The Truth Is Viral - ACLU: "Obama is now Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

Originally posted by darkest4
America has to admit we're not perfect,

We are not

we're not worthy of judging the whole world,

We are not

we should focus on our own country which is in shambles

We should.

And yet, we shouldn't just kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with a violent and dangerous criminal group. Perfect or not, somebody needs to put a foot down.

Originally posted by buddha
So now they do it in the open!
you all seem to be bother about americans.
and dont care about others?
other countries should be against this to.
it could be seen as a act of war.
but the US would just pay them off. againe.

You make an excellent point-- the argument of some seems to be that an enemy is not quite so enemy-ish if it is an American.

But I disagree with your implication that this is not already a war ("could be an act of war"). It is a war-- a modern, 21st Century war. It's not your grandfather's war-- but it is war.

An enemy of my nation-- who considers my children fair targets-- I don't care where or how that enemy is taken from the planet. I'll gladly do that work myself.

reply to post by buddhasystem


A policy of preemptive strike is an atrocious tyranny wrapped in a cloak of paranoia driven pseudo logic.

Analogies of situations between nations and people do not apply.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Analogies of situations between nations and people do not apply.

How so?

I would also question applicability of "pre-emptive'. The subject was involved in jihad for many years. It's all post factum.

There is plenty of tyranny, unfortunately, present in the American life these days, but this instance ranks way low on the tyranno-meter list.

Originally posted by Frira
An enemy of my nation-- who considers my children fair targets-- I don't care where or how that enemy is taken from the planet. I'll gladly do that work myself.

I'm glad that at least one poster in this thread can see straight. Whoever was conspiring to do nasty things to Americans (which includes my little ones) gets no sympathy from me. Quite the opposite.

Good riddance.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

A policy of preemptive strike is an atrocious tyranny wrapped in a cloak of paranoia driven pseudo logic.

Analogies of situations between nations and people do not apply.

So, Islamic extremist make threats claiming they will strike at the heart of America.
Political Imam's preach that killing any American is necessary and good.
Some Islamic extremists attempt to blow up the WTC.
More threats, more preaching.
The Twin Towers come down.
The Pentagon is hit,
A fourth jet liner full of passengers plows into the ground.
Islamic extremist claim credit,
Islamic extremists celebrate the deaths of the innocents.
More threats, more preaching about killing Americans anywhere in the world.

Someone, looks up from his Big Mac and says, "Hey! They are trying to kill us! We need to do something before they kill again!"

And you say, "Nah! You are just being 'paranoid!' There is no reason to believe anyone is trying to kill you. Those threats and the deaths are only 'pseudo-evidence.' You are just trying to 'cloak' your imperialist aggression!"


By the way, analogies are, by definition, logic devices-- not "pseudo-logic."

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Frira
An enemy of my nation-- who considers my children fair targets-- I don't care where or how that enemy is taken from the planet. I'll gladly do that work myself.

I'm glad that at least one poster in this thread can see straight. Whoever was conspiring to do nasty things to Americans (which includes my little ones) gets no sympathy from me. Quite the opposite.

Good riddance.

Must be something about being a "rational mystic!"

I appreciate the time and effort put into these videos. However, I just do not see this issue as resonating with many folks. If the ACLU wanted to do a true critique of Obama, there is so much better, substantive issues that affect a lot more people. In short, Obama is a mere continuation of the Bush administration's war against terror thing. The presidential kill list is, in my opinion, a minor point in the larger picture.

More troubling to me as a voter, let's say that McCain would have won. I doubt we would be in any different position or have made any substantial changes from the Obama administration. The US voter lacks "choice" when it goes to the polls on big issues: the wars and spending, Put a candidate on the ticket who pulls us out of all foreign entanglements and puts the brakes on an out of control rampaging government, and you will then have hope and change.

Originally posted by Sibilance
If the ACLU wanted to do a true critique of Obama, there is so much better, substantive issues that affect a lot more people. In short, Obama is a mere continuation of the Bush administration's war against terror thing. The presidential kill list is, in my opinion, a minor point in the larger picture.

Well there is a clue. That Obama, who hated George Bush with a passion, did NOT make substantial changes.

When newly elected leaders get their national security briefings, they grow-up in a hurry.

The real reason for Iraq, as an example, is not known by many. The world and its politics are far more complex than most imagine-- including presidential candidates.

The obvious response to the failure to find WMD's in Iraq was, "But... Saddam had been refusing to allow the UN inspectors in!" But that was not the refrain we heard. Instead we heard, "Well, that was our best intelligence at the time." Bush makes it sound like bad intelligence, but continues anyway. Since the reason is justifiable but the excuse offered is not-- suspect something amiss. And we did. All sorts of conspiracy theories materialize.

The better suspicion is that our intelligence was excellent-- perfect even-- but had nothing to do with WMD's, but the intentions of other states-- and of course Bush nor Obama is going to say what we knew, and how we knew it. Instead, both Presidents stick with the cover story so our enemies do not know-- even if that means the American public never knows the truth.

So Obama gets his "new-guy" National Security briefing and all the things he THOUGHT were about Bush being an idiot... suddenly crashed an burned. Obama found out what the rest of us do not know-- the real reasons-- the very good reasons, we occupied Iraq.

And Obama listens and then says, "That makes sense, but now the public is going to hate me-- because I can never explain what we know without compromising our safety, and I must continue this war."
And the advisers, who have given the briefing, smile and say, "Welcome to the Oval Office-- being hated sometimes comes with the job. Mr. Bush sends his regards... and condolences."

We try very hard to elect good men. Odds are we get it right most of the time; but when they do not make the decisions befitting the man we thought we knew... it may be because we don't know what they know-- not that they are not the good men we had hoped them to be.

If I am right, our polarizing politics are not in our best interest. We demonize our leaders, because we have the false and dangerous presumption that we, the average Jills and Joes in the street, have a clue as to what the world is like.

reply to post by Frira

I am truly horrified, for the first time grant you, about the the serious attacks on freedom in this country. But first, before anyone thinks I'm a bleeding heart liberal or a right wing conservative (because I am neither), let me give some background of myself.

I am 54 years old and I grew up in this country. I've been a nurse for 16 years - 8 of those years working in a nursing home. I've seen a lot of suffering, both mental and physical. I've seen a lot of death.

I figure I'm pretty normal, patriotic to the point of tearing up when I hear the Star Spangled Banner. I think the US is the greatest country on this earth. For now. I have for the longest time thought the problem with this country is that we give rights to people who don't deserve it. What, let Nazis march? come on people, we all know they are up to no good, they would love to see anarchy, rioting, because they would get to do what they want to do so bad - kill all the inferior people walking around. What, are we seriously letting Islamist groups TRAIN jihadists IN THIS COUNTRY? Are we f------ crazy?

While I tend to feel there are too many people walking around that do not care the least about this country and its citizens, I have been in a situation to see another side to the story. I try to be fair and not "stereotype" or believe all people of the same group all feel the same way. On September 11, 2001, I was working at the Red Cross donation center in Nashville, TN. I was watching the TV news when the second plane hit. A coworker turned to me and said, "We're going to be swamped." And she was right.

We had close to 2,000 donations on that first day-an unbelievable amount. People stood in line for hours just to donate one pint of blood. I worked 18 hour days for a week before getting time off to rest. I interviewed a lot of people that first week. I saw all colors of people, all races, all nationalities were present that first day. ALL of them were shocked, disheartened, and disgusted at what had just occurred. Many students and businessmen of Middle Eastern descent came in to donate. And I'm not stupid. I know a lot of people of Middle Eastern descent probably came in to donate because they felt they had to PROVE to friends, coworkers that they felt as disgusted with 911 as the rest of us "real" Americans. I saw fear in some of those face

In the quiet, small community I lived in there was a Middle Eastern man who had a local store/gas station that everybody liked. And in one day everyone hated him to the point of vandalizing his place of business. I have never felt so torn - I believed HIS country or HIS fellow Islamists were at fault, and I believed I could not really trust anyone of Middle Eastern descent again. At the same time, I knew this man and I liked him.

We can't have it both ways, people. It has to be freedom for all or freedom for none. And our president should have to follow the same laws he was sworn to uphold. We have to make sure EVERYONE has the same rights and restrictions. Why do we have to say no to assassinations without charges, without judicial involvement, without congressional consent, etc? Because the very thing that makes us great is also our greatest weakness. The diversity of our citizens mean there will always be a difference of opinion on any matter, so we have to have laws in place to make sure everyone's voice is heard and we ALL, even the president of the US, follow the SAME RULES REGARDLESS. Because if we allow anyone to deviate from what is law, who is to say where that dividing line is?

Yes, I think that most if not all terrorists have a connection with Islam and Muslims. Do I think Obama should have followed the judicial processes we have in place? Yes. As a matter of fact, I think he should have GUARANTEED those rights and INSISTED on them. Because I don't want to end up on the wrong side of that dividing line. The only way to protect my rights is to fight for rights for all. We can't have it both ways..

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Analogies of situations between nations and people do not apply.

How so?

I would also question applicability of "pre-emptive'. The subject was involved in jihad for many years. It's all post factum.

There is plenty of tyranny, unfortunately, present in the American life these days, but this instance ranks way low on the tyranno-meter list.

My opinoin would differ in that this was an assassination of someone.

The subject, as you refer to him, was never tried. He is alleged to have been involved in "jihad". To be honest there is an enormous burden of proof regarding the entire war on terror that has yet to be met. In the case of Awalaki, his lack of due process is unconscionable.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

He is alleged to have been involved in "jihad". To be honest there is an enormous burden of proof regarding the entire war on terror that has yet to be met.

What exactly would you want as proof?

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Well, if i knew that, i suppose i would have transcended compound ignorance. But the fact is, i simply don't know what I don't know. That is why you have trials. It is why a basic human right is due process. You would want this for yourself, yes? then you should also demand it for every other human.

Like i said earlier, "Where there is liberty, that is my country."

Dear Skeptical Overlord,

(Yes this is going to be a bit of a rant and complaint.)

YET:

Why is this video not posted under US Political Madness?

And why is it foisted off on me (and everyone else) via it being shoved into my mailbox?

It's not a poll where you are asking for my opinion, or that you are announcing a new feature or ATS 'moderation policy stance on a specific _subject_.' It isn't even earth shaking or vital NEWS..... (Does it even fall under "real?")

I'm a daily visitor, I've got the handy dandy pop ups that jump up signalling an ATS sponsored broadcast... and if I care for the subject matter, I'll click on it.

I do not want or need a 'US Political Madness type,' ATS Sponsored, Bash President Obama Video link dumped in my ATS mailbox as if it were important "NEWS." Or even a bash the other candidates video.

I do not care if every mother and his brother is for the Hon. Ron Paul, or some 'other' Republican Right Wing Nut Job Presidential Candidate (Or President Obama for that matter....* Do _not_ get me started on how this 2012 Presidential election is a repeat of worse choice, vs bad choice elections. I know its going to be the same stuff, different election....)

What I care about is the seeming lack of objectivity that shoves it blindly into my and everyone else's mailbox, irregardless our own political leanings. Or if you will, the DELIBERATE attempt at shifting anyone's political stance by showing favoritism via ownership of ATS, by putting such into my and others mail box.

What I am seeing of late, is that ATS (The Operators of, not masses using) is not pushing for a balance in what it 'demonstrates' as it's "Objectivity" in this current political theater. How many Hon. Ron Paul, vs President Obama, Presidential campaign banner adds are running everyday, and why on a news site, that is striving to remain 'balanced,' are the adds more skewed to showing up for the Hon. Ron Paul vs any other (Republican or Otherwise) candidate**?

This last "The truth is viral and radically biased to one political side of the story..." episode didn't belong in my mail box. Frankly the reason I'm annoyed enough to protest, is that it IS that obviously THAT slanted. Not to mention the 'Title of it' is deliberately written in the same reactionary knee jerk sensationalism as to make it worthy of FOX news.

That the 'site staff' posted it directly to everyone's mail box, with or with our your direct over-site; makes me beg the question, "Who's political addenda is being furthered here?"

So in the spirit of "Deny Ignorance" what the heck gives???

M.

*No I don't have any illusions that one party or another is going to 'fix' anything in the Presidential Elections, except maybe "to fix or rig" the elections. But I'm a Dam-o-crat, as in I'll be damned if I vote with the 'herd or for a lame duck distraction.' (Nader, Kerry, Palin... etc.)

**I can bash them well enough on my own, I don't need help.

*** Hell I can bash President Obama on his cruddy oil policies if I wanted to.... But I'd do it with 'respect' to his OFFICE, if not the person.

**** I remember that there used to be a time where 'Disrespecting the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, could get your teeth knocked in.

due process is over-rated (/sarcasm)

Originally posted by Moshpet

**** I remember that there used to be a time where 'Disrespecting the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, could get your teeth knocked in.

True. But that was before the Clinton cigar debacle, and before the men sitting in that office tarnished the presidential seal.

The US has had one hell of a long run of bad presidents. Since 2000 it has gone from "bad" to "desparately pathetic".

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Analogies of situations between nations and people do not apply.

How so?

I would also question applicability of "pre-emptive'. The subject was involved in jihad for many years. It's all post factum.

There is plenty of tyranny, unfortunately, present in the American life these days, but this instance ranks way low on the tyranno-meter list.

My opinoin would differ in that this was an assassination of someone.

The subject, as you refer to him, was never tried. He is alleged to have been involved in "jihad". To be honest there is an enormous burden of proof regarding the entire war on terror that has yet to be met. In the case of Awalaki, his lack of due process is unconscionable.

OK, again, imagine a group of US Marines is stationed in Kuwait (this is hypothetical). Then one day a white Toyota pickup is seen pulling up at a certain distance. There is a puff of smoke around the pickup, and then almost immediately a mortar shell lands amidst the Marines, causing casualties. What do you need to make a decision to open fire at the pickup?

My point is that this, unfortunately, IS A GREY AREA. If we refuse to take action against individuals who are actively working to cause harm to Americans, it will be caused.

We can use the word "alleged" to death, it's cute and politically correct. It's hardly applicable here because it's documented that Al Awlaki was active in propaganda, recruiting and coordination. Of course, he never stood trial for that.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Was Awaliki firing mortars, or any other weapon? If not, then the analogy does not work. He wasn't killed in self defense. He was murdered via assassination. And since we do this without any diplomatic efforts, murder is what it is.

We won't even talk to AQ. We don't want to "legitimize" them. Yet, by considering them on par with a nation and declaring "war" on them, legitimizing is exactly what you are doing. It is insane to not want to sit across a table from someone, and prefer to sit across the battlefield from them.

If Awaliki never stood trial, or had judicial review over his alleged activities, the it is tyranny. It is murder. It is unAmerican. All the evidence that there is lacks transparency, and has no validity.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Was Awaliki firing mortars, or any other weapon? If not, then the analogy does not work.

Oh please. Of course this was a figure of speech. An operative can be a lot more efficient and therefore more lethal when executing function above and beyond that of a foot soldier, that's what I was getting to.

He wasn't killed in self defense.

Wait, the guys is recruiting and grooming terrorists, has been for a while... Of course we must just sit and wait for him to aid and abate the next act?

It is insane to not want to sit across a table from someone, and prefer to sit across the battlefield from them

Do you know that's insane? It's to sit across the table with somebody, discussing implementation of Sharia across vast swaths of this planet, and destruction of Israel to boot. I mean, I've always objected the US support of Israel and all, but there has to be some reasonable grounds, and you won't find it with AQ.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Was Awaliki firing mortars, or any other weapon? If not, then the analogy does not work.

Oh please. Of course this was a figure of speech. An operative can be a lot more efficient and therefore more lethal when executing function above and beyond that of a foot soldier, that's what I was getting to.

He wasn't killed in self defense.

Wait, the guys is recruiting and grooming terrorists, has been for a while... Of course we must just sit and wait for him to aid and abate the next act?

It is insane to not want to sit across a table from someone, and prefer to sit across the battlefield from them

Do you know that's insane? It's to sit across the table with somebody, discussing implementation of Sharia across vast swaths of this planet, and destruction of Israel to boot. I mean, I've always objected the US support of Israel and all, but there has to be some reasonable grounds, and you won't find it with AQ.

It may have simply been a figure of speech...but the insinuation was that there is a parallel between actively being under attack and someone conspiring in a distant nation for an attack that requires infinitely more funding, planning, and cooperation that a lone truck full of a mortar team.

If the guy is recruiting and grooming terrorists, my first request is for proof of this before we kill him. Transparency, and all those great cornerstones of a free society.

We may not find a more reasonable grounds with AQ, however I can also say that we have never tried. Or, to be more correct, we used to have a reasonable ground with them as they are our own creation. Since they gained independance post Soviet era, we have worked against any sort of diplomacy. So, we could talk about what will and will not work...but until you try it is all a SWAG (Some Wild Assed Guess).

A good sign that our hypocrisy is wrong:

if you are talking Al Qaeda, we will Predator strike a supposed spot, not minding that we blow up entire neighborhoods in the process. The "collateral damage" isn't even considered, as the excuse of "they shouldn't be around terrorists if they didn't like it" is nothing but a nauseating and thin rationalization.

If you are talking America, hostage negotiators are called in, and not even a bullet can be fired without the highest scrutiny.

Why are US citizens deserving of such better treatment than our counterparts in Pakistan?