Here's a real gem from Obama's position on the law:
Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.
In other words, Obama is saying "Bush, Cheney, and I have managed to get get around constitution for the last decade. If you pass this bill, you jeopardize all that hard work."
My guess is that ultimately, Obama will veto the law allowing citizens to be held indefinitely without trial,
Obama did suggest he would veto this bill, but not because he cares about civil liberties. His threat was based on the notion that the President already has these powers and that the Congressional mandate would be an usurpation of and interference with those powers.
Here is a quote from the White House's position on the bill:
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
If you merely ignore the constitution, your enemies may use that against you; not because they have love of the constitution, but merely because they can.
Indeed they can use it against you, but that is only part of the theater event we call politics, i.e., huge rhetorical differences, zero policy differences. Witness the disparaging remarks democrats made against Bush for his civil liberties violations, such as due process free detention. Those same people, now that Obama is in office, are using Bush/Cheney arguments to justify Obama's policies including due process free execution.
Probably true -- I use pfsense in my office and I like it a lot. However, I wouldn't discount it for slashdotter home use -- there's a good liklihood the person asking this question has a computer in a closet he hasn't been using -- perfect pfsense platform for the cost of a wireless card, a gigabit nic, and gigabit switch (assuming he doesn't have a few of those laying around as well -- if he does, pfsense just costs the download).
Obama is a warmonger and civil liberties violator. Bush was a warmonger and civil liberties violator. That's my issue with Obama and I give examples. Explain the logic problem.
Major illegal wars not ended by Obama: 2 (he lobbied Iraq to stay but Iraq decided to stick with the timetable set under GWB).
Major illegal wars expanded: 1 (at one time, there were more than 3x the number of troops in Afghanistan than under Bush).
Minor illegal wars setting despotic precedent: 1 (Obama didn't even abide by the War Powers Act in Libya setting the stage for future presidents to not even bother with asking congress for approval -- under the constitution, the president isn't allowed to start wars at all).
Then there is the extrajudicial murder of a US citizen without trial, without evidence, and without review based solely on Obama's assertion he was a bad guy.
If you think American's are safer under Obama, you are deluded. He has taken the Bush/Cheney abuses to new levels and is essentially preparing us for the final de facto repeal of our civil liberties.
Innacurate. Each person has one vote for two major party candidates hand selected by the corrupt coorporate owned GOP or Democratic parties, neither of which represent any real difference in actual policies despite their theatrical rhetoric. The coorporations are then free to buy influence, i.e., legally bribe, legislation in their favor because the regular voters are incapable of individually coming up with millions of dollars each politician charges.
While the "one person one vote" notion is completely true, it is also totally deceptive. We get to pick between Candidate Ebola or Candidate Anthrax, both of whom are 100% owned by lobbyist money and will gladly do everything in their power to rape the voters who put them in office while aiding and shielding the only entities that matter (even if they can't actually vote): those with millions upon millions to spend in the legislative market we call Congress.
Absolutely correct. I have a DSLR and a few lens which I love and I use when I'm looking to do real photography. But I also have, or had till I misplaced it, a small point and shoot camera about the size of an altoids tin. Of all the photos I have, I probably used that one for 90% of them. It would fit in a pocket, I had no qualms exposing it to potentially destructive conditions, and I almost always had it with me by keeping it in my computer bag.
Anyway, I'm really missing it and will need to replace it. I'd suggest looking at the reviews here: http://www.dpreview.com/
Ranting against the DEA for any reason is well justified considering the damage it does to our country. Glenn Greenwald debated Bush's drug czar recently and really laid open the festering wound that is prohibition. The video is here:
The Chancellor probably gave mixed signals and considering her position, is likely much better at CYA than Pike. I'm not excusing Pike, he deserves punishment, but so does anyone who allowed this happen or was not clear in what techniques were offlimits.
OK then, how about ruined until the following conditions are met:
1) Make a personal and pubic apology to each victim. 2) Name whoever it was who authorized the spray. 3) Provide non-token yet personally substantial compensation to each victim, say 25% of net worth to be divided amongst the victims.
At that point, it would be fair to consider Sgt Pepper rehabilitated and stop ruining his life.
Most of the money the government transfers to others for free, doesn't go to dirty long hairs sitting in parks, it goes to clean cut silk ties in Park Ave.
I mean, when exactly did campus police start dressing like extras from an S&M production of The Empire Strikes Back, anyway?
Here's an interesting article by Norm Stamper, Seattle Police Chief during the WTO protests in 1999 ("Battle in Seattle"). Since then, he has professed great regret for his reaction and has unequivocally apologized for his orders and the actions of the police force. Anyway, he addresses the increasing militarization of the police in the US and explains why it is such a bad idea to stop being part of the community and start being the "them", as in oppressors, at least with respect to solving day to day crimes that actually harm citizens.
Might I add that San Juan island is a great place to visit, and the English and American camps are parks (for those who like to visit historical battlegrounds).
If you do X, I will do Y, where Y is something you want.
Extortion:
If you do A, I will do B, where B is something you don't want.
Sounds to me like it is both. It says to Politician Joe Blow, if you don't raise taxes, we'll vote for you and give you money (bribe) but if you do raise taxes, we'll vote for someone else and not give you money (extortion). At its heart, all single issue politics is driven by the bribe/extortion economy.
I think what most Americans want is a politician who will do what is good for the country in general, and not get tied up in some kind of quid pro quo with a few special interests. I also think most Americans have no faith such a politician exists.
I wish America had a system that allowed viable third party candidates... but, as it stands now,Americans will have to choose between corrupt and corrupter in 2012. We are so screwed.
If the end result of voting for either party is that you get screwed, there is no risk in voting third party and some potential benefit. Realize that third parties don't have to win to be effective -- imagine a situation where 80% of the voters pick the GOP or Democratic candidate and one of those wins. It doesn't take a genious in the losing party to realize that there is a huge potential in the 20% who essentially voted "none of the above", and that by finding out what that 20% wants and adjusting the platform accordingly, they might win next time around. As for the winner, that candidate may also see the machinations of the opposition and court those third party voters as well. That is winning in defeat, and the ONLY thing preventing that from happening, is people's unwillingness to side with a "loser" because psychologically, it feels bad.
As for voting the lesser evil, realize that politicians have no soul and will do anything at all. So for example, Marty Lederman excoriated the Bush adminstration for using secret memos to justify due process free detention. Now that he is part of Obama's presidency, he is _writing_ secret memos to justify due process free execution. An example of a lesser evil being a greater evil. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/
I voted for a third party candidate last election season and I still feel good about it. I was under no illusions that I'd be on a "winning" team, but I also do not feel like I was duped, used, or abused. Join me -- find a third party you like and write in the candidate's name. You'll feel better about voting once you realize it is about more than picking a "winner" amongst the losers the GOP and Dems select.
You don't think it's bad to execute innocent people and then cover it up? Wow. One can only hope that someday you will be on the receiving end of the same kind of evil you advocate. Sadly, karma doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a real gem from Obama's position on the law:
In other words, Obama is saying "Bush, Cheney, and I have managed to get get around constitution for the last decade. If you pass this bill, you jeopardize all that hard work."
Obama did suggest he would veto this bill, but not because he cares about civil liberties. His threat was based on the notion that the President already has these powers and that the Congressional mandate would be an usurpation of and interference with those powers.
Here is a quote from the White House's position on the bill:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
Obama supporters are very neatly summed up in this cartoon: http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/comics/156
Indeed they can use it against you, but that is only part of the theater event we call politics, i.e., huge rhetorical differences, zero policy differences. Witness the disparaging remarks democrats made against Bush for his civil liberties violations, such as due process free detention. Those same people, now that Obama is in office, are using Bush/Cheney arguments to justify Obama's policies including due process free execution.
We already have a Republican in the White House.
Probably true -- I use pfsense in my office and I like it a lot. However, I wouldn't discount it for slashdotter home use -- there's a good liklihood the person asking this question has a computer in a closet he hasn't been using -- perfect pfsense platform for the cost of a wireless card, a gigabit nic, and gigabit switch (assuming he doesn't have a few of those laying around as well -- if he does, pfsense just costs the download).
Explain how it is all over the place?
Obama is a warmonger and civil liberties violator. Bush was a warmonger and civil liberties violator. That's my issue with Obama and I give examples. Explain the logic problem.
Major illegal wars not ended by Obama: 2 (he lobbied Iraq to stay but Iraq decided to stick with the timetable set under GWB).
Major illegal wars expanded: 1 (at one time, there were more than 3x the number of troops in Afghanistan than under Bush).
Minor illegal wars setting despotic precedent: 1 (Obama didn't even abide by the War Powers Act in Libya setting the stage for future presidents to not even bother with asking congress for approval -- under the constitution, the president isn't allowed to start wars at all).
Then there is the extrajudicial murder of a US citizen without trial, without evidence, and without review based solely on Obama's assertion he was a bad guy.
If you think American's are safer under Obama, you are deluded. He has taken the Bush/Cheney abuses to new levels and is essentially preparing us for the final de facto repeal of our civil liberties.
In use since 1995, so the reference to Obama's prediliction to murder by remote control is perfectly appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1
Drone attacks during Bush II administration: 52
Drone attacks during Obama adminstration: 257
Innacurate. Each person has one vote for two major party candidates hand selected by the corrupt coorporate owned GOP or Democratic parties, neither of which represent any real difference in actual policies despite their theatrical rhetoric. The coorporations are then free to buy influence, i.e., legally bribe, legislation in their favor because the regular voters are incapable of individually coming up with millions of dollars each politician charges.
While the "one person one vote" notion is completely true, it is also totally deceptive. We get to pick between Candidate Ebola or Candidate Anthrax, both of whom are 100% owned by lobbyist money and will gladly do everything in their power to rape the voters who put them in office while aiding and shielding the only entities that matter (even if they can't actually vote): those with millions upon millions to spend in the legislative market we call Congress.
I think I'll just join Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong and get behind a rat thing.
Absolutely correct. I have a DSLR and a few lens which I love and I use when I'm looking to do real photography. But I also have, or had till I misplaced it, a small point and shoot camera about the size of an altoids tin. Of all the photos I have, I probably used that one for 90% of them. It would fit in a pocket, I had no qualms exposing it to potentially destructive conditions, and I almost always had it with me by keeping it in my computer bag.
Anyway, I'm really missing it and will need to replace it. I'd suggest looking at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/
I think he needs to meet the giant blowup doll and make som pneumobot pr0n.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnDS5wYPH8o
Not safe for most work environments.
Ranting against the DEA for any reason is well justified considering the damage it does to our country. Glenn Greenwald debated Bush's drug czar recently and really laid open the festering wound that is prohibition. The video is here:
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/debating_bushs_drug_czar_on_legalization/singleton/
(Glenn Greenwald should run for president)
The Chancellor probably gave mixed signals and considering her position, is likely much better at CYA than Pike. I'm not excusing Pike, he deserves punishment, but so does anyone who allowed this happen or was not clear in what techniques were offlimits.
OK then, how about ruined until the following conditions are met:
1) Make a personal and pubic apology to each victim.
2) Name whoever it was who authorized the spray.
3) Provide non-token yet personally substantial compensation to each victim, say 25% of net worth to be divided amongst the victims.
At that point, it would be fair to consider Sgt Pepper rehabilitated and stop ruining his life.
Most of the money the government transfers to others for free, doesn't go to dirty long hairs sitting in parks, it goes to clean cut silk ties in Park Ave.
So far the cops have been lucky. Scot Olsen came near to death and still has trouble speaking due to a head injury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Oakland#Scott_Olsen_head_injury
It's only a matter of time before the cops do kill someone if they keep acting like the enforcement arm of a fascist regime.
Here's an interesting article by Norm Stamper, Seattle Police Chief during the WTO protests in 1999 ("Battle in Seattle"). Since then, he has professed great regret for his reaction and has unequivocally apologized for his orders and the actions of the police force. Anyway, he addresses the increasing militarization of the police in the US and explains why it is such a bad idea to stop being part of the community and start being the "them", as in oppressors, at least with respect to solving day to day crimes that actually harm citizens.
http://www.thenation.com/article/164501/paramilitary-policing-seattle-occupy-wall-street
Might I add that San Juan island is a great place to visit, and the English and American camps are parks (for those who like to visit historical battlegrounds).
A bribe is this:
If you do X, I will do Y, where Y is something you want.
Extortion:
If you do A, I will do B, where B is something you don't want.
Sounds to me like it is both. It says to Politician Joe Blow, if you don't raise taxes, we'll vote for you and give you money (bribe) but if you do raise taxes, we'll vote for someone else and not give you money (extortion). At its heart, all single issue politics is driven by the bribe/extortion economy.
I think what most Americans want is a politician who will do what is good for the country in general, and not get tied up in some kind of quid pro quo with a few special interests. I also think most Americans have no faith such a politician exists.
If the end result of voting for either party is that you get screwed, there is no risk in voting third party and some potential benefit. Realize that third parties don't have to win to be effective -- imagine a situation where 80% of the voters pick the GOP or Democratic candidate and one of those wins. It doesn't take a genious in the losing party to realize that there is a huge potential in the 20% who essentially voted "none of the above", and that by finding out what that 20% wants and adjusting the platform accordingly, they might win next time around. As for the winner, that candidate may also see the machinations of the opposition and court those third party voters as well. That is winning in defeat, and the ONLY thing preventing that from happening, is people's unwillingness to side with a "loser" because psychologically, it feels bad.
As for voting the lesser evil, realize that politicians have no soul and will do anything at all. So for example, Marty Lederman excoriated the Bush adminstration for using secret memos to justify due process free detention. Now that he is part of Obama's presidency, he is _writing_ secret memos to justify due process free execution. An example of a lesser evil being a greater evil.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/
I voted for a third party candidate last election season and I still feel good about it. I was under no illusions that I'd be on a "winning" team, but I also do not feel like I was duped, used, or abused. Join me -- find a third party you like and write in the candidate's name. You'll feel better about voting once you realize it is about more than picking a "winner" amongst the losers the GOP and Dems select.
You don't think it's bad to execute innocent people and then cover it up? Wow. One can only hope that someday you will be on the receiving end of the same kind of evil you advocate. Sadly, karma doesn't exist.
And you're a tard if you think evidence of atrocities committed by US Troops had no impact on the Iraqi government or the feelings of the populace.