full well about other, far more reliable sources which have dismissed the horror stories. So yes, I stand by my claim - he knowingly lied to convince the Congress to let him wage war. Which is fraud.
Therefore, if Bush really wanted to (and I wish he would),
Why, are you his fan?
his legal team would be 1 filing away from getting a libel judgement against you.
Hah, that would actually be awesome, to dig out all the dirty laundry in a court of law. But I don't think even Bush is that much of an idiot.
At no point in time did anyone in the Bush administration insinuate that Iraq was involved in any role (direct or supporting) in the 9/11 attack.
You watch too much Fox News. They specifically did just that.
You are using the anonymity of the Internet
Google "int19h", and you'll find out all about me that you would possibly want to know.
to spread lies about policy which you don't care to characterize accurately in order to smear an administration which you don't like viscerally.
I believe I have already given a perfectly accurate characterization of Bush administration. If it wasn't clear enough, let me try again: the administration of president Bush Jr - himself included - consisted of liars, fraudsters and war criminals, and engaged in blatant violations of US constitution. There is ample evidence for all four points. I don't know how it can be any more accurate.
Enough (of the right) lawyers and you get to modify reality.
Hell, my ex-wife only needed one (three if you count my lawyer and the judge) to bend the reality that she isn't a good mother.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He said nothing more than what every major intelligence agency around the world had been saying for over a decade - that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was actively developing more. We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq but we did find evidence of active development of them.
The head of the UN weapons inspection team went on record before the war saying the they had found no evidence of WMDs. He pleaded for more time. When you say "every major intelligence agency", who are you talking about? This Times article says that people are claiming that MI6 told Tony Blair that there were no WMD.
I have been unable to find evidence for the active development of WMD. In fact, the Duefler report specifically states that no such evidence was found. There are reports from certain people that Saddam Hussein *wanted* to resume building WMD, but that is no the same as active development. It's possible you know something that I missed.
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole
it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before
drones existed.
At one point, we'll be seing drones that go like "Hasta la vista, baby". Of course, all non-hostile and shit.
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
Corruption is an intrinsic part of any organization or system anyone has any interest in corrupting. Conservatists are entirely right in considering the government such an organization. They are entirely wrong in excluding corporations or free-market capitalism in general.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/pers-j20.shtml
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
Providing material goods for their citizens is not actually a primary function of government.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Whether "declared" or not, it was surely "waged" by both. And as such, Congressional approval has to be obtained.
Arguably, the problem before WW1 was that there had been peace in Europe for so long that everyone had forgotten what war is really like: people hold their guts in their hands and die. They tought it was an adventure camp of some sort, where you rough it up a few weeks and come back fine. And arguably, that's the problem with the US nowadays: the wars it fights are so one-sided that it's easy to forget what is actually happening down on the ground.
Now, a one-sided war is obviously a huge success for the military; it's a sign that they're doing their job very well. However, it requires a very high moral standard from the political leaders, because otherwise it's so very easy to degenerate into monsters. Sadly, the political leaders are, in the end, only humans, and can't provide the saintlike restraint that's required for safe control of godlike power. That leaves strict legalism as another possible check. Because of this, it's extremely dangerous that the rulers of the US keep on ignoring its laws to do what they wish. They might think they're doing what they think is right - even Bush probably thought so - and they might even be right; but the power to kill people from afar is inherently unsafe for the user, and should have safety checks attached.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The victims do care if their child was killed by accident, because the Americans apologize and offer condolences and money. Al Qaeda in Iraq or other terroristic militias just say "You deserved it."
"When the bomb came down, it said, `Whee!'" "Whee!"
"`Here I am to put you out of your pain and suffering.'" "Whee!"
"`Your mental anguish.'" "Whee!"
"`You won't have to worry about me anymore.'" "Whee!"
"`Here I am to solve all your problems.'" "Whee!"
"And then the bomb said, `Boom.'"
"Boooooom!"
"And then..." "And then?"
"And then they dropped another." "Whee!"
"And another." "Whee!"
"Boom, boom."
"It did not make me happy." "Not happy."
"I tried to run." "To run?"
"I tried to hide." "To hide?"
"But you know."
"Nowhere to hide. Nowhere to run to."
"I had to do something." "What did you do?"
"I did a little dance." "Whee!"
"It was a simple dance." "Boom!"
"It made my feet hot." "Whee!"
"It kept me moving." "Boom, boom!"
"I found..." "Yes?"
"I had nothing new to say..." "Oh!"
"On the subject." "Whee!"
"Except:" "Yes?"
"Keep moving."
"Boom, boom."
"One step forward." "Whee!"
"One step back."
"Boom."
"A silly dance..." "Whee!"
"Is better than..." "Whee!"
"A cynical dance."
"Boom, boom."
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
If it still hasn't dawned on some of you that our government is completely controlled by mobsters, this has to give you the final shove. Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Everything they say is a lie, everything they do is at the behest of powerful, money-soaked lobbyists.
Shake the system:
Peace and Freedom Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Vote for any of the above. Mix and match. Vote randomly. Just stop voting for the Mobster Parties.
We also pay for this shite with debt and fabricated currency
We're buying bombs with bitcoins?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I believe that a whole bunch of munitions dropped in the first Gulf War was surplus 2,000-pound bombs left over from Vietnam, retrofit with guidance packages. I'm too lazy to look for a source though.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yes. Everyone. Except the the intelligence agencies that didn't. Like the CIA and UNSCOM. So really if you discount those two primary sources then he didn't lie. And if you discount the fact that Bush himself doubted he would find any WMDs when talking to Blair before the war. So if you discount those three things... Ah fuck it. Obama's bad; maybe even as bad as Bush, but Bush was bad.
Timothy McVeigh (sp?), where are you when Obama's administration needs a clue-bat?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Healthcare, work and education (not material things) is the best way to allow access for them for the material goods as well.
I hope we can agree, that it's job is not to support a thin group of fat rich people on top of the poorer and poorer masses via tax cuts, keeping wars running (supporting a group of people who benefit from the death and suffering of others), allowing outsourcing without taxing it and allow groups to privatize natural resources who do not benefit the common good (only their wallets).
Did I forget: restoring a banking system that does not rely on eternal debt? Not a material thing to provide, just to make sure you do not end up on the street after you borrow from the wrong bank.
I guess my point is simply that given the amount of resources the President of the US has to investigate stuff, the fact that a series of statements turned out to be wrong, is almost conclusive proof that the president was not interested in the truth. I consider that lying.