Kind of like all those militias in the 1990's who railed against Clinton on civil liberties encroachments after things like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those guys just seemed to disappear when "their team" started shredding civil liberties.

Ah, team play and US politics.

He's right.

Obama has continued the worst excesses of the Bush administration, and in some cases gone to 11.

DarnoKonrad: money being speech, he's wrong about terrorism

I've read a bunch of his stuff, and I'd like to hear your opinion on these two points.

I figure the rest of the thread will devolve into Ron Paul this and that la-di-da, so we can just skip that.

I'm not voting for Obama again.

DarnoKonrad: .

thanks. I'm re reading this, considering your points. Might take a few.

The left has its RON PAUL in congress. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich doesn't have Paul's national following because he is even less personally appealing than RON PAUL.

Kucinich has run for president a couple of times. He sometimes has views contrary to regular lib/Dem views. He says random kooky things. He is certainly anti-war, instead of just anti-Bush, unlike most of the phony lefty "war protesters". He doesn't make much noise with Obama in office though. He did mount a small protest against US involvement in Libya, but just like everything else Kucinich does, it was to no avail.

RON PAUL's anti-imperial(don't call it isolationism for fear of being attacked by Ronulans) foreign policy by soundbite can sound appealing, but there's never any follow up to his suggestions. PAUL is offering to "fix" one problem(US troops overseas and the money spent to do it), but fails to address the new problems that he creates by his "fix" and how he would deal with the results of these new problems.

DarnoKonrad: .

This is going to take a day or so to ingest the various viewpoints.
Thanks for providing something truly thought-provoking. I am going to weigh these individually, of course, and prevent myself from making a fallacious argument of combining them and "baby with the bathwater" type of argument. They always have to be weighed independently and individually.

Nonetheless, this one isn't going to get back to you today. Thanks. Really thought provoking.

LIBERALS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT.

Yeah, but Obama has the decency to at least pretend to wring his hands before signing away our core principles.

It IS a bit interesting that all those massive anti-war protests shown on the news almost daily during the Bush administration seem to dissappear or at least got no coverage during the Obama administration...

DarnoKonrad: Just my opinion. If you can formulate some other way to think about these issues I haven't considered, drop me a line -- I'm always willing to reconsider the merits of my position.

Thanks. This is going to take some research. Theres related interviews and articles i can see. Its going to take a while for me to scrape up some perspective on this.

Thanks again for the thought provoking statement.

Yeah, because I've totally said it was cool that Obama keeps doing that. Hey, Republicanmitter, just because you live with fingers in your ears refusing to listen to anything but what Limbaugh tells you doesn't mean the world works that way.

DarnoKonrad, Party Boy

Rational, vitriol-free, political discourse. In my fark?

WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?!!?

Aarontology: Obama has continued the worst excesses of the Bush administration, and in some cases gone to 11.

Really? Which countries have we invaded for trumped up reasons? How do we hire people at the Justice Department? Through merit or through religious affiliation? Does the Consumer Protection Agency exist, or are we de regulating the banking industry? How many people have we sent to Guantanamo in the last three years? How many people have we sent to Egypt to get tortured to death?

Obama has been far from perfect. But he's no where near Bush.

DarnoKonrad: Party Boy: research.

Here's a primary source:

AL-AULAQI v. OBAMA (new window)

"But while Anwar Al-Aulaqi may have chosen to "hide" from U.S. law enforcement authorities,
there is nothing preventing him from peacefully presenting himself at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen and expressing a desire to vindicate his constitutional rights in U.S. courts. Defendants
have made clear -- and indeed, both international and domestic law would require -- that if
Anwar Al-Aulaqi were to present himself in that manner, the United States would be
"prohibit[ed] [from] using lethal force or other violence against him in such circumstances."

Thanks. I'll be on that later today(?)
I'm probably going to be just listening to the greenwald interviews on citizens united for a chuck of time.

Problem: The Democrat in the White House isn't liberal enough.
Solution: Elect a far right wing nutbar.

Once a politician makes it to DC they are corrupt and need to be removed from office.

There are very few exceptions to this rule, and Obama is not one of them.

Marcus Aurelius: Once a politician makes it to DC they are corrupt and need to be removed from office.

There are very few exceptions to this rule, and Obama is not one of them.

I would agree, but there isn't really any alternative.

The NDAA is a farking travesty, and will be looked at as the low point of his presidency. But we weren't getting Jed Bartlett, and I'm pretty annoyed by the naive liberals who thought we were.

DarnoKonrad: And I disagree with Mr. Greenwald that you can hide from the law and expect to be protected by it. It's ridiculous. If you ran off with the Nazis in WWII, you're not entitled to special treatment just because of where you were born -- you can burn with the rest of Dresden.

I will take this one on.

First,due process is based on a fundamental mistrust of police power generally, or in this case, executive police power. While there is no doubt a need for an executive to carry out military actions, the reason to provide for oversight by the judiciary is the recognition that it is so readily subject to abuse.

I don't seriously doubt that Al-Awlaki was collaborating with al Queda in planning violent acts (although I do have grave doubts about Samir Khan - but I will leave that for now). But think of the bigger picture: this is now precedent. The executive can execute an American citizen without trial, without judicial oversight, without even detailing the reasons in the form of some form of formal indictment. Now, with the NDAA, rider, the degradation of due process can occur right here at home.

This is the purpose of the rule of law: not to protect the individual wrongdoer, but to protect the process from abuse when the wrong person inevitably gets the reins. You have to think beyond having a guy like Obama having this power: think of a Bachmann. Or more to the point, another Hitler. Obama has made it easier for a despot to operate, and do so within what is now a redefined concept of what is legal executive power.

The second problem is the fact that these summary executions are against fellow citizens. I am well aware that due process in the constitution applies to "persons" and doesn't single out citizens for special consideration, but this isn't a constitutionally based argument. Many people go too far here, and effectively reach the net result that citizenship is without meaning in this context.

I have serious problems with the "battlefield" idea of the war on terror -- again, the NDAA is precisely why. This isn't to say that a citizen actively firing at the military of his home country can't be shot down. That's a red herring, and is no more true than in the scenario of a police officer being fired on in Detroit. But that isn't what happened here. These two guys were killed from far away by remote control while driving through a desert. Had they been firing on US soldiers attempting to elude arrest, this wouldn't be a discussion.

Basically, if citizenship means anything, it means that your home country has your back, because if your country by birthright doesn't protect you, it is pretty obvious no country will. You are a man alone. That's why due process is required before stripping someone of their citizenship: a man without a country in a hostile world is essentially doomed. There should be a special consideration, a distinction, between killing someone like bin Laden in that manner, and killing a US citizen under the same circumstances.

My 2 cents

Marcus Aurelius: Once a politician makes it to DC they are corrupt and need to be removed from office.

There are very few exceptions to this rule, and Obama is not one of them.

And since he is an amateur at corruption we need to replace him with a pro, is that it?

what_now: The NDAA is a farking travesty, and will be looked at as the low point of his presidency. But we weren't getting Jed Bartlett, and I'm pretty annoyed by the naive liberals who thought we were.

It was obvious when Candidate Obama refused to vow to end Bush's use of executive signing statements that we weren't getting Mr. Civil Liberties, but come on.

You can't seriously be claiming you knew that Obama would be "reluctantly" signing a law that allowed for indefinite detention of US citizens on American soil without trial.

gilgigamesh: You can't seriously be claiming you knew that Obama would be "reluctantly" signing a law that allowed for indefinite detention of US citizens on American soil without trial.

No, of course not. I'm pretty sure I made me feelings about that known, ad nauseum, in the 12,313 fark threads about it. One of the BIGGEST reasons I'm opposed to it is because of who might come next, or as you pointed out:

gilgigamesh: You have to think beyond having a guy like Obama having this power: think of a Bachmann.

That's farking terrifying, and personally, I hope he gets hammered on that on the campaign trail.

But here's the thing- my options aren't the guy who reluctantly signed NDAA and someone who never would, my options are the guy who reluctantly signed NDAA and a group of people who don't think it went far enough.

he will get re-elected. And if he gets a congress and a senate that can eat without adult supervision, this had better be repealed. THAT'S what you work toward.

what_now: No, of course not. I'm pretty sure I made me feelings about that known, ad nauseum, in the 12,313 fark threads about it

Fair enough, but you have to realize I don't necessarily follow the opinions of every farker in every thread.

Out of context of other posts to the contrary, that was what it looked like you were claiming.

DarnoKonrad: congress has declared to be objects of war

Congress hasn't declared war since 1941.

gilgigamesh: Fair enough, but you have to realize I don't necessarily follow the opinions of every farker in every thread.

oh, of course not.

My problem is when people compare President Obama to President Bush, not when people compare President Obama to Candidate Obama.

DarnoKonrad: You didn't address the point. The guy was collaborating with people congress has declared to be objects of war. This makes him an object of war. And like any combatant protected by the rules of war, there are things he can do that prohibit his killing.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that you are begging the question, turning himself in now means subjecting himself to indefinite military detention; or at least until we have won the war we are fighting on an emotion.

Under the circumstances, innocent or no, would you turn yourself in? I wouldn't.

Party Boy: Kind of like all those militias in the 1990's who railed against Clinton on civil liberties encroachments after things like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those guys just seemed to disappear when "their team" started shredding civil liberties.

Ah, team play and US politics.

I don't think this country is going to wake up and realize just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone until/unless they get personally biatch slapped by our security theater.

And more to the point, once he turns himself in for indefinite detention, what country will champion his cause and use diplomatic or other pressure to petition for his release? Think of those hikers detained for 2 years by Iran, or that American student held by North Korea.

If you are held by a hostile foreign power, someone hopefully has your back. Not so when you are a man without a country. That is my point about the special nature of citizenship.

DarnoKonrad: Legally there is no difference between a 'declaration of war' and a 'authorization for use of military force.' It's still congress exercising its power to make war under the Constitution.

That's highly debatable for many, many reasons. Especially when the "declared" war is on an emotion as opposed to a hostile foreign power.

I wonder how many of these right wing Constitutional Law geniuses know that law is one of the Liberal arts, and that if you went to college and studied Constitutional Law that you would be a Liberal Arts major with a BA in Political Science when you graduated?

Maybe it doesn't work that way if you go to Glen Beck U.

OK, this is fun and constructive but I have to go get some work done. I will check back later after the liters have pissed all over everything.

gilgigamesh: OK, this is fun and constructive but I have to go get some work done. I will check back later after the liters have pissed all over everything.

Jesus was an alien.

DarnoKonrad: gilgigamesh: Putting aside for the moment the fact that you are begging the question

No I'm not.

You were assuming his guilt to make the point that he was guilty. That is begging the question.

gilgigamesh: turning himself in now means subjecting himself to indefinite military detention

No it doesn't. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld settled this already. Citizens, and indeed, *any* combatant CAN NOT be held indefinitely. They have the right to challenge their status as a combatant, and their treatment must be in accordance with the rules of war. Read the pertinent case law.

So you are saying the NDAA rider is unconstitutional? I tend to agree, and while the Supreme Court may intervene, for the time being it is the law. You can't just ignore that!

Ok, really have to go

Aarontology: He's right.

Obama has continued the worst excesses of the Bush administration, and in some cases gone to 11.

But that's no reason not to vote for him.

shivashakti: To be fair, some of us liberals have been just as critical of Obama for signing NDAA as were of Bush for signing the USA PATRIOT Act..

Just because I voted for him doesn't mean I've lost the ability to be critical of him. I probably will not vote for him again as a result of this.

Wow. Impressive. I probably will vote Romney if he's nominated. If he's not, then I may abstain. But Romney is the Republican Obama without the desire to go and change everything. He's even clean and articulate...for a Mormon.

what_now: And if he gets a congress and a senate that can eat without adult supervision, this had better be repealed.

Why do you think he would? The Patriot Act was extended, and his veto objection to the NDAA had nothing to do with the ability to detain Americans.

DarnoKonrad: gilgigamesh: So you are saying the NDAA rider is unconstitutional?

Absolutely 100% DOA.

I've heard people defend it by saying "Oh, well Obama knows that it will get thrown out in court, and so he signed it because it won't matter", but fark that.

Before it gets thrown out in court- and you have no way of knowing what the Supremes will do- it could be used, and Obama just ASSUMES he'll be president until then.

If he dies tomorrow, Mitt Romney becomes president in just over a year.

GAT_00: Why do you think he would? The Patriot Act was extended, and his veto objection to the NDAA had nothing to do with the ability to detain Americans.

Congress and Senate. Not him.