>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not incidentally, that is also the AUMF for the war in Afghanistan as well.

>> ^SDGundamX:

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court.

In the Jose Pedilla case, they arrested him when he came onto American soil, and then held him without trial on the basis that he was a prisoner of war, and not a criminal.

In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court.

That does not mean that the government has to try all enemy combatants before killing them.

It means that people who get taken prisoner under some sort of wartime doctrine have the right to a day in court to challenge their status as being a participant in war.

>> ^SDGundamX:
He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

What's the definition of "battlefield" and "during combat"? Are soldiers in war never legally allowed to attack first? And what's the battlefield mean when we're talking about a non-state entity engaging in guerrilla warfare from strongholds located in many countries?

Again, I say all this not because I think it's right, but because it's where we're at now.

Obama didn't create this legal precedent. Obama isn't violating the law by using this to go after terrorists. I wish Obama was fighting it rather than using it, but wishing doesn't make it so any more than wishing it was illegal makes it illegal.

Obama deserves some shit for this, but I think Tapper's got exactly the right tack on the type of shit he deserves -- make the administration come out and explain a) what exactly they claim they have the right to do, b) explain why they think they have the right to do it, and c) explain whether their answers to a and b jives with their own view of American legal traditions.

The people who want to make this into "Obama committed a crime" aren't helping fix this, they're just helping Republicans win the next election.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.
@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.
why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.
but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.


Your dead right on Cambodia, after all the horrific things Kissinger's lackeys did to there they followed it up by supporting the Khmer Rouge.

On Al-Qaida, you are just flat wrong. Bin Laden came up with the name for his particular cult of international islamic jihadists.

You are also wrong on the Taliban. During the push to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, the American's backed Pakistan and it's training of Afghan and imported mujahideen warriors. Those mujahideen warriors were NOT the Taliban, they were a disparate collection of all manner of different local and imported fighters. The Taliban were not the only group to come from this Pakistan and American backed crowd, so where the Northern Alliance fighters whom the Taliban sought to destroy. It's fun to make cheap comments like yours, but that doesn't make them accurate or true.

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.

@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.

but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.

@NetRunner

I would use one of the following titles in order to accurately reflect what the booing sessions in the video were about.

• Ron Paul: 9/11 wasn't b/c they hate our freedom; GOP: BOOOO!
• Ron Paul: 9/11 was b/c of US foreign policy; Tea Party: BOO!

The "all Muslims" side-point plays an almost non-existent role in this video clip. Santorum even uses the word "Jihadists" instead of "Muslims" in order to avoid condemning all Muslims.

@spoco2
iraq was going to happen.9/11 was just a convenient tool to get there.
see: http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard.html
or: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/chalmers-johnsons-blowback-the-costs-and/

as for the political extortion coming from saudi arabia,and understand this is pure speculation.i would surmise it had something to do with very unsavory information that the body politic of washington would do much to keep under wraps.
when you consider the political landscape of the mid east it is an animal wholly and unequivocal in its absolute opposite of western politics,and that the US foreign policy over the past 50 years has been grossly under-reported and was rife with murder,assasinations,(economic as well as literal),coup de tats and the ruining of whole countries to rape and pillage their resources.
the open hand of the free market can never succeed without the closed fist of military might-arundhati roy
i have no doubt that certain american political factions got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
just look at how the bush years handled the iraq war and how convinced they were things were going to go in certain direction.
it probably would have in a western country but the mid east is organic as much as it is chaotic.
western politics has always and i mean ALWAYS gotten the politics of the middle east wrong.

NOOOWW I understand US foreign policy

>> ^bareboards2:

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.

Hey BB, I echo your hopes that this doesn't happen. That said, I do want to underscore that OBL gave the US little choice after what he has done. If there are any repercussions as a result of this, I would assert that this is an excuse rather than a reason.


To build on and slightly modify your analogy..... the crappy US foreign policy overall since the 50's represents gallons and gallons of fuel. If anything happens because of this, it's a spark to that tinder.

Chomsky has been pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of US foreign policy for years. Nice to see some media outlets finally willing to call the govt's bullshit.

Wow, I admit that I also didn't expect this with the name "Joe Rogan" on the title.

But that was a pretty concise representation of the truly salient, and inherent problems with US Foreign policy, and with some good editing and clips to boot.

I can't say I'm in love with the building seven bit at the end though.

Operation Northwoods clearly shows it's not beyond question for nefarious plans against our own citizens to reach the highest offices of the Pentagon and even meet with approval.

But I just find it nearly impossible to believe that the same minds who could conceive and carry out a plan like this would not realize that they could've gotten away with whatever they want for far, far less than anything approaching the scale of nearly destroying downtown Manhattan.

I mean the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was some destroyer out somewhere in a sea most Americans couldn't find on a map if their lives depended on it. And that was enough of an excuse to invade south east asia!

Keep in mind that the Gulf of Tonkin Bullshit story was drafted AFTER operation Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy. They already knew that a justification to gear up the military required nearly nothing. So why would they stage this elaborate hoax to accomplish what they could do anyway? Hell, even the first Gulf War showed the American appetite for war was a lot different then what they dealt with in the late 60's and 70's.

Americans these days only need a short empty speech with zero content, a flag waving fireworks extravaganza, a country music song or two and we'd be willing to invade fucking Canada.

It wasn't needed.

Also, and probably more importantly, if building seven can only be explained by controlled demolition then where are all the engineers on this topic? Why does it only seem to be people without a professional background in such things the ones saying it couldn't have happened when the boilers exploded or whatever the official claim states.

And if destroying some sort of unique treasure trove of financial documents was the goal then it seems an awfully elaborate way to torch a building, but what do I know I guess.

I'm just typing too much.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, cia, wikileaks, liberty, us foreign policy' to 'ron paul, cia, wikileaks, liberty, us foreign policy, occupation, obama, bush, pakistan' - edited by blankfist

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, cia, wikileaks, liberty, 2012' to 'ron paul, cia, wikileaks, liberty, us foreign policy' - edited by volumptuous

Certainly not. Forcing your influence on an alien civilization is just as bad as keeping them ignorant.
>> ^kulpims:

>> ^gwiz665:
The Prime Directive is immoral.
quality doublepromote

are you saying Federation should copy US foreign policy?

>> ^gwiz665:

The Prime Directive is immoral.
quality doublepromote


are you saying Federation should copy US foreign policy?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...... Ending the US/Isreal relationship would allow deep military cuts and extricate the US from an unpopular political stance. That's Blumenthal's real issue here. He doesn't care jack whether Palestinians & Isrealis hate each other. His real target is US foreign policy. ..........


And for that, I applaud him. Cutting wasteful spending and avoiding harmful foreign entanglements. I wish so-called conservatives and libertarians had the same goals in mind, rather than feeding an apocalyptic pipe dream in the 'holy lands'.

The Isreali community is insular. In the modern era it has to be said that this resulted as a defense mechanism not as much from internal prejudice as from external hostility. They did it to survive pogroms, the holocaust, invasion, and terrorism. Prejudice in any direction is not justified but Blumenthal routinely cherry-picks only 'bad Isreali' issues while ignoring the pervasive anti-Semitism surrounding Isreal even today. Does that mean Isreal is a guiltless chior-boy? No - but to harp on them as if the issue is all their fault is disingenous and biased at best. It is racist in itself at worst.

But perhaps I mis-speak. I doubt Blumenthal & neolibs like him care squat about the 'racism' here. That is simply a cloak to wrap around a political aim. Ending the US/Isreal relationship would allow deep military cuts and extricate the US from an unpopular political stance. That's Blumenthal's real issue here. He doesn't care jack whether Palestinians & Isrealis hate each other. His real target is US foreign policy. It isn't hard to find a few jackasses in a population by emulating the MadCow/Moore school of propoganda. Find the extremists, portray them as the majority, and wait for the stupid & gullible to march like lemmings. Yawn - I have a larger resistance to bullcrap than that. Nice try.