>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms.

No he isn't. He's very much like me, a gun totin' liberal. As he said in his DNC speech, we can make sure hunters keep their guns, but inner-city gangsters don't have uzi's. There's a balance there, somewhere, but there's a lot more of us hardcore libs who find the 2nd amendment untouchable. Apparently you haven't listened to his view on this issue.

"Hunting only, eh?" Taking guns from "inner-city gang members". Absolute horseshit. No president can do it, and all the 50,000 gun laws we have now do is tie down the lawful citizen. Obama is lying about his "love" of guns. He was likely as upset as the rest of the left (minus you) about the latest Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment is indeed, an individual right to bear arms.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in a broken and bloated gov't that does nothing for us. He believes in individual responsibilities, as well as gov't help for those who can't help themselves, and for infrastructure etc projects.

Obama wants to add billions of dollars in new and expanded programs to fight "the bloat". Does that make sense? I believe most liberals are sincere, but if you'll notice, the pool of people "who can't help themselves" seems to be expanding every day. Now we're "helping" you quit smoking, and quit eating fatty foods, see? We're your new nanny!

Also, should Obama win, I won't fault only him on government growth, the reality is the scumbag bureaucrats run Washington and they can easily outlast any and all 8-year terms.

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument.

Now that's just 100% bullshit. And when people like Sarah Palin call him "Sambo", to deny there's any racist attacks against him, is ridiculous.

The "sambo" charge was false.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-supporters-are-behind-palin-sambo.html

My answer to Obama's racist poor-me victim act will occur on election day. If he loses, there will be plenty of recrimination from the drive-by media about what an evil racist country America is, as if that's the only reason he lost. If he wins, they won't shut up about how wonderful it is to have a Black president, blah blah blah.

He uses class warfare.

There IS class warfare in this country. What, are you fucking insane? What do you think just happened this week? The gov't colluded with the greediest fucks on this planet to take our money, trillions of dollars of it, to pay for their mistakes.

I agree, and I agree it was wrong for these pricks to subsidize failure. But that's government for ya. If government were smaller, with limited funds, it couldn't get away with this. But historically the Left has been pushing hardest for more and more Big Government. The beast slipped its leash long ago, I'm afraid. But all these bailout don't come close to the 3 trillion wasted on the "War on Poverty".

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology.

I hate all religions. I don't see where his bullshit is any more "neo-marxist" than any other dumbass religious believer.

Fair enough. Either Obama is lying about his faith to upset religion-haters or he sees it as a valuable tool for activism.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

You are absolutely nuts. Really, way way off the deep-end here, my friend.

Well, time will tell if he funds this crap, or gets the chance. I see the way American government-schools have rewritten or eliminated the teaching of history. Nothing surprises me anymore. The Democrats have sold their souls to the kook-left fringe, more so than any religious "control" the right.

Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

Wow, you should try insulting more people's intelligence. Shoving everyone into this "Obamites" category shows just how little grasp you have on this election and these candidates.

It's really a compliment. It takes intelligence to have your imagination captured. I freely admit Barry is an aspiring speaker, and say also, he has not been given a thorough background check nor his lacking credentials serious consideration. It really is a case of rockstar-itis.

Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there.

I take it you've never been outside the US then. I've traveled 1/2 of my life, lived overseas for years on end, in these "socialist" countries you know nothing about. If you think Europe is what socialism looks like, you need to go back to school.

Well, as the pundits love pointing out, the USA isn't as "sophisticated" as Europe, and the "rest of the world", with all its tinpot dictators and sheiks and corrupt regimes and double-digit unemployment welfare states supposedly despises the USA. The wisest here don't want to be anything like Europeans or anyone else.


And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

Wow, that sure is a pretty straw-man you built yourself.

These peaceniks are real enough. They've always been with us and they've always been wrong. Only war stops tyrants.

But tell me, oh wise one. When was the last time you saw one of these evil socialist European nations torture someone? When was the last time a European nation used a pack of lies to sell its citizens an illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? When was the last time that Abu-Ghraib happened under France's watch? When was the last time any EU country called the Geneva Conventions "cute"? When was the last time any EU country thought that following international laws, and their own military code of conduct, just didn't count anymore?

There's no point trying to reason with anyone who thinks a war can be "legal" or "illegal". Wars are about survival, nothing else. A saddam-free Iraq increases America's chance for survival. A taliban-free Afghanistan increases America's chance for survival. All the other good or evil to follow is secondary.


Where I differ from others on the matter of war is I believe America is the greatest country on earth, and its only moral force. We have the RIGHT and the duty to do whatever it takes. Without the USA, the world is fucked. Europe withers before the Crescent, China is a communist nightmare, Russia is sliding backwards towards the same, the Middle East is perhaps forever a hellish hail of traded bullets. And whether Ron fucking Paul likes it or not, America has been cast in the role of world's policeman.

Wow. You seem like a very, very scared person.

I am more than worried about electing a President that hates America, who has the defense doctrine of Bill Clinton and the economic knowledge of Jimmy Carter. Should he win, we will weather four years of his ridiculousness while Congress via the people, won't support him.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms.

No he isn't. He's very much like me, a gun totin' liberal. As he said in his DNC speech, we can make sure hunters keep their guns, but inner-city gangsters don't have uzi's. There's a balance there, somewhere, but there's a lot more of us hardcore libs who find the 2nd amendment untouchable. Apparently you haven't listened to his view on this issue.


Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in a broken and bloated gov't that does nothing for us. He believes in individual responsibilities, as well as gov't help for those who can't help themselves, and for infrastructure etc projects.


He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument

Now that's just 100% bullshit. And when people like Sarah Palin call him "Sambo", to deny there's any racist attacks against him, is ridiculous.


He uses class warfare.

There IS class warfare in this country. What, are you fucking insane? What do you think just happened this week? The gov't colluded with the greediest fucks on this planet to take our money, trillions of dollars of it, to pay for their mistakes.


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology.

I hate all religions. I don't see where his bullshit is any more "neo-marxist" than any other dumbass religious believer.


But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

You are absolutely nuts. Really, way way off the deep-end here, my friend.



Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

Wow, you should try insulting more people's intelligence. Shoving everyone into this "Obamites" category shows just how little grasp you have on this election and these candidates.



Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there.

I take it you've never been outside the US then. I've traveled 1/2 of my life, lived overseas for years on end, in these "socialist" countries you know nothing about. If you think Europe is what socialism looks like, you need to go back to school.



And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.


Wow, that sure is a pretty straw-man you built yourself.

But tell me, oh wise one. When was the last time you saw one of these evil socialist European nations torture someone? When was the last time a European nation used a pack of lies to sell its citizens an illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? When was the last time that Abu-Ghraib happened under France's watch? When was the last time any EU country called the Geneva Conventions "cute"? When was the last time any EU country thought that following international laws, and their own military code of conduct, just didn't count anymore?


Wow. You seem like a very, very scared person.

Behold america's respect for international law.

Someone over at kotaku made a brilliant point about all those bitching about this piece of work.

Since sept 11, the govt. and everyone in support of them have been using 911 as an excuse to disregard international laws, destroy habeus corpus, destroy Miranda, start illegal wars, torture, rendition etc....but when it comes to using 911 as an art exhibition, all of a sudden its immoral and should be taken down ?

Pretty ironic..

>> ^syncron:
There is question as to whether the existence of the Israeli state is legal by international law. I personally vote no, and it has nothing to do with Jews. Though getting pwned by the Nazis during WWII does not justify them bullying their neighbors today. When you piss people off and they don't have the ability to fight back, that's when terrorism kicks in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Long


Condemn Israel's aggressive response to attacks in the last 20 years all you want, but questioning their right to exist as a state is the game of anti-semites. When Israel declared it's independence in 1948, it was agreeing to the borders mandated by the UN for both an Israeli and Palestinian state. Immediately afterwards the surrounding arab nations declared war on Israel and it was they that urged the Palestinian people to leave, as they expected to eliminate the Israelis within days. And before calling WWII irrelevant, remember that these arab nations were very few years earlier nazi trained and nazi allies. That the Israeli people managed to fight back and win was unexpected. Even after that victory it was decades of fighting before any arab countries recognized Israel's right to exist, and several of them still do not. That's a very strong root of much of Israel's support today, even when they are clearly in the wrong.

And this is the character of the entire article. As Hitchens has since pointed out, the Iraq war was not the only influence, but it is rather important to note that Gadhafi did not go to the UN, nor to Europe, but to the British and the Americans. If the Iraq war was not an influence, why are it's biggest supporters the ones that Libya went to and has handed it's weapons to?


I don't necessarily agree with Cole either, because if I just saw the world's super powers shred and spit on International law, it would compel me to make my peace offerings with them pretty quickly too.

The point still holds, it was an inane justification to even ponder invoking in defense of something as farcical as this 'war' regardless of the minutia.

After Hitchen's little waterboarding stunt I'm intrigued to see what he tackles next . . maybe he'll let himself be invaded and occupied by the U.S Military, using their 'Shocker and Awe' doctrine, and maybe then he will revise his views yet again.

Anyway, I'm going way off topic.

There is question as to whether the existence of the Israeli state is legal by international law. I personally vote no, and it has nothing to do with Jews. Though getting pwned by the Nazis during WWII does not justify them bullying their neighbors today. When you piss people off and they don't have the ability to fight back, that's when terrorism kicks in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

*Long

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least some of these combatants were directly caught on the battlefield, attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians. I suspect there'll be plenty of evidence.


You suspect????

The "battlefield" you are talking about used to be a sovereign nation and had nothing to do with 9/11. Under which part of international law are you claiming moral superiority?

you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.

but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.

" There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States. . . .

That last sentence is important because most experts agree that there was a previous, more legally effective secession involving this country – the American Revolution.

Justices Grier and Swayne dissented, but they didn't argue the secession was valid. They claimed that Texas couldn't sue because, prior to readmission, it lacked representation in Congress, and was therefore a "conquered province."

The same principles cited by the majority apply under international law. International law does not recognize a right to secession except under very limited circumstances: one is successful revolution, another is secession by agreement. At this point, most scholars recognize that colonized or oppressed populations may secede, and some claim that those who are denied participation in government can secede, too. These last three concepts are fairly recent additions, though, and likely wouldn't have flown in the 1860s."

i like that...an affirmation that we're totally fucked unless we rise up armed...well shit, the MIC is privately owned, so this time around, those with the most guns, wins-and it ain't gonna be the demon, America-this time the world gets the clamp-

Check out Bell v. Wolfish and its progeny for the precedent that the Eighth Amendment is not implicated in pretrial detention settings. Nonetheless, 5th Amendment due process and liberty protections as well as 4th Amendment seizure law protect American citizens against torture, at least until Dick Cheney gets rid of those Amendments.

I don't believe for a second that Scalia is arguing that the Constitution is silent on the subject of torture and interrogation. he is just being a douchebag and correctly arguing that Eighth Amendment precedent is not applicable here.

I am sure that this Supreme Court will find a way, but I don't know how you perform the legal jujitsu that a non-citizen loses all basic human rights under all domestic and international laws merely because the President issues a signing sttaement placing them in a certain category. It stinks to high heaven.

Scalia is right - torture is not punishment, as defined by a causal "you did [crime], therefore you get [punishment]". Torture is interrogation. This means that the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the US constitution does not apply to torture. It does, however, apply to the Third Geneva Convention, which among other things state that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Article 17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention ) which has been ratified by the US. It is therefore a breach of International law instead of petty domestic law.

North korea has nukes and we send them diplomats and aid.
Iran has a reactor legal under international law and we nuke the fuck outta them.

I forget, which country has oil again? Don't tell me I think I know.

Jeremy, as others have already pointed out a real life ticking time bomb scenario is a lot harder to find than they are in the movies or the right wing "what if" scenarios, and to deal with a what if which has rarely if ever happened we've admitted to tactics such as waterboarding and stress positions which we've ourselves charged as war crimes in the past. We can show probable crimes since they've been admitted to or otherwise documented but we can't prove a justification for them and haven't really even tried to. To me that's a problem which the what if questions really don't deal with, they just obscure what strikes me as an important issue and one we seem intent on ignoring rather than justifying or prosecuting.

But just for a moment let's assume one day a real ticking time bomb situation did pop up. The law already deals with that and always has, since the founding of the nation. Ever hear the term "no jury would convict"? It's called jury nullification and happens more often than people think, it's 100% legal and a right which has been upheld the whole way to the Supreme Court. They don't have to convict anyone if they think the application of the law is unjust.

We don't need to legalize or justify anything to deal with a real situation and we never have, if one day someone saved New York from a nuke by twisting some fingers I doubt they'd have much trouble over it. In the mean time here in the real world what we've got is the US breaking not only international law but our own. Rather than confronting it and charging or justifying it we've been trying to obfuscate the issue with theoretical rather than real world justifications. That's a problem.

Jane Meyer from the New Yorker wrote a wondeful article on this back in Feb. 2007 called "Whatever it takes" which talked with Joel Surnow the creator of 24.

This past November, US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind "24." Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and FBI interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan – wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals – aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his "call" was.

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise – that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security – was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told the New Yorker that his students would frequently refer to Jack Bauer in discussions of what permissible in the questioning of terrorist suspects.

He said that, under both US and international law, "Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted." Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer's: "Whatever it takes." His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn't talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, "I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill."

The Christian Science Monitor followed up with the more blunt title of "Does '24' encourage US interrogators to 'torture' detainees?" which culled information from several articles...