Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[pErvinalia]

I said I haven't catalogued them. Therefore I can't just call them up for your little theatrical production. If you are aware of other offensive comments by Republicans then why are you getting all defensive?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't understand how your system works.

Oh,then by all means, keep pontificating about how it sucks compared to all the proper "western countries" out there.

Who is voting for a "nominee"?

Registered voters.

What exactly is a nominee?

A person who wants to become the candidate for one of the major parties in an election.

Is that the person who won the election for a seat, or is that the person who is contesting the seat for a particular party?

A nominee is the person who won the primary election, such that they beat out one or more other candidates for that Party's nomination. That person will then stand for election against the other Parties' nominees and any independent candidates.

Either way, why can't a party organisation decide who gets to use the party name? It sounds insane if the case is that anyone can use the party name if they get "nominated" (whatever that actually is).

There are rules as to how you get on the primary ballot. Any registered Democrat can try to be on the primary ballot. To get on the ballot, a person must do a "qualifying petition." The qualifying petition must be signed in accordance with State laws but you don't need the Democratic Party's permission to get on the primary ballot. That's where the people choose who will represent the Democratic Party. The party leadership doesn't decide 2 or three party members who will be on the primary ballot.

Nominated occurs when you win the primary. You may have seen something about this last year and the year before in the US Presidential election process where 8 or so Republican candidates started out running "in the primary race." Then, for months on end, different states had primary elections where Mitt was running against Newt and other Republicans candidates. Those guys got on the ballot by filling out the proper form and having a petition filed by the proper time in the process with enough signatures. Then they get on the ballot, and and in the primary vote the people pick who they want as a candidate for the Republican Party. If the GOP leadership decided who ran as a Republican, do you think we'd have had a year long battle with Perry, Bachmann, Gingerich, Huntsman, Cain, and Romney duking it out?

[Coito ergo sum]

I said I haven't catalogued them. Therefore I can't just call them up for your little theatrical production. If you are aware of other offensive comments by Republicans then why are you getting all defensive?

I'm blinkered - but you can't provide examples of what you yourself claim to be talking about.

Moron.

[Gerald McGrew]

The NY Times

Obama’s ‘Just Trust Me’ Argument

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... ef=opinion

The campaign, thankfully, is long over. But the “just trust me” tactic is alive and well: It’s how the Obama administration is handling its “targeted killing” policy, which we wrote about on today’s editorial page.

The Obama administration has repeatedly refused even to acknowledge killing Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in a drone strike. It has also refused to disclose the legal documents explaining why the executive branch has the power to order an American killed without telling Congress, getting permission from a judge, or submitting the action to Congressional, legal or public review after the fact.

It even refused to make public an unclassified summary of the argument that was sent to the top two members of the House and Senate judiciary committees last May, seven months after Mr. Awlaki was killed. The only reason we can now read that document is that NBC News got hold of it and published it on Monday.

Now that we’ve seen it I can report that the legal argument itself is all about trust. We’re supposed to accept that if an “informed, high-ranking official” decides that an American citizen poses an “imminent threat” to this country and that capture is not possible, it’s OK to order a drone strike. It would be bad enough if administration personnel were using the standard definition of “imminent,” but they have vastly expanded it to include people that they “know” would be attacking us if they could.

We are supposed to trust them to make life-and-death decisions without any independent oversight. To trust that appropriate safeguards are in place. White House officials have told me that they have a review system, but the overseers are all executive branch officials and we are never going to be told who they are or how they do the overseeing. Their contempt for the idea that the courts should have a say is palpable.

We’ve been here before, with President George W. Bush, who told us to trust him after 9/11 and gave us illegal wiretapping, kidnapping, rendition, indefinite detention, torture, military trials and Guantanamo Bay. And that’s just what we know about.

We argued at the time that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not personalities, and that powers, once acquired, are never given up. Mr. Obama denounced Mr. Bush’s actions during the 2008 campaign but upon taking office pursued the same abuse of the state secrets privilege in court cases involving rendition, torture and indefinite detention.

Just as Mr. Bush decided that his constitutional powers and the Congressional authorization for war in Afghanistan gave him the authority to tap our phones without a warrant and to approve the torture of prisoners, Mr. Obama decided he had the power to order the killing of Americans. He does not even think enough of the American people to come before them and explain his decision.

The NY Times, MSNBC, the ACLU, and the Daily Kos are all speaking out against this policy and legal argument.

Remember CES, you claimed they were instead "carrying water" and "cheerleading the Administration". Your assertion is demonstrably false.

[pErvinalia]

I don't understand how your system works.

Oh,then by all means, keep pontificating about how it sucks compared to all the proper "western countries" out there.

How's that chip on your shoulder? Where did I say it sucks? I said it is insane if it is the case that a party can't stop its name being appended to a candidate that says offensive things that are against the party's ethos. Alternatively it is insane that a party that CAN stop its name being appended to offensive candidates DOESN'T.

Who is voting for a "nominee"?

Registered voters.

Who are they? Are they party members or just general Joe Schmoes from the public?

Either way, why can't a party organisation decide who gets to use the party name? It sounds insane if the case is that anyone can use the party name if they get "nominated" (whatever that actually is).

There are rules as to how you get on the primary ballot. Any registered Democrat can try to be on the primary ballot. To get on the ballot, a person must do a "qualifying petition." The qualifying petition must be signed in accordance with State laws but you don't need the Democratic Party's permission to get on the primary ballot. That's where the people choose who will represent the Democratic Party. The party leadership doesn't decide 2 or three party members who will be on the primary ballot.

Nominated occurs when you win the primary. You may have seen something about this last year and the year before in the US Presidential election process where 8 or so Republican candidates started out running "in the primary race." Then, for months on end, different states had primary elections where Mitt was running against Newt and other Republicans candidates. Those guys got on the ballot by filling out the proper form and having a petition filed by the proper time in the process with enough signatures. Then they get on the ballot, and and in the primary vote the people pick who they want as a candidate for the Republican Party. If the GOP leadership decided who ran as a Republican, do you think we'd have had a year long battle with Perry, Bachmann, Gingerich, Huntsman, Cain, and Romney duking it out?

[/quote]

I'm not saying they have to "decide" who runs on the ballot. It doesn't necessarily (although sometimes does) happen like that in Australia either. But the party hierarchy has the power to veto inappropriate candidates. Any system that allows a person to adopt the party name, but doesn't see the party retracting that permission when offensive stuff is said is insane. Either your system is insane, or the Republican party is full of bigots and hate mongers. Which one is it?

[pErvinalia]

I said I haven't catalogued them. Therefore I can't just call them up for your little theatrical production. If you are aware of other offensive comments by Republicans then why are you getting all defensive?

I'm blinkered - but you can't provide examples of what you yourself claim to be talking about.

Nice non-sequitur. Yes, you are blinkered as is evidenced repeatedly in these types of threads.

And of course I can provide some examples. The same as anyone who can use google. I have so far chosen not to, as I don't respond well to tantrum throwing. Stop throwing tantrums and grow up and I might interact with you more positively.

Moron.

Moran!

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't understand how your system works.

Oh,then by all means, keep pontificating about how it sucks compared to all the proper "western countries" out there.

How's that chip on your shoulder? Where did I say it sucks? I said it is insane if it is the case that a party can't stop its name being appended to a candidate that says offensive things that are against the party's ethos. Alternatively it is insane that a party that CAN stop its name being appended to offensive candidates DOESN'T.

It doesn't suck, but it's insane.

Who is voting for a "nominee"?

Registered voters.

Who are they? Are they party members or just general Joe Schmoes from the public?

Depends on the State. In some States they have closed primaries, where only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary. In other States, they are open primaries where anyone can vote in either primary, but they can only vote in one primary.

Either way, why can't a party organisation decide who gets to use the party name? It sounds insane if the case is that anyone can use the party name if they get "nominated" (whatever that actually is).

There are rules as to how you get on the primary ballot. Any registered Democrat can try to be on the primary ballot. To get on the ballot, a person must do a "qualifying petition." The qualifying petition must be signed in accordance with State laws but you don't need the Democratic Party's permission to get on the primary ballot. That's where the people choose who will represent the Democratic Party. The party leadership doesn't decide 2 or three party members who will be on the primary ballot.

Nominated occurs when you win the primary. You may have seen something about this last year and the year before in the US Presidential election process where 8 or so Republican candidates started out running "in the primary race." Then, for months on end, different states had primary elections where Mitt was running against Newt and other Republicans candidates. Those guys got on the ballot by filling out the proper form and having a petition filed by the proper time in the process with enough signatures. Then they get on the ballot, and and in the primary vote the people pick who they want as a candidate for the Republican Party. If the GOP leadership decided who ran as a Republican, do you think we'd have had a year long battle with Perry, Bachmann, Gingerich, Huntsman, Cain, and Romney duking it out?

[/quote]

I'm not saying they have to "decide" who runs on the ballot. It doesn't necessarily (although sometimes does) happen like that in Australia either. But the party hierarchy has the power to veto inappropriate candidates.

Well, they don't have that power here in the US, and they don't have the power to take a guy who won the nomination and kick him off because he said something they think is stupid. That's up to the people to decide.

Any system that allows a person to adopt the party name, but doesn't see the party retracting that permission when offensive stuff is said is insane. Either your system is insane, or the Republican party is full of bigots and hate mongers. Which one is it?

Assinine comment.

Party's platforms change, and they change with the people who are in the party. So, when a person becomes popular, he effects change within the party because the people who vote for him are also going to vote on the party platform.

The party doesn't "give" permission to adopt the party name. A person wins the right to run as a Republican when he or she wins the Republican primary (i.e. is chosen by the people by popular vote to have the Republican nomination). The Party does not retain the right to veto candidates because they say "offensive stuff." That would be an insane system, one that did that. If Australia's system does that, then it's a stupid system, which is perfect for you.

[Audley Strange]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. The real reason the liberal/left/centrist media etc are not as vocal about it is because he is black AND let's be honest OBL probably had a higher popularity rating amongst Americans at the end of Bush's term in the regime.

They don't want to give their enemies ammunition, they have parochial attitude because his presidency is historic by it's nature and he's an oppressed minority, which means (from what I've been gleaning from academic idiocy, everything he does wrong is like for Feminists, WASPS fault, oppressed minorities can do no wrong.

[laklak]

Pretty much my take in it, Audley.

[Coito ergo sum]

I said I haven't catalogued them. Therefore I can't just call them up for your little theatrical production. If you are aware of other offensive comments by Republicans then why are you getting all defensive?

I'm blinkered - but you can't provide examples of what you yourself claim to be talking about.

Nice non-sequitur. Yes, you are blinkered as is evidenced repeatedly in these types of threads.

Says the ignorant, hick, bludger from Bogan-ville, Australia.

And of course I can provide some examples. The same as anyone who can use google. I have so far chosen not to,

I don't care whether you do or don't. All I asked was if you make an argument, make it yourself, and stop with your asinine practice of asking others to do your googling for you, and then calling them blinkered when they decline your invitation to that which you "have so far chosen not to..."

as I don't respond well to tantrum throwing. Stop throwing tantrums and grow up and I might interact with you more positively.

If you'd lay off the snark and nastiness in the first place, you'd not get the kind of reaction from me that you get. You act like tool, so you get treated like one.

[Gerald McGrew]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. The real reason the liberal/left/centrist media etc are not as vocal about it is because he is black AND let's be honest OBL probably had a higher popularity rating amongst Americans at the end of Bush's term in the regime.

They don't want to give their enemies ammunition, they have parochial attitude because his presidency is historic by it's nature and he's an oppressed minority, which means (from what I've been gleaning from academic idiocy, everything he does wrong is like for Feminists, WASPS fault, oppressed minorities can do no wrong.

I hope you're joking.

No doubt there's an element of tribalism at play. It's rampant in politics so to assume those on your side are immune from it is ridiculous. And like most issues, trying to pin a complex phenomenon to a single cause is...well...stupid. There are several factors at play here.

1) Simple tribalism. When your guy does it, it's horrible, when my guy does the same thing, it's ok. Now beyond simple tribalism, it's also a factor of trust. Liberals didn't trust W. Bush, but they're more inclined to trust Obama (the reverse is true of conservatives). So even though they might not like the policy, some will trust their guy to handle it properly. And that stems in-part from....

2) Background. W. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had a record of foreign policy shenanigans (Iraq war being the biggest) that ended up being hugely unpopular and at best, based on "bad intelligence". They also authorized and justified ignoring of the Geneva Convention on multiple fronts (Gitmo and torture). Obama OTOH proposed to close Gitmo (until Congress stopped him) and did halt the torture programs. He also "ended the Iraq war" (even though it was pre-scheduled, based on mere timing he gets the credit) and is doing the same in Afghanistan. By most accounts (so far) Libya was a success and overall our standing in the world has increased, as opposed to the decline that happened under W. Bush.

3) Execution. So far (as we know), the program under Obama has only been used on high-level Al Qaeda targets, which makes it more difficult to oppose. I mean, we all want them dead, right? Surely no one's arguing that they should still be alive! Whereas under W. Bush, Gitmo was somewhat of a disaster (hundreds of non-terrorists rounded up and imprisoned...what do you think their attitude towards the US is now?), and harmed our standing worldwide. The drone strikes are starting to have a similar effect, so we'll see how that gets managed.

4) Going first. Simple fact is, W. Bush went first, and the first guy always gets more crap because it's rather shocking. When the second guy does it, the reaction is somewhat less simply because it's not such a shock.

All of those things (and more) are at play here and interact in different ways with different people. Trying to make blanket assessments about large numbers of people, and basing them on one single factor is about as intellectually lazy as can be.

[Audley Strange]

No I'm not fucking joking. Nor did your 4 point plan point to any punchline. You clearly reacted to an inference that was not made, but I suspected you or someone would make that inference.

I said media. Now despite what you might think, I was not categorizing large numbers of people. I was describing an obvious narrative created by such media with regards to the regime which is underpinned by their ideology. Now despite what some local radio ranter might be saying, the fact is obvious to anyone who has perceptual appatatus that function, that the narrative within the left and left of centre has been subdued. They are rooting for the black guy, especially in light of the previous cohort. Nothing you said argues with that in fact each of your points is an expansion of mine.

Seems to me rather, you thought I was talking about you and reacted badly. Relax.

[Gerald McGrew]

AS,

No, I didn't think you were talking about me, since I am opposed to this "program". I'm just not at all convinced that much of anyone is giving Obama a pass on this simply because he's black.

[Audley Strange]

I do, I think if he had been white, shit I think if he had been Hilary Clinton, they would be making much more of an issue. Take a look sometime at the difference in the way the international media Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice in comparison to Cheney, Rumsfield and the others. The invective was not there because that media narrative is rich white guys=villians, everyone else, even those who are clearly just as villainous, victims of Rich white guys.

There is no difference in pointing that out than there is pointing out the Right wing media have been guilty of their own racially motivated narrative as black men as bumbling clods, ignorant robbers and potential white virgin deflowerers and treat him as if he conforms to that.

These are harsh descriptions of people, I accept, but to me civilisation seems to be brute animal behaviours that we experience first then rationalise away later.

[MrJonno]

I voted for Blair even through I thought the 2nd Iraq war wasnt justified, because when it comes down to things like minimum wage, the state of the economy, the health service etc are far important than who we bomb abroad.

British soldiers getting killed abroad very sad but honestly not relevant to my day to day life