Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:10 AM Feb 2013

BHO is just "Standing his ground" armed with drones

so what's the problem?

He's also armed with the historically speaking, the now Burning Bush's playbook, which redefined the word imminence. I'll leave the readers to determine what BHO's definition is (although it is far removed from what my dictionary says) but in Bush's case I think he confused and interpreted the "imminent" hostilities language in the 1973 War Powers Act upon which the Iraq AUMF was based (like the one BHO cites for legal authority) with the imminent nature of his attacking them, as opposed to a response to an imminent threat or otherwise, Iraq never posed.

Commentators have admirably analyzed the flouting of the U.S. Constitution. Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic hits the mark in his critique of the legality of the recently-leaked Justice Department white paper. The Obama administration vindicates the potential liquidation of American citizens through a spuriously broad redefinition of “imminent threat,” even when the U.S. government does not have “clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.” The administration holds that the use of deadly force is “reasonable” even in the case of relative ignorance. This “trust us” argument moves against a core constitutional right of citizens to neutral judicial review. Yet the Justice Department rationalizes quashing speech and assassinating citizens without sound evidence of an imminent threat.


And of course, whatever efforts are made to impede or deny judicial review in any case, kinda reeks of an effort to diminish the role and power of the judiciary in this country, as established long ago in Marbury v Madison.

And of course any OWS preemie here like myself surely remembers, we've been here before, and some innocent Americans even died over it at Kent State when they got uppity.

The bombing of Cambodia, along with the revelations of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, helped create a climate of doubt about the balance between means and ends in American foreign policy. Through Senator Frank Church’s Select Committee, Congress began to investigate the FBI and the CIA. After exposing just the details that led to the conclusion that the CIA “a rogue elephant rampaging out of control”—emphasizing plans in the early 1960s to “neutralize” Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Abdul Kassem of Iraq, and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic—the committee turned to the international impression such activities left. Targeted killings, even on a far slighter level than the thousands of drone strikes since 2008, produced a backlash that threatened Americans’ safety.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/precedent-cambodia-dietrich.html

I know, I know, but those drones are so much more "surgical" than those big old bombs, and that dreaded "collateral damage" consequentially lowered, which is no doubt why BHO like Bush before he leveled Fallujah, he made sure that no male between the age of 15-55 were allowed to leave, because they were "insurgents/terrorists" by definition. Guilt by association through the wisdom of Bush, now means "in the geographical vicinity". I lost count of how many rightwingnuts back in the Iraq War day, when their back was up against the wall in the justifying all the innocent and dead Iraqis, would pull out the "well, if they didn't wanna die they shoulda desposed him!" card, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the defense we always see from Israel defenders when issues like proportionality and the collective punishment it turns into comes up. I suppose one could really say, that a lot of this stuff is really outta the Israel playbook, given our outrage prior to 9/11, over their targeted assassinations and whatnot.

At that time, spokesman for the American State Department Richard Boucher condemned both violence by Palestinians and targeted killings by Israelis during a State Department news briefing.[23] American Secretary of State Colin Powell registered his opposition to "a policy of targeted killings" and the U.S. State Department urged Israel to stop them.[24]

Then Democratic Party senator Joseph Biden criticized the George W. Bush Administration for condemning the targeted killings; the administration continued to oppose them.[25]


Amazing isn't it? Now that we've become a nation of pants/bedwetting, and figurative depend wearers, everything has changed besides Biden's pov. And in some ways it's worse than merely being entitled to their own set of facts, because they can kill American citizens without having to share them with even a court, and the danger posed to the dictionary is imminent. Who will speak for it? "First they came for the dictionary....". "Imminent" is now synonymous with obscure.

There’s another principle of international law called distinction, which requires that the attack be directed only at legitimate military targets. We know from the New York Times exposé that the kill list that Brennan brings to Obama to decide who he is going to take out without a trial – basically execute – can be used even if they don’t have a name, or if they are present in an area where there are suspicious “patterns of behavior.” These are known as signature strikes. That means that bombs are dropped on unidentified people who are in an area where suspicious activity is taking place. That goes even beyond targeted killings.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/10/assessing-the-laws-of-the-drone-wars/

It's kinda like being guilty of being black while in a hoodie in the wrong neighborhood, ain't it?

Go America! Life is getting cheaper than the bombs and bullets used to take them, here and abroad.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BHO is just "Standing his ground" armed with drones (Original Post) stupidicus Feb 2013 OP
Interesting how one use 'BHO' for Obama and 'Bush' for Bush The Straight Story Feb 2013 #1
That is interesting, isn't it? catbyte Feb 2013 #2
interesting how you have nothing but a silly, non-topical dodge stupidicus Feb 2013 #4
No, he's not ann--- Feb 2013 #3
Obviously stupidicus Feb 2013 #5
 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
4. interesting how you have nothing but a silly, non-topical dodge
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:12 PM
Feb 2013

no it isn't. I'm quite accustomed to that.

I'm betting if I referenced "LBJ", or "JFK" in the course of a criticism while referencing Bush as I did, such a silly, non-topical dodge in an effort to attack the poster as opposed to the post that left you all impotent and stuff, wouldn't have happened.

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
3. No, he's not
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:28 AM
Feb 2013

he's killing innocents and I'll say the same thing about him that I said about Bush, "I don't know HOW he sleeps at night." So much innocent blood on America's hands. Very, very sad.

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
5. Obviously
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:16 PM
Feb 2013

I use to know an "ann" that posted over on "The Fray" (Slate's old board of like kind) that had your sense and practice of disregarding political party when making such judgments.

maybe it's an "ann" thing....lol

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BHO is just "Standin...