YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!

Congratulations! Your video, The Daily Show: RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

You didn't read my post and you're setting me up as a straw man to argue against.

Obama's language in his executive orders that this is all about talk about respecting "international obligations, domestic laws, and humane treatment". So, I gather that means the only way rendition/abduction/arrest is going to be legit is if there's no reasonable government in place to do an extradition from like say a dude in Somalia plotting to blow up the French Club's trip to Paris. The language also specifies that it would be temporary confinement before due process and never to someplace where they could be tortured. The whole thing is ripe for nasty abuse but as I understand it they're trying to set up a legal framework that does not violate tenants of our society... it is a huge fucking legal mess but I don't see evidence that it's trying to do the stuff you're saying.
>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^alizarin:
Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.

Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

>> ^alizarin:

Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.


Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

>> ^alizarin:

Regarding assassination:
( ) President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.
I agree with John Stewart's main point at the end - Obama is leaving this stuff too open to abuse and needs to close possible loopholes right away.
You can make the case that Al-Qaida is a legit military target and as such it's not really an assassination, just warfare. But where do you formalize what groups are "terrorists" and which individuals get lumped in, and how do you decide if a situation is dire enough to assassinate a militant American citizen vs capture and put him on trial? I don't think Obama is likely to let anything nasty happen but that's way too big of a danger to leave out there.
This story got big when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said this in congressional testimony:
“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”
Again, not crazy reasoning...if an American is hiding in Yemen and plotting to blow up a plane maybe we can blow him up first, but way to wide open to avoid abuse. I'm a big Obama fan but I'm pissed that he's running this free and loose with this stuff. Hopefully it's on his to-do list and nothing nasty will become of it before he's done.


Not crazy reasoning? What is this? Israel? That's pretty fucking crazy reasoning. Apologist jingoism is unbecoming. What happened to due process? All because the Criminal suddenly became an enemy of the state?

I point you to a Movie, The Unthinkable. It's just a movie, of course, but it's the thought that it invokes. Just how far are you prepared to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

It's like legal precedence. You allow one case to become a trend setter and many more judgments will follow that case. It's not a slippery slope argument, its a matter of legal precedence. If the US starts assassinating *citizens*, even if they are *terrorists* where does that leave the rest of the citizens? It's a terrible and disgusting thing to think about.

I don't think that there's been a legally declared War since WWII.

>> ^dag:

but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.

Actually, yes. McCain never promised change, only 4 more years of Bushiness. You can't be disappointed if you don't have any expectations.

[edit: and now I see gwiz said the same thing already. oops.]

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.


Obama isn't even worthy of being called a Liberal.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

He's always trying to keep republicans happy even though they hate him.
Bush had to keep Democrats happy even though they hated him too. There is a word for a politician who does whatever he wants over the objections of everyone else. Dictator.

So Republican minority = everyone?

The big problem with all of Obama's imperfections is that he's still far better than any offering from the conservative side. =\

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.
I would have been less disappointed with McCain/Palin but that's only because my expectations would be that much lower. Waaay lower.

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.


It's OK dag, we got court decisions to prove the whole scandal. If the ostriches don't believe that, well, we never really had a Republic in the first place.

Your video, The Daily Show: RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the quality

In reply to this comment by dingens:
Siftbot, respect my authoritah! *quality

Siftbot, respect my authoritah! *quality

If only this was a seniority based reward system.


Respect my authoritah!

Respect my authoritah!