Obama supporters, duplicity on parade

[JustRalph]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts

Watch their faces at the end of the video. But they quickly rationalize their way back to Obama

Skw-0jv9kts

[JustRalph]

ohhMCgczEww&sns

[johnhannibalsmith]

... But they quickly rationalize their way back to Obama

...

I have hope for a couple of them.

[johnhannibalsmith]

ohhMCgczEww&sns

No hope at all for them. :lol:



"forty cents on the dollar"

"you gotta get deeper into debt to get out of debt"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

This is like Jay Walking. I don't mean crossing in the middle of the street. I mean the Jay Leno segment where he goes out on the street and asks people simple questions which they always get wrong. Do you really think that everyone whom Jay talks to doesn't know who is buried in Grant's tomb. The people who do know end up on the cutting room floor-or the digital equivalent. The stupid people get on television so we can laugh at them.

The same applies here. Who knows how many interviews were deleted to make this seven minute video. If I went out and asked similar questions of Romney voters I would get equally dumb answers-if I edited the tape. Stupid is non partisan.

[Stillriledup]

This is like Jay Walking. I don't mean crossing in the middle of the street. I mean the Jay Leno segment where he goes out on the street and asks people simple questions which they always get wrong. Do you really think that everyone whom Jay talks to doesn't know who is buried in Grant's tomb. The people who do know end up on the cutting room floor-or the digital equivalent. The stupid people get on television so we can laugh at them.

The same applies here. Who knows how many interviews were deleted to make this seven minute video. If I went out and asked similar questions of Romney voters I would get equally dumb answers-if I edited the tape. Stupid is non partisan.

You might consider asking the Romney supporters if they agree with Richard Mourdock's comments about Rape. That's a good starting point.

[PaceAdvantage]

You might consider asking the Romney supporters if they agree with Richard Mourdock's comments about Rape. That's a good starting point.What does this have to do with Romney?

[ArlJim78]

it's a microcosm of the same type of mindless cult worship we see on here and in the media. whenever these points regarding Obama being actually far worse than Bush on the very issues the left claimed to despise Bush for are brought up, it's met with the sound of *crickets*. that's why it's pointless to argue with liberals. they accept a priori things like BUSH=BAD, OBAMA=much better than BUSH. the rules of logic do not apply in a cult.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

The same applies here. Who knows how many interviews were deleted to make this seven minute video. If I went out and asked similar questions of Romney voters I would get equally dumb answers-if I edited the tape. Stupid is non partisan.

Obviously, but the questions asked were those same ones that I tend to rely upon when deciphering who is clueless when they start talking about what a pacifist, anti-Bush hero Obama is. Many of these questions are exactly why I feel a certain level of contempt for the President. When I get people that jump my shit about why I dislike Obama's policy, I ask them if they like the Bush policy on... (Patriot Act, NDAA, indef. detainment, drone use, undeclared wars, assassination of American citizens without any due process, etc, etc, etc...)... they of course say "oh, hell no!" - and then I note that those are all Obama policy and watch the contortions. Of course then they ramble on about Republican obstructionism like Rosie the Robot prior to meltdown in search of whatever must be the canned response to explain it away...

I have no doubt, based on my own experiences, that given these particular questions and answers - that these interviews are probably a very fair representation of reality. Entirely fair? Almost certainly not, but close enough. And as I said, there were a few of those guys that actually surprised me by acting as though they were taking the point fairly seriously and willing to come to grips with the reality that the great Constitutional Scholar and protector of civil liberties was and is everything bad about Bush on that front and then some. It isn't the most important issue for some people and shouldn't change the minds of those that vote and don't care that much, but for those that allegedly do care about it, it should be at least enough to reconsider that blind loyalty to a counterfeit and a counterfeit party system.

[mostpost]

I ask them if they like the Bush policy on... (Patriot Act, NDAA, indef. detainment, drone use, undeclared wars, assassination of American citizens without any due process, etc, etc, etc...)... they of course say "oh, hell no!" - and then I note that those are all Obama policy and watch the contortions.

There are enormous differences between Obama policy in these matters and Bush policy. First let's deal with the charges of hypocrisy. The Patriot Act was passed during the Bush Administration and most everyone voted for it.

The Patriot Act did not come up for renewal in 2011. Only certain provisions sunset at that time and had to be renewed. Republicans in both houses of Congress overwhelmingly supported that renewal. Yet you now criticize Obama for signing that renewal.

When Obama signed the NDAA he also issued a signing statement in which he said that his administration would not indefinitely detain American citizens. As for foreign citizens who are currently or might later be detained, the Obama administration has long wanted to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

They have been blocked from this by a Republican Congress which has refused to authorize funds to transfer the Guantanamo detainees to US prisons, or to allow them to be tried in civilian American courts.

Drone use: I favor drone use; favored it under Bush. favor it under Obama. It is a way of targeting enemy leaders at minimum risk to our personnel. Drones ought to be used with maximum consideration to minimizing non combatant casualties, and I think that is being done.

Declaration of war is an outmoded concept. There was no declaration of war against North Korea. No declaration of war against the VIet Cong. No declaration of war against Panama. No declaration of war against Grenada.

But I am curious as to where you think Obama is waging an undeclared war. I mean one that he started. He has ended our undeclared and unjust war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan. Ending a war is not like stopping a bicycle. It takes time.

I would also like you to point out where and when American citizens have been assassinated on American soil by our government. If a so called American citizen has joined a terrorist organization and is carrying out attacks against us, he has de facto forfeited his rights as an American. Of course if he is captured he should be tried in a court, but if he is in a combat situation he should suffer the fate of any terrorist.

[Greyfox]

As for foreign citizens who are currently or might later be detained, the Obama administration has long wanted to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

They have been blocked from this by a Republican Congress which has refused to authorize funds to transfer the Guantanamo detainees to US prisons, or to allow them to be tried in civilian American courts.

.

Excuse me.
If memory serves me correctly he said that he would sign an order closing that facility on his first day of Office.
Obama had two years where the Republicans could not have blocked any money transfers if he had the desire to do so.
Obviously, he did not have the desire to do so.
Just another example of how Obama talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk.

[Stillriledup]

What does this have to do with Romney?

You either care or you dont. If you dont care than no, it doesnt have anything to do with Mittler.

[mostpost]

Excuse me.
If memory serves me correctly he said that he would sign an order closing that facility on his first day of Office.
I don't know if you are correct on that or not. I know he said he would close Guantanamo, but don't recall anything about an order on the first day.
Obama had two years where the Republicans could not have blocked any money transfers if he had the desire to do so.
Obviously, he did not have the desire to do so.
Just another example of how Obama talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk.

Your continued insistence that Obama had total control of Congress for two years shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. In the first place Ted Kennedy died in August of 2009 and was replaced by Scott Brown in early 2010. Secondly one of those Democrats was Joe Liebermann who would never vote for closing Guantanamo.

[Greyfox]

Your continued insistence that Obama had total control of Congress for two years shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. In the first place Ted Kennedy died in August of 2009 and was replaced by Scott Brown in early 2010. Secondly one of those Democrats was Joe Liebermann who would never vote for closing Guantanamo.

Obama never did anything to close the facility. Another promise broken.

[mostpost]

Obama never did anything to close the facility. Another promise broken.

So you are in favor of closing the facility at Guantanamo and that is why you are upset that Obama did not close it?

[ElKabong]

What does this have to do with Romney?

"a poor attempt at deflection" by the fake Jesus :imo

[Greyfox]

So you are in favor of closing the facility at Guantanamo and that is why you are upset that Obama did not close it?

I never said that I was in favor of closing Guantanamo.
I pointed out that Obama said he would close it, as one of his first acts on the job.
He didn't.
He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

[Stillriledup]

I never said that I was in favor of closing Guantanamo.
I pointed out that Obama said he would close it, as one of his first acts on the job.
He didn't.
He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

So im sure Romney will be able to keep every promise also? Would you be willing to bet your life on that?

[wisconsin]

So im sure Romney will be able to keep every promise also? Would you be willing to bet your life on that?


This was a pretty big selling point during his campaign. Had all of the bleeding heart votes because of it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There are enormous differences between Obama policy in these matters and Bush policy. First let's deal with the charges of hypocrisy. The Patriot Act was passed during the Bush Administration and most everyone voted for it.

The Patriot Act did not come up for renewal in 2011. Only certain provisions sunset at that time and had to be renewed. Republicans in both houses of Congress overwhelmingly supported that renewal. Yet you now criticize Obama for signing that renewal.

I have no idea what you're even arguing here. Are you suggesting that I am a Republican and at one point I supported the bill and that I am somehow being hypocritical or something? I don't get it. I never supported it. I opposed it, like this guy did:

Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge. But he did work to shave off some of the more blatantly outrageous constitutional abuses in the Act by imposing some civil liberties protections in the gathering and use of intelligence, on the use of torture in interrogations, and requiring at least some semblance of due process in court proceedings. But that paled in significance when Obama in a letter and with little fanfare and comment routinely let stand most of the still noxious provisions in the Act.

I went straight to the mothership to find that example, so you don't pretend like it's BS because Breitbart said it. No idea what your first two paragraphs even mean, but there's plenty of wires strewn about disconnected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/did-obama-break-his-campa_b_288112.html

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. This means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do no more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.

Or not.


When Obama signed the NDAA he also issued a signing statement in which he said that his administration would not indefinitely detain American citizens. As for foreign citizens who are currently or might later be detained, the Obama administration has long wanted to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

They have been blocked from this by a Republican Congress which has refused to authorize funds to transfer the Guantanamo detainees to US prisons, or to allow them to be tried in civilian American courts.

Right right. So he thought that his administration was the only one that we may ever have to deal with? Sorry, him saying it can be done but he won't do it isn't much of a reassurance for those of us that will probably be here beyond his days. Thanks for giving Romney (aka GWB2 according to your ilk) a chance to do it though, that was nice of you bud. Then we get Republican obstructionism as the default answer to every instance of why he did jack shit when he had the chance. Trust me, if he could pass health care reform, I don't think there's anything that he could not have gotten done. Maybe it just wasn't a priority. Let's not forget that HE SIGNED THE BILL that prevented the transfer from Guantanamo Bay to the US prisons that he made such a big deal about as a candidate. Let's not feign idiocy, it was a MAJOR campaign issue - the whole "civil liberty" concerns that were inspired by the GWB is "going to erase the Constitution" mantra that Obama latched onto and parlayed into support. He doesn't care about Guantanamo.

Drone use: I favor drone use; favored it under Bush. favor it under Obama. It is a way of targeting enemy leaders at minimum risk to our personnel. Drones ought to be used with maximum consideration to minimizing non combatant casualties, and I think that is being done.

I wouldn't expect that you wouldn't favor it since your President is in love with using them. Either way, I don't really care what your opinion is.

There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%).

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

I would try to link in the chart from this Pew Study, but I can't figure out how to do it. Basically, all that lip service you guys like to pay him about how the middle east hated us and now they love us because of Obama's great diplomatic skills is a crock. And while you think that they try to minimize casualties, it doesn't seem to be a matter of what you think in that context. Brookings says 10 civilians for every one target. At the other end, New American Foundation says civilians account for about a third.

I'm not going to rummage through old threads, so I'll just ask: Are you among those that contends that the "Bush policies" were creating terrorists faster than we could kill them? The old Guantanamo argument? It's rhetorical, because I know you will justify the outcome versus the stated goal in a way that somehow will square with all of this "fix our broken relationships in the middle east" gibberish that doesn't add up.


Declaration of war is an outmoded concept. There was no declaration of war against North Korea. No declaration of war against the VIet Cong. No declaration of war against Panama. No declaration of war against Grenada.

But I am curious as to where you think Obama is waging an undeclared war. I mean one that he started. He has ended our undeclared and unjust war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan. Ending a war is not like stopping a bicycle. It takes time.

Well, Obama disagrees with your first paragraph, in case you weren't aware:

In a 2007 questionnaire for the Boston Globe, then-Senator Barack Obama replied:


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

In 2007, Obama also supported the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 with the stipulations that Congress must be notified within 48 hours of committing armed forces and that a declaration of war must be made within 60 days:


We thought we had learned this lesson after Vietnam. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war and even wrote a new law, the War Powers Act, to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes.

By 2011, President Obama committed air power to aid the rebels fighting Moammar Gaddafi. An administration report justified the action without congressional approval on the grounds that it was not a war, but “kinetic military action“:


US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of US ground troops, US casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

Despite no legal consultation on the administration’s actions and more than 60 days later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the media, “I’m not aware of any special seeking of guidance…We believe we are acting consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

As for the second paragraph, again, it's a simple matter of a man that spoke out consistently against what you describe in paragraph one, presumably now, as a campaign position. You just don't hear him seem to care and in the case of "kinetic action", like so many other things, merely calling something by a new name exempts him from his own stated standards.


I would also like you to point out where and when American citizens have been assassinated on American soil by our government. If a so called American citizen has joined a terrorist organization and is carrying out attacks against us, he has de facto forfeited his rights as an American. Of course if he is captured he should be tried in a court, but if he is in a combat situation he should suffer the fate of any terrorist.

I would like for you to point out when and where I even suggested an American was assassinated on the homeland. Don't get me wrong, it has probably happened many times in our history, but I never made that case. I was obviously referring to the cases that we are all aware of and are celebrated.

The first thing we need to do, is to distinguish between what the Bush Administration termed "Enemy Combatants" and "Prisoners of War." Because the Bush Administration did not wish to be limited by the Geneva Convention as it applied to captured persons (i.e. prisoners of war) they designated those persons as enemy combatants. Enemy combatatants are persons who are fighting against the United States but are not a part of an organized armed force. A prisoner of war is a person who is fighting against the United States and is a member of an organized military force.
"The Law of Nations" is a set of principles by which nations interact. While not a formal law, it is adhered to by nations as necesary to peaceful interaction and cooperation. Under the law of nations, a prisoner of war can not be tried for the acts he commits as a soldier in a war as long as those acts are a part of the legitimate goals of the war. (In other words a soldier is not legally responsible for killing an enemy soldier or for the deaths of civilians who are unfortunate enough to be in a battle zone. He would be responsible if he murdered a civilian after the battle had ended.)
So, according to the "Law of Nations," if American military personnel are captured by an enemy nation they can not be tried in that nation's courts.
Regardless of what Boxcar says.

The more important area where Boxcar is wrong is in his contention that foreign nationals do not have the same rights as U.S. Citizens. The Declaration Of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all me are created equal, that they are endowd by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but the Constitution was written by men who had a strong belief in the principle of the Declaration Of Independence. Surely, when they enumerated the rights of men in the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights they intended to include everyone. And, in fact, there is no language in
the Constitution which does so.
These arguments are made much more eloquently than I am able to in a treatise by Micah Strait of Utah State University at the following link.
http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/...+Constitu tion
Then click on "Application PDF

Finally, leaving theory aside, three recent Supreme Court Rulings have affirmed the right of foreign nationals to the same treatment afforded U.S citizens.
Boumediene v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195
Rasul v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696

In all these cases, the right of a foreign national to Habeus Corpus and the Due Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment was affirmed.

Do you know who wrote all of that in the discussion about KSM and why it was fine to try him in civilian courts?

I just want to make sure I understand - Anwar Al Awlaki - he was carrying out attacks against us? I mean, I see now that you have your own standards of how to determine the rights of an American citizen. If he does this or that, then he no longer is afforded due process to determine whether or not the rest of my argument applies, even though he doesn't even fit my own convoluted explanation of how certain citizens get auto exempted from the protections afforded citizens.

I'm sorry, I can understand the President who heralded himself as a Constitutional Scholar and defender of civil liberties having an about face on the matter once installed as military front man, but I doubt he wants you doing his talking for him. This one is simple, it falls in line with a President that is simply disingenuous with his pandering to people that hated George W Bush and played himself off as the flip side of the coin. He clearly is anything but. You can dream up all of the cockamamie justifications that you want, but his actions on the fronts mentioned simply do not square at all with what he was selling as a comparative to Bush to resonate with Bush haters.

You can love your President all you want for many reasons, some legitimate, some debatable. But I think you'd probably best, unless you are trying to convince those that want to believe what they want to believe, not waste your time trying to excuse the differences between "Civil Libertarian" candidate Obama and President Obama.

Your post really didn't make any sense to me in the context of the thread because it was basically you explaining why you have no problem with Obama's policy. The point is that Obama used to have a problem with Obama's policies and parlayed the anti-GWB sentiment into votes by playing it up. People seem to forget how much they heard about all of those horrible things and how excited they were that a smart, war-weary Constitutionalist was going to undo all those offenses, per his constant campaigning. Fact is, as soon as he stopped caring about all of that stuff, so did all of his minions that thought it was day one imperative shit.

[Mike at A+]

PA should install a "Like" button for posts like John's last one.

[Greyfox]

So im sure Romney will be able to keep every promise also? Would you be willing to bet your life on that?

:faint: What an off-the-moon question. Whew.

[Stillriledup]

:faint: What an off-the-moon question. Whew.

Politicians are known for changing their minds, not keeping promises and whatnut, they all do it, Romney will do it if he's elected, im not sure what Obama not keeping a promise has anything to do with who the better president might be in the next election.

[Greyfox]

Politicians are known for changing their minds, not keeping promises and whatnut, they all do it, Romney will do it if he's elected, im not sure what Obama not keeping a promise has anything to do with who the better president might be in the next election.

The one thing we know for sure is that Obama is over his head in this position.
He has risen to his level of incompetency.

Hillary might have been a better choice. She's not running.
Romney most likely will be too.

[NJ Stinks]

PA should install a "Like" button for posts like John's last one.

That post is about two feet too long by any standard.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That post is about two feet too long by any standard.

It breaks my heart knowing I won't have to decipher whatever bizarre conclusions and rhetorical questions you might slap together as a reply. :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

It breaks my heart knowing I won't have to decipher whatever bizarre conclusions and rhetorical questions you might slap together as a reply. :lol:

Your safe tonight, John. Too much vino for me for sure.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have no idea what you're even arguing here. Are you suggesting that I am a Republican and at one point I supported the bill and that I am somehow being hypocritical or something? I don't get it. I never supported it. I opposed it, like this guy did:

Then-Senatorial candidate Obama in 2003 branded the Patriot Act "shoddy and dangerous" and pledged to dump it. He made the pledge in response to a candidate's survey by the National Organization for Women. Obama reneged on the pledge. But he did work to shave off some of the more blatantly outrageous constitutional abuses in the Act by imposing some civil liberties protections in the gathering and use of intelligence, on the use of torture in interrogations, and requiring at least some semblance of due process in court proceedings. But that paled in significance when Obama in a letter and with little fanfare and comment routinely let stand most of the still noxious provisions in the Act.

I went straight to the mothership to find that example, so you don't pretend like it's BS because Breitbart said it. No idea what your first two paragraphs even mean, but there's plenty of wires strewn about disconnected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/did-obama-break-his-campa_b_288112.html

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. This means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do no more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.

Or not.



Right right. So he thought that his administration was the only one that we may ever have to deal with? Sorry, him saying it can be done but he won't do it isn't much of a reassurance for those of us that will probably be here beyond his days. Thanks for giving Romney (aka GWB2 according to your ilk) a chance to do it though, that was nice of you bud. Then we get Republican obstructionism as the default answer to every instance of why he did jack shit when he had the chance. Trust me, if he could pass health care reform, I don't think there's anything that he could not have gotten done. Maybe it just wasn't a priority. Let's not forget that HE SIGNED THE BILL that prevented the transfer from Guantanamo Bay to the US prisons that he made such a big deal about as a candidate. Let's not feign idiocy, it was a MAJOR campaign issue - the whole "civil liberty" concerns that were inspired by the GWB is "going to erase the Constitution" mantra that Obama latched onto and parlayed into support. He doesn't care about Guantanamo.



I wouldn't expect that you wouldn't favor it since your President is in love with using them. Either way, I don't really care what your opinion is.

There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%).

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

I would try to link in the chart from this Pew Study, but I can't figure out how to do it. Basically, all that lip service you guys like to pay him about how the middle east hated us and now they love us because of Obama's great diplomatic skills is a crock. And while you think that they try to minimize casualties, it doesn't seem to be a matter of what you think in that context. Brookings says 10 civilians for every one target. At the other end, New American Foundation says civilians account for about a third.

I'm not going to rummage through old threads, so I'll just ask: Are you among those that contends that the "Bush policies" were creating terrorists faster than we could kill them? The old Guantanamo argument? It's rhetorical, because I know you will justify the outcome versus the stated goal in a way that somehow will square with all of this "fix our broken relationships in the middle east" gibberish that doesn't add up.



Well, Obama disagrees with your first paragraph, in case you weren't aware:

In a 2007 questionnaire for the Boston Globe, then-Senator Barack Obama replied:


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

In 2007, Obama also supported the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 with the stipulations that Congress must be notified within 48 hours of committing armed forces and that a declaration of war must be made within 60 days:


We thought we had learned this lesson after Vietnam. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war and even wrote a new law, the War Powers Act, to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes.

By 2011, President Obama committed air power to aid the rebels fighting Moammar Gaddafi. An administration report justified the action without congressional approval on the grounds that it was not a war, but “kinetic military action“:


US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of US ground troops, US casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

Despite no legal consultation on the administration’s actions and more than 60 days later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the media, “I’m not aware of any special seeking of guidance…We believe we are acting consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

As for the second paragraph, again, it's a simple matter of a man that spoke out consistently against what you describe in paragraph one, presumably now, as a campaign position. You just don't hear him seem to care and in the case of "kinetic action", like so many other things, merely calling something by a new name exempts him from his own stated standards.



I would like for you to point out when and where I even suggested an American was assassinated on the homeland. Don't get me wrong, it has probably happened many times in our history, but I never made that case. I was obviously referring to the cases that we are all aware of and are celebrated.

The first thing we need to do, is to distinguish between what the Bush Administration termed "Enemy Combatants" and "Prisoners of War." Because the Bush Administration did not wish to be limited by the Geneva Convention as it applied to captured persons (i.e. prisoners of war) they designated those persons as enemy combatants. Enemy combatatants are persons who are fighting against the United States but are not a part of an organized armed force. A prisoner of war is a person who is fighting against the United States and is a member of an organized military force.
"The Law of Nations" is a set of principles by which nations interact. While not a formal law, it is adhered to by nations as necesary to peaceful interaction and cooperation. Under the law of nations, a prisoner of war can not be tried for the acts he commits as a soldier in a war as long as those acts are a part of the legitimate goals of the war. (In other words a soldier is not legally responsible for killing an enemy soldier or for the deaths of civilians who are unfortunate enough to be in a battle zone. He would be responsible if he murdered a civilian after the battle had ended.)
So, according to the "Law of Nations," if American military personnel are captured by an enemy nation they can not be tried in that nation's courts.
Regardless of what Boxcar says.

The more important area where Boxcar is wrong is in his contention that foreign nationals do not have the same rights as U.S. Citizens. The Declaration Of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all me are created equal, that they are endowd by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but the Constitution was written by men who had a strong belief in the principle of the Declaration Of Independence. Surely, when they enumerated the rights of men in the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights they intended to include everyone. And, in fact, there is no language in
the Constitution which does so.
These arguments are made much more eloquently than I am able to in a treatise by Micah Strait of Utah State University at the following link.
http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/...+Constitu tion
Then click on "Application PDF

Finally, leaving theory aside, three recent Supreme Court Rulings have affirmed the right of foreign nationals to the same treatment afforded U.S citizens.
Boumediene v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195
Rasul v. Bush
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696

In all these cases, the right of a foreign national to Habeus Corpus and the Due Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment was affirmed.

Do you know who wrote all of that in the discussion about KSM and why it was fine to try him in civilian courts?

I just want to make sure I understand - Anwar Al Awlaki - he was carrying out attacks against us? I mean, I see now that you have your own standards of how to determine the rights of an American citizen. If he does this or that, then he no longer is afforded due process to determine whether or not the rest of my argument applies, even though he doesn't even fit my own convoluted explanation of how certain citizens get auto exempted from the protections afforded citizens.

I'm sorry, I can understand the President who heralded himself as a Constitutional Scholar and defender of civil liberties having an about face on the matter once installed as military front man, but I doubt he wants you doing his talking for him. This one is simple, it falls in line with a President that is simply disingenuous with his pandering to people that hated George W Bush and played himself off as the flip side of the coin. He clearly is anything but. You can dream up all of the cockamamie justifications that you want, but his actions on the fronts mentioned simply do not square at all with what he was selling as a comparative to Bush to resonate with Bush haters.

You can love your President all you want for many reasons, some legitimate, some debatable. But I think you'd probably best, unless you are trying to convince those that want to believe what they want to believe, not waste your time trying to excuse the differences between "Civil Libertarian" candidate Obama and President Obama.

Your post really didn't make any sense to me in the context of the thread because it was basically you explaining why you have no problem with Obama's policy. The point is that Obama used to have a problem with Obama's policies and parlayed the anti-GWB sentiment into votes by playing it up. People seem to forget how much they heard about all of those horrible things and how excited they were that a smart, war-weary Constitutionalist was going to undo all those offenses, per his constant campaigning. Fact is, as soon as he stopped caring about all of that stuff, so did all of his minions that thought it was day one imperative shit.I'm quoting JHS's entire post, simply because I want to make sure his intended target doesn't miss it...it's that good.

I really can't imagine mostpost could come up with anything resembling a rebuttal after this kind of thrashing...NJ Stinks tried, and we all saw how that turned out.

There is nothing more enjoyable than a well-reasoned, well-thought out, intelligent, civil, adult reply around here...to come across one is getting to be a rare occurrence these days, but glad to see they still do happen every now and then.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've seen mostpost respond to some threads tonight...I sure hope he doesn't miss this one...

I know he'll be confused by JHS opening remarks...he's not used to someone criticizing Obama who is also NOT a Republican. He might not even be able to comprehend such a thing.