Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yup, and I am glad for even the tepid expressions of concern. I wrote "does anyone object" because before I wrote that, nobody had done so here. A couple people have, and it's lukewarm, but welcomed.

Do you think the objections are as widespread and rampant as they would be if Romney was President and this memo came out? Or, would Liberals be saying....well, there are protections and as long as the President is really sure, then this rule makes perfect sense?

You're asking people to make judgements on very small scale actions without full knowledge of the facts ( I assume most will be classified). Don't you have security hearings and congress/parliament to ask those sort of questions. Even better relatives of those killed should just sue the US government I assume it will be at least forced to defend itself if they think they have a case

You make my point, again.

[pErvinalia]

Read the thread. Surely you don't need a link for just 4 pages of posts?

[MrJonno]

The "poor" being in the military is not true in the US. It may have been during Vietnam and such, but not in the last 20 years.

Ah the wonders of nationalism, here the military are the equivalent of the people who clean the sewers. It's a vital job but few if they have other opportunities would touch it and no one wants their kids to go near it.

Officers have always been a slightly different matter, but the army trawls around schools in the highest unemployment spots. It's not stupid

[Coito ergo sum]

Read the thread. Surely you don't need a link for just 4 pages of posts?

I've read it. I drew out the first objection by asking "does anyone object."

Gerald McGrew responded with "Of course. You're not aware of the liberals who are speaking out against Obama's civil liberties record?"

We went through snarky comments like yours about the droves of Liberals that are out there speaking out against Obama's poor civil liberties record and the assassination policy. So far, there has been the citation of Rachel Maddow's tepid inquiry about why Holder won't amplify the reasons behind the policy and the fact-based decision making process -- although she stopped short of questioning the administration in particular. She stuck to Holder. McGrew also cited a Daily Kos article which mentioned that there were Liberals who were speaking out, but they did not identify in that article who the Liberals were. Ian, of course, supports the policy wholeheartedly, and says he would have supported the same exact policy under the Bush Admnistration. So, we're pretty much left with you and Gerald McGrew (Sandinista not being a Liberal).

That's it, really. If that is what you think would have been the similar reaction if a Romney Admnistration had come up with this, then I don't think you're right about that. That's all I can say, I guess. I am positive that this thread would be far longer already, and full of Liberals railing against the war crime of a policy that allows arbitrary assassinations and an expanded "war on terrorism" (which is fake anyway).

[pErvinalia]

You really need to read the thread. To make it easier, review what you asked me that kicked off this exchange and then just reread my posts. You can ignore the snarky ones, so that will only leave about 2 or 3 serious posts you need to review.

[pErvinalia]

Ha! I sell myself short. I made quite a number of serious posts in this thread. So to help you, the relevant post is on page 3.

[Coito ergo sum]

You really need to read the thread. To make it easier, review what you asked me that kicked off this exchange and then just reread my posts. You can ignore the snarky ones, so that will only leave about 2 or 3 serious posts you need to review.

I just went through the thread. Your snark apparently is overwhelming. Just link to a couple of the posts you're referring to. It's easy. Go to the post, click on it, and then copy and past the link in your browser. Cut to the chase.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ha! I sell myself short. I made quite a number of serious posts in this thread. So to help you, the relevant post is on page 3.

What a tool. You actually went and found it, but you won't link to it? Just say what the fuck you're talking about and stop being evasive, FFS.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm liberal...

One -- liberals are not the same thing as left. I hear objections from Leftists like Sandinista. They are pretty clear that they hate the Democrats, not as much as Republicans, but they hate them both. And, they really hate the Libertarians most of all, although the Libertarians are an insignificant political force.

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

"Liberal" is one of those words that is used in all sorts of ways all over the world. I take it to mean equivalent to "progressives". Obama and centrist Democrats are most certainly not progressives. This is just another case of you and the Seths of America not realising that the Democrats are at best a centre-right party when judged by the standards of the rest of the western world. You think they are Liberals, Seth thinks they are Marxists. One is obviously (far) more wrong than the other, but same ignorance at base.

Progressive doesn't just mean progressive as it is understood under largely irrelevant Australian politics. Progressivism in the US has a long history, starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Fuck off already with this constant talking point about how "right wing" the US is in politics compared to "every other western industrialized country." It's an MSNBC talking point.

This is one of your "thoughtful" posts, is it? A personal attack telling me I don't know what Progressivism means, and that I'm "ignorant?" Nothing more pathetic than someone like you who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

Tool.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know, I actually agree with Coito on this. If Bush had done this sort of thing there would have been more of an outcry, especially internationally. I mean there has been some condemnation but it's a fart in an wind tunnel compared to the shit Bush used to get. Not that the Galoot and his crazed gang didn't deserve it, their actions deserved it, but Obama really has ramped up the idea of what is essentially robot death squads to be used against whomever the regime likes.

There's definitely a big dose of cognitive dissonance about it. I'm not from America, obviously, so I can't speak as to why he isn't pilloried in the US, but here in Australia the same ignorance of what he really stands for abounds. I can't offer a good answer. I wonder if it was related to a huge sense of relief that Bush was finally gone and people were so happy with that outcome they are able to dismiss in their minds valid criticism of Obama. The other factor in this is probably a realisation that when a Repub president next gets in, they won't wind back any of this and will in fact extend it as Obama himself did. What you are seeing now from your prez will one day look positively Marxist (ibid. Seth), compared to what will be the fascist norm.

And, here -- you agree with me. Good. So, since you've just agreed with my point, that people generally will not criticize Obama -- they are able to dismiss in their minds valid criticisms of Obama -- then we're in agreement. I already pointed out above that you and Gerald voiced some tepid concerns about this policy. So, now, what are you disagreeing with me about?

[MrJonno]

From what I gather in American politics one party thinks the world was created in 7 days, that its ok to have representatives that think rape victims can't get pregnant and that UN is about to invade .

The other party doesnt.

Left wing /right wing doesnt come into it, one party is full of flawed politicans the other is filled with the insane who shouldn't be allowed near own children never mind power

[pErvinalia]

Ha! I sell myself short. I made quite a number of serious posts in this thread. So to help you, the relevant post is on page 3.

What a tool. You actually went and found it, but you won't link to it? Just say what the fuck you're talking about and stop being evasive, FFS.

Thanks for the ad-hom. Why should I link to it? The thread was just over 3 pages long when you asked me a question I had already answered on the previous page. This is done as a lesson for you. You need to learn that you are blinkered and it's because of those blinkers that you constantly miss what people have said. Hence why you think everyone is pro-Obama around here.

[Coito ergo sum]

From what I gather in American politics one party thinks the world was created in 7 days, that its ok to have representatives that think rape victims can't get pregnant and that UN is about to invade .

That just shows you to be ignorant of US politics. Neither Party has any position on the creation of the world. Neither party thinks it is "o.k." to have representatives that think rape victims and get pregnant -- and the GOP leadership, whose party that person was unfortunately a part, called for that person to resign, and he stepped down, tried to run for the Senate, and lost overwhelmingly because of his stupid statements. And neither Party thinks the UN is about it invade. The UN doesn't have an army. Unfortunately, there are idiots in politics, that hopefully get weeded out. Some Democrats thought that islands could tip over and capsize (Hank Johnson).

The other party doesnt.

Left wing /right wing doesnt come into it, one party is full of flawed politicans the other is filled with the insane who shouldn't be allowed near own children never mind power

It's this kind of whacked out, uninformed view that is quite laughable, particularly when coming from people who claim some sort of superior knowledge compared to brainwashed and stupid Merkins. Your post is borderline retarded. You should be embarrassed.

[pErvinalia]

I'm liberal...

One -- liberals are not the same thing as left. I hear objections from Leftists like Sandinista. They are pretty clear that they hate the Democrats, not as much as Republicans, but they hate them both. And, they really hate the Libertarians most of all, although the Libertarians are an insignificant political force.

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

"Liberal" is one of those words that is used in all sorts of ways all over the world. I take it to mean equivalent to "progressives". Obama and centrist Democrats are most certainly not progressives. This is just another case of you and the Seths of America not realising that the Democrats are at best a centre-right party when judged by the standards of the rest of the western world. You think they are Liberals, Seth thinks they are Marxists. One is obviously (far) more wrong than the other, but same ignorance at base.

Progressive doesn't just mean progressive as it is understood under largely irrelevant Australian politics. Progressivism in the US has a long history, starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Fuck off already with this constant talking point about how "right wing" the US is in politics compared to "every other western industrialized country." It's an MSNBC talking point.

This is one of your "thoughtful" posts, is it? A personal attack telling me I don't know what Progressivism means, and that I'm "ignorant?" Nothing more pathetic than someone like you who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

Tool.

Was that you being "smart"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ha! I sell myself short. I made quite a number of serious posts in this thread. So to help you, the relevant post is on page 3.

What a tool. You actually went and found it, but you won't link to it? Just say what the fuck you're talking about and stop being evasive, FFS.

Thanks for the ad-hom. Why should I link to it? The thread was just over 3 pages long when you asked me a question I had already answered on the previous page. This is done as a lesson for you. You need to learn that you are blinkered and it's because of those blinkers that you constantly miss what people have said. Hence why you think everyone is pro-Obama around here.

I asked "Who objects?" On page 1.

You need to learn that you're an idiot, and you don't know half as much as you think you know. And, don't object to "ad hominems" after you've just dished them out.

You're a parochial, hayseed from the middle of fucking nowhere in a largely irrelevant backwater. Yet, you think you have some superior access to knowledge and superior knowledge. Grow up.