eddiesocket: Rent Party: eddiesocket:

So Obama had no choice?

He did have choices. The one he did choose was expressly authorized under a very specific statute.

Sigh. The point is that it doesn't make it right. We Dems used to care more about that sort of thing, at least when Republicans were in charge.

Right or wrong is irrelevant. It was legal.

If you think that is wrong, change the law.

Teufelaffe: 1) The language that allowed the detention portions of the NDAA to apply to US citizens was removed before Obama signed the bill.
2) Shortly after signing the bill, Obama issued a policy directive that reverses the detention portion of the NDAA, effectively negating that portion of the bill entirely.

And thankfully, Obama will always be President, thus making his policy directive permanent.

dervish16108: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Obama "gets away with it", because he's able to make eloquent, reasoned statements about why he chose to do things.

President Obama "gets away with it" because everyone is afraid of the republican alternative. As long as he is perceived as being even slightly to the left of republicans, most democrats from top to bottom will support him no matter what.

Plus, the Reps were gleefully passing and using this shiat when Bush was in office. Romney would use it, Santorum would use it, Gingrich would use it. Well actually Santorum might too busy starting a war with Iran to bother with the odd drone strike in Yemen, but that's a different problem.

Hopefully the Patriot Act will finally sunset at some point and not be renewed and NDAA 2013 will override NDAA 2012's indefinite detention procedures and i'll have to eat crow, but the cynic in me doesn't see that happening. While I'm dreaming, I'd also like to see AUMF (2001) out the door. Bush tried to cite that one to cover for Gitmo and Obama claims NDAA's detention section just confirms powers granted via AUMF. So I'd like to see it removed before our next President finds some other way to cite it.

eddiesocket: sprawl15: eddiesocket: So Obama had no choice?

What an astonishingly stupid and pointless question.

Um, in what respect? You're attempting to argue that legal=moral or even constitutional, and it doesn't always.

It was a response to the assertion that "we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen", which is inaccurate.

Rent Party: Right or wrong is irrelevant. It was legal.

It's not irrelevant. It's the entire farking point of this thread.

eddiesocket: sprawl15: eddiesocket: So Obama had no choice?

What an astonishingly stupid and pointless question.

Um, in what respect?

In every respect, Charlie. The existence of other choices is irrelevant on just about every level. Obama chose not to stick his dick in a light socket in the morning, what bearing does that have either way on the legal justification for kill al-Awlaki?

eddiesocket: You're attempting to argue that legal=moral or even constitutional, and it doesn't always.

sprawl15: Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.

A prophet am I.

eddiesocket: Rent Party: Right or wrong is irrelevant. It was legal.

It's not irrelevant. It's the entire farking point of this thread.

No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Just governments act according to law. If you do not like the actions, then work to change the law. If you can't do that, then you are the one with the morality problem.

sprawl15: eddiesocket: sprawl15: eddiesocket: So Obama had no choice?

What an astonishingly stupid and pointless question.

Um, in what respect?

In every respect, Charlie. The existence of other choices is irrelevant on just about every level. Obama chose not to stick his dick in a light socket in the morning, what bearing does that have either way on the legal justification for kill al-Awlaki?

eddiesocket: You're attempting to argue that legal=moral or even constitutional, and it doesn't always.
sprawl15: Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.
A prophet am I.

I'm not mistaking legal justification for moral justification, oh prophet. I'm asserting that wrong is wrong, and if Bush had signed a bill allowing for indefinite detention of American citizens (even after pinky swearing that he wouldn't exercise that right) and had authorized the killing of a US citizen without due process, the Left would be raising holy hell, and rightfully so. Instead we sit on our hands because the idea of President Romney or farking Santorum is so very much worse.

sprawl15: for kill

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do kill more like?

/sigh of shame

different as the two sides' domestic policies can be, the only difference between democrats and republicans on foreign policy is democrats are more convincing liars

Rent Party: No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Nice to see you've set the bar so low. And neither Greenwald nor myself are of the "right wing".

eddiesocket: ...and had authorized the killing of a US citizen without due process

Neither Bush or Obama has committed such acts. This is the source of your confusion. Every single person Obama has gone after has been with full due process.

You are just confused about what "due process" means. If you can get your head straight on that topic, everything else will become clear.

Rent Party: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Right or wrong is irrelevant. It was legal.

It's not irrelevant. It's the entire farking point of this thread.

No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Just governments act according to law. If you do not like the actions, then work to change the law. If you can't do that, then you are the one with the morality problem.

Not exactly.

Al Alwaki did not have any government protected civil liberties violated. However if some believes that the US government only protects a subset of civil liberties, then you can argue Al Alwaki did have his civil liberties violated.

Woman's suffrage, abolition, the civil rights movement, the gay marriage movement, all featured on people feeling that the government was neglecting to protect a civil liberty (or liberties). Some people just happen to see "protection of citizens from state sanctioned violence" as an area we need to expand the protection of civil liberties.

swahnhennessy: Rent Party: No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Nice to see you've set the bar so low. And neither Greenwald nor myself are of the "right wing".

Acting according to the law is a low bar?

It's exactly what the government *should* be doing, particularly when it involves war.

LasersHurt: Criticisms of the drone strikes or other "civil liberties" discussions are valid. "booga booga fundraise" is not. Granted the article addresses both, but we also address it several times per week here on Fark.

Agreed.

eddiesocket: if Bush had signed a bill allowing for indefinite detention of American citizens (even after pinky swearing that he wouldn't exercise that right)

This is the entire point: he did. He signed the 9/11 AUMF which implicitly authorizes indefinite detention of American citizens. You don't understand the situation that you're outraged about. Looking at the actual legal technicalities to see what is causing what is absolutely important such that you're angry at the right thing. If you could, right now, wish away the NDAA provisions, nothing of significance would change. It's absolutely crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about if you hope to change anything for the better.

eddiesocket: and had authorized the killing of a US citizen without due process

Scroll up and read what's already been posted about due process. Again, it's crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about.

eddiesocket: the Left would be raising holy hell

Why would I care one bit about what the left does?

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Johnny Savage: I didn't see POTUS with both houses of congress trying to dismantle the Patriot Act or the TSA between '09 and '11. In fact, they voted to extend the Patriot Act. Pile on NDAA, Gitmo still being open, and the assassination of an American citizen and that amounts to more than "small beans."

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion on what either Administration did, not what they potentially could have done if we all had our druthers.

As much as I dislike the PATRIOT Act on principle, I have, so far, found the Obama Administration's usage of it mostly acceptable.

And, maybe the civil liberties of a people don't amount to a hill of beans. But, this is OUR hill. And, these are OUR beans.

Our national situation on civil liberties could be better, I agree, but it could also be far, far worse.

I see no real value in hyperbole.

The discussion is about the relative silence of the Democratic Party (save those on the far left) when it comes to infringements upon civil liberties. I think you illustrated the article's point by declaring Obama's blemishes "small beans."

I understand the partisanship involved, though. I really do. Although I spoke up against Patriot Act, no child, Part 'D', TARP, etc. to my side of the aisle (R), there were many who didn't. Many of those regret those positions today.

And, just as our fiscal liberties have been somewhat undermined by those policies due to a lack of vigilance from Republicans, I believe our civil liberties will be somewhat undermined by the Democrats' lack of vigilance.

As for the hyperbole, Enrico pallazzo agrees with me.

Rent Party: swahnhennessy: Rent Party: No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Nice to see you've set the bar so low. And neither Greenwald nor myself are of the "right wing".

Acting according to the law is a low bar?

It's exactly what the government *should* be doing, particularly when it involves war.

As someone said on the previous page, interning the Japanese was legal. I guess you have no problem with it, then?

ha-ha-guy: Rent Party: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Right or wrong is irrelevant. It was legal.

It's not irrelevant. It's the entire farking point of this thread.

No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Just governments act according to law. If you do not like the actions, then work to change the law. If you can't do that, then you are the one with the morality problem.

Not exactly.

Al Alwaki did not have any government protected civil liberties violated. However if some believes that the US government only protects a subset of civil liberties, then you can argue Al Alwaki did have his civil liberties violated.


No, exactly. al Alwaki chose to wave the flag of an organization upon which the US Government had an open declaration of war. No one should act all shocked and surprised when he got his shiat blown up.

Not only was it legal, it is what should have happened. It was right and *moral.*

sprawl15: Scroll up and read what's already been posted about due process. Again, it's crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about.

Pathetic.

ha-ha-guy: Some people just happen to see "protection of citizens from state sanctioned violence" as an area we need to expand the protection of civil liberties.

I find such a sentiment to be utterly at odds with the Constitution. The Constitution is a protector of extant rights, not a wellspring. All people - citizens and non-citizens - should be delt with equally and fairly. If there are two Taliban guys at a supply depot that we choose to bomb, one of them being a citizen should have absolutely no bearing on our decisions. They both have full due process rights from the US Government's actions, the guy with the blue passport doesn't get a magical shield that requires us to go pick him up and put him on trial simply because of his citizenship.

Either bombing al-Qaeda in Yemen is legal or it's not. The moment someone argues citizenship as a determining factor is the moment they're admitting confusion.

Telecom immunity?
NDAA?
Killing Americans abroad justified by some farked up interpretation of due process?

You don't get my vote, Obama. Local dems will still likely receive my vote. Obama? Nope.

eddiesocket: sprawl15: Scroll up and read what's already been posted about due process. Again, it's crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about.

Pathetic.

No, pathetic would be responding to an argument with a one word tantrum.

eddiesocket: As someone said on the previous page, interning the Japanese was legal. I guess you have no problem with it, then?

If someone came up to you and said, "Chocolate is delicious, because Obama's a secret Muslim lizard jew atheist hitler", would you agree with them? Would your disagreement with that statement mean that you don't like the taste of chocolate, or would it only mean disagreement with the ridiculous justification? Hell, even if you agree with both parts of that statement, can you see someone disagreeing solely with the assertion of a causal relationship between the two? You seem to have no concept of nuance of argument, preferring instead to paint the person you're arguing against as a monster and swinging a broad brush around.

You're missing the entire point that the people in this thread are making: there are very valid, important arguments against the methods used in the War on Terror. Al-Awlaki is not one of them. Nor is indefinite detainment. Nor is BUT DUE PROCESS. These are all implicit in war powers, as old as the act of waging war. Waving around red herrings only detracts from the real, important issues that need to be addressed but are smokescreened by angry ignorance.

Churchy LaFemme: NDAA?

You realize the detention part of that was undone and he undid the old policy about the military doing detentions in the process?

eddiesocket: Rent Party: swahnhennessy: Rent Party: No it's not. Accusations by the right wing of civil liberties violations are the point of the thread. al Alwaki did not have his civil liberties violated. He was provided full due process.

Nice to see you've set the bar so low. And neither Greenwald nor myself are of the "right wing".

Acting according to the law is a low bar?

It's exactly what the government *should* be doing, particularly when it involves war.

As someone said on the previous page, interning the Japanese was legal. I guess you have no problem with it, then?

Did you know that the very first hostile engagement on US soil with the Japanese military after Pearl Harbor was on Niihua Island after a Japanese pilot crash landed there? The population at the time consisted mostly of Native Hawaiians, and three Japanese natives. When the Japanese plane landed, the three resident Japanese sided with the pilot, took hostages, and basically assisted him in escaping. He was eventually killed by the other residents, along with his new found comrades in arms.

Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

In this case, though, it's a bogus analogy. The analogy here is we have a guy that has put on the uniform of the Japanese army, sworn allegiance to the Emperor, and is actively engaging US forces.

The law (and thus, due process) says he gets a hellfire missile for his troubles.

Churchy LaFemme: You don't get my vote, Obama. Local dems will still likely receive my vote. Obama? Nope.

Are you somehow under the impression that the GOP would have acted any differently?

sprawl15: eddiesocket: sprawl15: Scroll up and read what's already been posted about due process. Again, it's crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about.

Pathetic.

No, pathetic would be responding to an argument with a one word tantrum.

eddiesocket: As someone said on the previous page, interning the Japanese was legal. I guess you have no problem with it, then?

If someone came up to you and said, "Chocolate is delicious, because Obama's a secret Muslim lizard jew atheist hitler", would you agree with them? Would your disagreement with that statement mean that you don't like the taste of chocolate, or would it only mean disagreement with the ridiculous justification? Hell, even if you agree with both parts of that statement, can you see someone disagreeing solely with the assertion of a causal relationship between the two? You seem to have no concept of nuance of argument, preferring instead to paint the person you're arguing against as a monster and swinging a broad brush around.

You're missing the entire point that the people in this thread are making: there are very valid, important arguments against the methods used in the War on Terror. Al-Awlaki is not one of them. Nor is indefinite detainment. Nor is BUT DUE PROCESS. These are all implicit in war powers, as old as the act of waging war. Waving around red herrings only detracts from the real, important issues that need to be addressed but are smokescreened by angry ignorance.

Sigh. Unbelievable. It is your opinion that indefinite detention and denying due process (and you can deny it all you want, but that's what's happening) is "right and moral". Your evidence that it is morally justified is that it is legal. When I pointed about that legal doesn't always mean right, you...fluttered around a bit, yammered something about chocolate and then asserted as fact your opinion once again.

keithgabryelski: sprawl15:
Either bombing al-Qaeda in Yemen is legal or it's not. The moment someone argues citizenship as a determining factor is the moment they're admitting confusion.

you can at least admit that the constitution has some explicit exceptions for times of war (and for soldiers on our side even) and that it is also vague about all rights afforded to everyone.


It's actually pretty clear. It says that the government will not deprive someone of life or liberty without due process. Some people are just confused as to what "due process" means. They think it means "Trials and courts and judges." It doesn't.

Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

eddiesocket: and denying due process (and you can deny it all you want, but that's what's happening)

No it's not. You are confusing your wish about what due process means with what due process actually means.

al Alwaki was not denied due process. That is a simple fact that you are going to have to come to grips with.

eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

No, you're talking to someone with a detailed understanding of history and the facts surrounding internment. If ignoring me makes you feel better, groovy, but it doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you a coward.

eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

I have to admit, the "100%" part (out of three!) was particularly amazing in it's flat-out shamelessness.

qorkfiend: Are you somehow under the impression that the GOP would have acted any differently?

Both sides are bad so vote Democratic?

Churchy LaFemme: qorkfiend: Are you somehow under the impression that the GOP would have acted any differently?

Both sides are bad so vote Democratic?

If both sides are the same in some respects, you have to base your decision on other issues.

sprawl15: Looking at the actual legal technicalities to see what is causing what is absolutely important such that you're angry at the right thing. If you could, right now, wish away the NDAA provisions, nothing of significance would change. It's absolutely crucial that you know what the fark you're talking about if you hope to change anything for the better.

Just to let you know, we already understand that you naively underestimate the relevance of the NDAA. There's no need to keep repeating the point.

eddiesocket: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

I have to admit, the "100%" part (out of three!) was particularly amazing in it's flat-out shamelessness.

It is 100% true. Three Japanese residents of Niihu. All three assisted the pilot.

You are evidently one of those folks that doesn't like facts that are in conflict with their pre-determined opinions.

Rent Party: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

No, you're talking to someone with a detailed understanding of history and the facts surrounding internment. If ignoring me makes you feel better, groovy, but it doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you a coward.

No, racists are cowards. And you're a farking racist who thinks internment was "prudent". Internment! Weird that we didn't inter our German and Italian citizens as well. Good think "100%" (out of three!) of Germans didn't act treasonous.

Rent Party: eddiesocket: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

I have to admit, the "100%" part (out of three!) was particularly amazing in it's flat-out shamelessness.

It is 100% true. Three Japanese residents of Niihu. All three assisted the pilot.

You are evidently one of those folks that doesn't like facts that are in conflict with their pre-determined opinions.

No, I'm someone who doesn't judge a race of people on the actions of three of them. You know, like a racist would.

qorkfiend: Churchy LaFemme: qorkfiend: Are you somehow under the impression that the GOP would have acted any differently?

Both sides are bad so vote Democratic?

If both sides are the same in some respects, you have to base your decision on other issues. don't vote for either of them

FTFY

keithgabryelski: to take it to an extreme, we don't force china to due process even though their citizens have those "extant rights" -- we demand china give due process to our own citizens caught in a mess.

That's because Chinese citizens in China are not under the scope of government action. The Constitution acts as restraint on that action, so when there is nothing to restrain it has no bearing. There is a level of jurisdiction on our citizens abroad per extradition treaties, etc., but should a country decide to be total assholes there's not a whole hell of a lot we can do to stop it because we have no jurisdiction.

Taken outside of the jurisdiction argument the right of North Koreans to free speech may seem silly, but that's the problem with adopting a philosophy as the basis of government; not everyone has the same philosophy.

eddiesocket: It is your opinion that indefinite detention and denying due process (and you can deny it all you want, but that's what's happening) is "right and moral".

Context is absolutely important. When we captured a German soldier in WWII and placed him in a POW camp, he was being indefinitely detained without trial. There was nothing morally wrong with that. That's the nature of war powers, and why I keep saying that you have no farking idea what you're talking about. The problem with the current implementation of indefinite detainment is not the existence of indefinite detainment, but rather the changing nature of war. Our laws, our definitions, our words all are based on a state of war with uniformed soldiers fighting under the banner of a nation-state. That is not how the War on Terror actually is, so our underlying assumptions need to be adjusted.

You can't do that from an ignorant position.

eddiesocket: When I pointed about that legal doesn't always mean right, you....

I've been saying that since before you started posting in this thread. Reading isn't your strong point, is it?

eddiesocket: Rent Party: eddiesocket: Rent Party: Given the fear of Japanese attack on the west coast and the blatantly treasonous behavior of 100% of the resident Japanese that had made contact with the Japanese army, internment was a prudent measure. In hindsight it may have been overkill, but in context of the times, not so much.

Wow. So I'm talking to an incredibly shiatty human being. My mistake. Putting your on ignore now, racist fark.

No, you're talking to someone with a detailed understanding of history and the facts surrounding internment. If ignoring me makes you feel better, groovy, but it doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you a coward.

No, racists are cowards. And you're a farking racist who thinks internment was "prudent". Internment! Weird that we didn't inter our German and Italian citizens as well. Good think "100%" (out of three!) of Germans didn't act treasonous.

Had all of the German citizens on a US protectorate assisted the Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor, I'm sure we would have as well.

In the mean time, it doesn't change the fact that 100% of the Japanese on Niihau did. That might upset you, but that's OK.

The Numbers: Just to let you know, we already understand that you naively underestimate the relevance of the NDAA. There's no need to keep repeating the point.

What do you think the NDAA actually changed?

I'm perfectly happy to be shown to be wrong. I'd just, you know, have to actually be shown to be wrong. Feel free!