General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChomsky did *not* say "Obama has no moral center".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2186234He was asked whether he thinks Obama has a sense of morality and his answer was "that's an interesting question".
Then he recounted what he was told by a group of African American women and pointed out how the drone attacks break with centuries of legal tradition.
I don't remember him making any conclusive statement about the matter. Please folks watch the interview before getting all wound up.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Noam Chomsky blasts Obama: He has no moral center
In a video published by Al Jazeera English on Saturday, MIT professor and activist Noam Chomsky slammed President Barack Obama for using aerial drones to kill suspected terrorists.
Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, this man has no moral center.
I think theyre right, Chomsky said. If you look at his policies, I think that is what they reveal. Just some nice rhetoric here and there. If you look at the actual policies, theyre pretty shocking. The drone assassination campaign is a perfectly good example. I mean, thats just a global assassination campaign.
-snip
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/noam-chomsky-blasts-obama-he-has-no-moral-center/
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)that this board would be screaming and probably threatening insurrection if the drone campaign were being waged by the Bush Junta with the same parameters as it is being waged by the Obama regime.
The drone campaign is nothing more than extra-judicial execution sanitized by removing human agents one more step. Now instead of actually pulling a trigger (see the CIA's Phoenix Program in Vietnam), some 'controller' pushes a button on a video game controller to dispense extra-judicial death and injury from 5,000 feet. Still just as offensive even though it's more sanitized.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... Chomsky agreed with the person that said that 'he had no moral center'.
That was all, period.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)right. I seem to be flying off the handle tonight.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)BTW - I would pay good money to see Noam explain how these clauses of Article 1, Section 8 don't apply to terrorists like Anwar Al Awlaki
Congress has the power to do the following:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
And the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Looks like centuries of legal tradition to me...
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)thar damned Barbary Coast pirates and varmints.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)So despite what Chomsky says, there are centuries of legal tradition that support the actions that have been taken (except for torture of detainees).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
You can disagree with the policies, but you can't change the facts. All Constitutional requirements for the use of force in this manner have been met.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)1941, after Pearl Harbor.
Declaring 'war' on terrorism is a bit like declaring war on 'tanks' (or maybe on 'tankers') and about as effective.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Congress declared war on "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" - the US did not recognize the Taliban as a sovereign government and Al Qaeda might as well be pirates in the Constitutional sense. So yes, they declared war without end on such entities. You don't have to like it for it to be the law in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
Unless you helped attack the United States or are imminently planning an international act of terrorism - you're cool.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)'declare war' (which has a very specific meaning).
Your repeating endlessly that Congress 'declared war' does not make it so.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Congress says it does...
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp
If war is the commitment of military force to a conflict, and Congress says that "specific statutory authorization" is akin in the sense of "War Powers" in accordance to the Constitution, then this is no different in substance from "a declaration of war." As I noted in the prior post, the ***only reason*** this is not labelled "a declaration of war" is because in the tradition of international law as practiced by the United States of America and the vast majority of other widely recognized states, non-state actors such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not worthy of "declaration" because they have not been the recipient of a declaration of recognition of diplomatic relations between two states. Thus your point is insignificant and I would add that for the purposes of diplomacy the specific statutory authorization does state "nations" because other states whom we recognize did have formal relations with the Taliban. Your point is moot.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you're claiming?
and we're at war with 'anybody'?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the day before 9-11 for instance
the day before James Earl Ray did what he did
the day before Oswald did what he did
the day before Oklahoma City happened on TimMcCoward
Someone should ask Chomsky if he would have wanted Hitler to live, or to have had a drone drop on Hitler, the day before the first person was taken away, and the day before the first person of 20 million, died at the hands of the Nazi's.
that is the question Mr. Chomsky himself should answer.(and I am Jewish myself. I know what the answer I would give is, as I gave it above.)
And look people straight in the eye when he gave his answer.
And as Richard Clarke said in a recent article, drones are the most humane warfare there is, and as democrats and liberals applauded what he said after 9-11, on Bush doing nothing,
I applaud him today for his remarks the other day.
Who wouldn't have wanted a drone to drop on 9-10, to prevent 9-11 from happening IMHO