PDA

View Full Version : Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution



Dolphins9954
09-03-2012, 08:04 PM
John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley.....

Now that the Republican primary circus is over, I started to think about what it would mean to vote for Obama...
Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine "our guy" on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the "progressive left", which seems to be little or none at all.

Instead of scrutiny, the usual arguments in favor of another Obama presidency are made: We must stop fanatics; it would be better than the fanatics—he's the last line of defense from the corporate barbarians—and of course the Supreme Court. It all makes a terrible kind of sense and I agree completely with Garry Wills who described the Republican primaries as " a revolting combination of con men & fanatics— "the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office."

True enough.

But yet...

... there are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed.
All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.
This is not an exercise in bemoaning regrettable policy choices or cheering favorable ones but to ask fundamentally: Who are we? What are we voting for? And what does it mean?
Three markers — the Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the escalation speech at West Point, and the recent speech by Eric Holder — crossed that Rubicon line for me...

Mr. Obama, the Christian president with the Muslim-sounding name, would heed the admonitions of neither religion's prophets about making war and do what no empire or leader, including Alexander the Great, could do: he would, he assured us "get the job done in Afghanistan." And so we have our democratic president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as he sends 30,000 more troops to a ten-year-old conflict in a country that's been war-torn for 5,000 years.

Why? We'll never fully know. Instead, we got a speech that was stone bull**** and an insult to the very idea of peace.

We can't have it both ways. Hope means endless war? Obama has metaphorically pushed all in with the usual international and institutional killers; and in the case of war and peace, literally.
To sum it up: more war. So thousands die or are maimed; generations of families and veterans are damaged beyond imagination; sons and daughters come home in rubber bags. But he and his satellites get their four more years.

The AfPak War is more H. G. Wells than Orwell, with people blindly letting each other get fed to the barons of Wall Street and the Pentagon, themselves playing the part of the Pashtuns. The paradox is simple: he got elected on his anti-war stance during a perfect storm of the economic meltdown and McCain saying the worst thing at the worst time as we stared into the abyss. Obama beat Clinton on "I'm against the war and she is for it." It was simple then, when he needed it to be.

Under Obama do we continue to call the thousands of mercenaries in Afghanistan "general contractors" now that Bush is gone? No, we don't talk about them... not a story anymore.
Do we prosecute felonies like torture or spying on Americans? No, time to "move on"...

Now chaos is the norm and though the chaos is complicated, the answer is still simple. We can't afford this morally, financially, or physically. Or in a language the financial community can digest: the wars are ideologically and spiritually bankrupt. No need to get a score from the CBO.

Drones bomb Pakistani villages across the border at an unprecedented rate. Is it legal? Does anyone care? "It begs the question," as Daniel Berrigan asks us, "is this one a "good war" or a "dumb war"? But the question betrays the bias: it is all the same. It's all madness."

One is forced to asked the question: Is the President just another Ivy League ******* shredding civil liberties and due process and sending people to die in some ****hole for purely political reasons?


http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

phinfan3411
09-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Good article, was wondering if this John Cusack is the actor, clicked on his name and it said that he makes films?

Probably not the same guy, was just wondering.

Dolphins9954
09-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Good article, was wondering if this John Cusack is the actor, clicked on his name and it said that he makes films?

Probably not the same guy, was just wondering.

It's him.....

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/13135__say_anythiing_l-1.jpg

rob19
09-03-2012, 09:46 PM
Hope that guy isn't simultaneously a Romney supporter.

Dolphins9954
09-03-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm pretty sure Cusack is liberal-leaning and that he voted for Obama. He's been making the rounds lately attacking Obama on wars and civil liberties. Kudos to him. I don't think he's for Romney at all.

phinfan3411
09-03-2012, 10:03 PM
I'm pretty sure Cusack is liberal-leaning and that he voted for Obama. He's been making the rounds lately attacking Obama on wars and civil liberties. Kudos to him. I don't think he's for Romney at all.

I like that, honestly partisan attacks mean nothing to me, they sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, waah waa waah.

I am only interested in non partisan reports or the rare partisan attacking their own side, i usually find those to be truthful.

Spesh
09-03-2012, 10:03 PM
Sadly, the other choice is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBg7zWiOIM


Wednesday on CNN, former Missouri Gov. Tim Pawlenty suggested that Mitt Romney would further the practice of using unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists.
“If you look at what Mitt Romney has said about President Obama’s presiding over our national security and defense posture, obviously his drone strikes and killing Osama bin Laden are positives,” he said. “But they don’t go far enough.”
The Obama Administration publicly acknowledged in May that it was using drones to strike suspected terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan. The New York Times later revealed the President was intimately involved in who is and isn’t targeted by the drone strikes, and controversially (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/05/dissecting-obamas-standard-on-drone-strike-deaths/) defined “militants” as all military-age males in a given strike zone.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/pawlenty-obamas-drone-strikes-dont-go-far-enough/

Drone strikes are here to stay. And i have little doubt we will be involved in some type of war before the 2016 election, no matter who is president.

edit: whoops, this was meant more for the other thread, but hell it can apply here to. Just a comparison of foreign policy when it comes to questionable circumstances between the two candidates.

phinfan3411
09-04-2012, 11:51 AM
Sadly, the other choice is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBg7zWiOIM



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/pawlenty-obamas-drone-strikes-dont-go-far-enough/

Drone strikes are here to stay. And i have little doubt we will be involved in some type of war before the 2016 election, no matter who is president.

edit: whoops, this was meant more for the other thread, but hell it can apply here to. Just a comparison of foreign policy when it comes to questionable circumstances between the two candidates.

I believe this to be a bit of a cop out. The last administration had a drone program, this administration has a drone program, there will always be a drone program...so what? Just because both mainstream candidates offer little difference in this area certainly does not mean I have to support either one, and I don't.

One more thing, yes Bush had a drone program, can anyone find where his administration targeted the rescuers then the funerals after exterminating the suspected terrorists? Seriously, I'm not saying he didn't, but I could not find it, and wouldn't that signify a "racheting up" of our war machine? Hasn't 9954 suggested this and been shot down?

It's disgusting, who do you think are at those funerals, are they all bad people? How is this supposed to help us down the road? It will not unless you want a never ending supply of enemies, gosh who could want that?

Spesh
09-04-2012, 12:12 PM
I believe this to be a bit of a cop out. The last administration had a drone program, this administration has a drone program, there will always be a drone program...so what? Just because both mainstream candidates offer little difference in this area certainly does not mean I have to support either one, and I don't.

One more thing, yes Bush had a drone program, can anyone find where his administration targeted the rescuers then the funerals after exterminating the suspected terrorists? Seriously, I'm not saying he didn't, but I could not find it, and wouldn't that signify a "racheting up" of our war machine? Hasn't 9954 suggested this and been shot down?

It's disgusting, who do you think are at those funerals, are they all bad people? How is this supposed to help us down the road? It will not unless you want a never ending supply of enemies, gosh who could want that?

Not certain what you took as a cop out. I never stated people should vote for Obama because "Romney would make it worse". Or that its perfectly acceptable to bomb people because the program is here to stay. I simply pointed out that the two main contenders for the presidency both support drone strikes. I meant that as a statement of fact. I did speculate that we will be going to war before the next election, but i also stated it doesnt matter who is elected in November.

I didnt suggest the drone strikes were good. I didnt suggest they were bad. I didnt suggest people should support it. I simply said that they are here to stay no matter who is in office come the new year.

phinfan3411
09-04-2012, 12:40 PM
Not certain what you took as a cop out. I never stated people should vote for Obama because "Romney would make it worse". Or that its perfectly acceptable to bomb people because the program is here to stay. I simply pointed out that the two main contenders for the presidency both support drone strikes. I meant that as a statement of fact. I did speculate that we will be going to war before the next election, but i also stated it doesnt matter who is elected in November.

I didnt suggest the drone strikes were good. I didnt suggest they were bad. I didnt suggest people should support it. I simply said that they are here to stay no matter who is in office come the new year.

Fair enough...do you support the President?

Spesh
09-04-2012, 02:28 PM
Fair enough...do you support the President?

:lol: So drawing lines in the sand. Fair enough. I assume by "support the President" your refering to the drone strikes and not his overall job, so heres my take on it:

I do not support the drone bombings of funerals or other high casualty(for innocents) locations. I recall, during the Bush years, there were quite a few discussions over hypothetical situations in which an military base would be next to a hospital, and if they were legitimate targets for advanced bombing runs. I vehemently disagreed with those who said those bases were fair game and the hospitals were "collateral damage". I consider the argument of drone bombing areas with alot of civilians(as the "collateral damage") the same exact thing. In that context, i do not believe we should authorize attacks. We create more enemies then we kill.

That said, i approve the use of drone strikes against legitimate military targets. I define legitimate military targets as bases or locations which are confirmed to have enemy insurgents and little to no civilians in them. If the amount of civilians is low enough to roughly equal the amount that could be injured or killed in a crossfire during a convential attack on that location, as President i would probably sign off on it and as a citizen of this country i would probably support that action...so long as it is not a universal rule of thumb for engagements. The reward has to be high enough. Does that reduce human life to numbers? Yes. Does it make me feel all pretty and fuzzy inside? No. Would i support it for some random idiot filled with teenage angst angry at the government? No. Would i support it if it was bin Laden or other enemies who attempt to commit large scale attacks on innocent civilians? Yes.

As well, i support the technology, production, and continued research of military drones(and electronic warfare). I think if we are going to be spending absurd amounts of money into the military, we need to focus on areas in which limit America casualties and prevent a war from occuring in the first place. The F-35 is an example of my frustration. Sweet plane, absolutely cutting edge....but it has little practical purposes.

A few months ago(year maybe) there was a large discussion concerning the drone strike against a America citizen and how his civil rights were violated because he couldnt be brought in for due process. I largely stayed out of it but enjoyed the various points of view. As we are bringing up funeral bombings in this thread(actually think it was the other thread, but whatever its here now), ill go ahead and state my own opinion on this controversial subject and the larger question of it: do i support Obama drone bombing an America citizen? Conditionally yes.
My personal view on it is that the citizen has renounced his ties to this country and, by doing so, lost his ability to be safe guarded by the constitution. When you go to court you can wave many rights. When a person announces their desire to harm this country, when they join up with like minded individuals, and when they actively plan specific attacks, they wave many of their rights. Now, the condition to that, if we have the chance to arrest them and go to court: you do it. Just because they have waved their constitution rights and responsibilities doesnt mean we have. We have an obligation to live up to a certain standard and we should do so at every chance. But, if we only have one solid chance(as in, we have no real reason to assume we will get another chance to locate such a dangerous person) to prevent that person from harming innocents and we do not have the ability to arrest them, we should take them out. The example i spoke of earlier was one(if i recall correctly) in which the (former depending on your view) American was traveling in a convoy of enemies driving to a different location. They dropped a bomb on them and took care of the situation rather definitively. If the case is like i recall, i probably supported it at that time and i would support similar situations now. I view it similar to a disgruntled employee pulling out a gun and shooting his employeer before turning the gun on random people. Should the cops arrest him if given the chance? Yes, but they should also shoot him on the spot if others, or they themselves, are threatened.

If my view sounds contradictory, its because it is. Like many subjects in our current day and age, i dont see it as black and white. Its not a situation id feel good about no matter what side of it id sit on. Im not going to go through every single situation and debate every specific point. But, if you have a question about clarification or if ive missed an important point, ill respond to that.

Cliffnotes(tl;dr): Do i support drone strikes? Yes. Do i support the targets Obama has chosen for drone strikes? No. Do i expect it to change before the 2016 election(or even after, taking it election by election)? No. Is it an issue that would prevent me for voting for Obama if i so choose? No. Do i wish like hell we had different candidates? Abso-freaking-lutely.

Locke
09-04-2012, 02:32 PM
Cliffnotes(tl;dr): Do i support drone strikes? Yes. Do i support the targets Obama has chosen for drone strikes? No. Do i expect it to change before the 2016 election(or even after, taking it election by election)? No. Is it an issue that would prevent me for voting for Obama if i so choose? No. Do i wish like hell we had different candidates? Abso-freaking-lutely.

I hate the GoP more and more as I realize they had the best Presidential candidate since I started following politics in their primary, and the guy was little more than a footnote. Shame on Republicans for overlooking Huntsman. That man would have revitalized the Republican party...

Spesh
09-04-2012, 02:43 PM
I hate the GoP more and more as I realize they had the best Presidential candidate since I started following politics in their primary, and the guy was little more than a footnote. Shame on Republicans for overlooking Huntsman. That man would have revitalized the Republican party...

Its very depressing that subjects like "drone striking innocent people" or the systematic limiting of votes have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on elections. Instead, arguably the best candidate cant even get a foot in the race because, god forbid, he actually believes in evolution! Dive bombing innocent civilians? Eh, no biggie. Believing in science? THROW HIM OUT RIGHT NOW!!!!

:bobdole:

Dolphins9954
09-04-2012, 07:04 PM
I hate the GoP more and more as I realize they had the best Presidential candidate since I started following politics in their primary, and the guy was little more than a footnote. Shame on Republicans for overlooking Huntsman. That man would have revitalized the Republican party...

Huntsman was actually a hawk on Iran unfortunately. That's what tuned me out to him.