>> ^Yogi:

Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.


Again, what would've been better?

Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.

Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.

Wait, didn't we invade Iraq to curb Saddam's destructive ambitions and keep his WMDs out of terrorist hands. Wait, didn't we fight in Iraq in order to expel the Al Qaeda operatives that had flocked to Iraq due to our involvement there. Wait, since when are we fighting in Iraq to counter Iranian influence in the region.

I'm very certain I've missed quite a few shifts in the vindicating rhetoric on our involvement there. You can write whatever boogieman you need into that country and for certain people, that war would never end.

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

This just in:

Al Qaeda wins.

These Al Qaeda training videos are really getting strange.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/BBC-Admits-Al-Qaeda-Never-Existed

for a backup....

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by bareboards2.

That 2nd quote from Hutson is nonsense - America chose to pursue this 'war', America's politicians did this to their country, it has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda forcing them to do anything. While the law demonstrates complete cowardice by the house/senate you guys have been locking up pretty much anyone you deem a 'terrorist' for a while now, it's a little unfair to give lesser rights to others, that's the same sort of decision process that leads to slavery, apartheid etc.

I think the essence of the problem is that America is not actually fighting any wars, they are simply involved in aggressive behavior to allow extraction of various countries resources - people think these laws are necessary because they think the country is 'at war' but they are being lied to and fed propaganda. Because the country is not truly at war, this continuing destruction of your Constitution is bogus to begin with.

>> ^Batskinner:

To those who are enraged by Ron Paul's ideas on property rights, do you think that a black restaurant owner in Kentucky should be forced by law to allow a KKK meeting in his establishment? Would it be racist if he didn't want them there?


You misunderstand the law. The KKK is not a skin-color. Likewise, said restaurant owner is not forced to allow an al-qaeda meeting to take place in his establishment.

>> ^wax66:

Let the racists be ignorant and racist, they're only hurting themselves, not the people they hate.

That comment belies your understanding of history.

To all the personal property fanatics, people used to be considered property. Should we go back there?

Ron Paul deserved to be booed, but you can be pretty sure that the crowd was right for all the wrong reasons.

Al Qaeda listed support for the state of Israel at the top of the USA's crimes. Paul is correct in pointing that out. He is WRONG to simply leave it at that, as though by capitulating and turning our backs on Israel that we could live at peace with Al Qaeda.

The truth is, the majority of people killed by Al Qaeda and similar jihadist groups are muslims living in the middle east. Either Shia's for simply not being Sunni's as the late Osama was, or for any other failure to adopt the specific brand of Sharia that the jihadist groups want.

These terrorists have killed countless more of their neighbouring muslims than imperialist Americans, it is dishonest, contemptible, and worthy of booing Ron Paul suggesting American actions made the difference between the attacks of these terrorists and them leaving us to our own ways. These terrorists ARE enemies of the free world, starting most importantly with their own fellow muslim neighbours.

The suggestion that people hate America for its freedom and not for its history of intervention is just so laden with hubris it beggars belief. There is just no perceptible rational basis for that argument, and I refuse to believe anyone informed genuinely believes it.


Meh... read one of the Al Qaeda manifestos (they're fairly interchangeable, at least the ones I've read). It's certainly in there - they see the West as extremely corrupt and immoral, and it makes sense that they resent/fear the cultural influence.

Obviously it's only part of the picture, but it's an important, reasonable part. Western culture and values have been eroding traditional cultures and values all over the world. Why would it be strange to hate and fear that?

Agree. I think this fits the recently removed Fail tag. It certainly wasn't PWNAGE. I don't necessarily agree that the Al-Qaeda got their ass kicked, for example. He doesn't represent my view, nor that of all leftists.
>> ^siftbot:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Frank, Miller, Full, Retard, Amazing, Atheist' to 'Frank Miller, Full Retard, Amazing Atheist, ows' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^AeroMechanical:

I believe their rifles fire three shots with each pull of the trigger, so being shot three times doesn't necessarily mean anything.
>> ^marbles:
Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away. Friendly fire? Yeah, right.



It doesn't? It makes it hard to sell the lie that it was an Al-Qaeda ambush.

New documents shed light on Tillman’s death:
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
...
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.

No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
...
It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O’Neal, who was at Tillman’s side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting “Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!” again and again.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.