Sadly, it's only after leaving the positions of power that people seem to realize this is true, that you are required to analyze orders and to refuse those that are illegal (and question those that are unreasonable or appear illegal).
In practice, questioning orders is a good way to end up in military prison.
Also, most fear losing their position of power far more than they fear being caught following illegal orders. Few if any have ever been prosecuted.
It's for this reason that we have the crimes exposed by Manning and Snowden, up to and including mass murders, torture, illegal indefinite detention, etc. , that have never been prosecuted, but those who exposed the illegal orders and acts have been prosecuted, whistleblower protection laws be damned.
It's pretty disingenuous for this man to say that Trump's illegal orders would be questioned and ignored when all the illegal orders he received during his tenure were followed without question.

EDIT: Interesting, I just found out he's publicly supported by the KKK, and American National SuperPac, founded by a consortium of white terror groups, but he claims to not know who they are. Reports out of Super Tuesday states Minnesota and Vermont have revealed there are recorded calls telling voters Trump will stop the “gradual genocide against the white race” and to not vote for Marco Rubio because he’s “Cuban.”
Trump has yet to disavow any of these terrorist racial groups, but has accepted money from them. That should certainly disqualify him from holding high public office and really should have him on the terrorist watch list, he's associated with and accepts fudging from well know, active terrorist groups.

I second @JustSaying here -- what exactly does it tell you? (Snowden seeking refuge in countries with abysmal human rights records)

What it tells me is that it is pretty pathetic that Snowden's best chances for freedom and a life outside of a concrete cell in Gitmo come from someplace like Venezuela, Ecuador, or Russia as compared to his home, the "land of the free" USA. I think it says much more about the current government and political environment in the US than it does about Snowden.

Given my take on it, I think it is laughable to accuse Snowden of hypocrisy. Aim that word at an entity that deserves it -- the country and government that labels itself:

*the "land of the free" (except for those that we lock up in indefinite detention without trial, those guilty of thoughtcrime, anyone trying to travel freely outside of the country or even from state to state, etc.),

*"home of the brave" (except for any vague threat of 'terrorists', in which case we ask everyone to panic and allow a friendly TSA officer to treat you like a sock puppet, in spite of the fact that you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist),

*originator of the bill of rights (unless the government has some tenuous and self serving reason to revoke any/all of your rights: Free speech? Hah! Free press? Hah! Unreasonable search and seizure? No such thing! Due process? Hah! Speedy and public trial? Hah! By a jury? Hah! Cruel and unusual punishments? Waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' don't count! The government laughs at the bill of rights and pisses on their grave.),

*bastion of democracy (except I don't remember voting on ANY of the shit that Snowden brought to our attention, and it seems that neither do any/most of our elected 'representatives' -Hah!), and

*home of the American dream (as long as your dream doesn't involve freedom from any of the myriad transgressions listed above).

Oh how my once proud nation has fallen.

I completely get your general criticism of the mainstream media in this regard. However, when it comes to Hedges, in particular, this is hardly the first time he is speaking out or fighting back. Just off the top of my head, I know that he was heavily involved in the early days of OWS and filed suit against the NDAA which allowed for indefinite detention.

But they support torture and indefinite detention without criminal trial, just like your Republican party and your government. BFFs tbh.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.

I am not an advocate of Koch brothers or Mittens. Though I think using Sam Jackson to spur your re-election campaign with his classic meme is downright superficial and dishonest. How do we know it wasn't feasible to take him alive? What about NDAA? especially when it was ruled unconstitutional.

http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/indefinite-detention-clause-upheld-in-court

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is a popular argument among lazy armchair pundits, but it isn't true. With selective editing, you can find similarities between any two people. On the issues this propagandist chose to make his point on, most of it (The bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing and healthcare) was good policy.
There is much ignorance on what the NDAA actually is. It's a military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider that authorized indefinite detention and it was passed by congress with a veto proof majority. Obama did what he could to get it taken off, but there wasn't much else to be done, aside from defunding the military. It's a game designed to make Obama look bad, and you've fallen for it.
Big downvote for this kind of bullshit propaganda.


You mean down voting bullshit propaganda that doesn't fit in with your narrative. Your upvote record has plenty of bullshit propaganda in it...and so does mine

This is a popular argument among lazy armchair pundits, but it isn't true. With selective editing, you can find similarities between any two people. On the issues this propagandist chose to make his point on, most of it (The bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing and healthcare) was good policy.

There is much ignorance on what the NDAA actually is. It's a military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider that authorized indefinite detention and it was passed by congress with a veto proof majority. Obama did what he could to get it taken off, but there wasn't much else to be done, aside from defunding the military. It's a game designed to make Obama look bad, and you've fallen for it.

Big downvote for this kind of bullshit propaganda.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I never got why John McCain attached the indefinite detention clause onto this military budget bill, considering his personal experiences as a prisoner of war.


He's just a frightened old man, like most in government, trying to protect himself from imagined threats. Happens when you live in the echo chamber of "Doom. Doom. DOOM. WAR! NUKES! TERRORISTS! BOMBS! ECONOMY! BROWN PEOPLE!"

Isn't the typical campaign donation in this circumstance 20 pieces of silver? Adjusted for inflation, of course.
>> ^Xaielao:

John McCain heavily in favor of indefinite detention? How much are they paying you Mr. Senator, or rather.. how much are they 'donating' towards your next election.

John McCain heavily in favor of indefinite detention? How much are they paying you Mr. Senator, or rather.. how much are they 'donating' towards your next election.

Wow that surprises me as well didn't know he was one of the front runners on this Bill, now I'm questioning my previous vote for him when he ran for President.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I never got why John McCain attached the indefinite detention clause onto this military budget bill, considering his personal experiences as a prisoner of war.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I never got why John McCain attached the indefinite detention clause onto this military budget bill, considering his personal experiences as a prisoner of war.


Manchurian Candidate?