Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Fox and Friends just casually take a dump on habeas corpus- and call it "political correctness" what a bunch of dipshits.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

sure,because our justice system has proven itself to be such a shining example of objective and fair treatment to those who defy the power of this government.

see:bradley manning

with the track record of this and previous administrations in regards to whistleblowers who expose our own governments corrupt and oftentimes illegal practices abroad.snowden played this card exactly how he should have...smart.

due process? gone.
habeas corpus?not anymore.

day in court? please.

critical thinking?
take your own advice.

i dont pay taxes.
i refused ten years ago and have stuck with that path.
and its been sunshine and rainbows ever since....
ok..not really.my income is severely crippled due to me not paying taxes BUT goddamn does it make me feel good!

i do not pay taxes not to be a cheap ass but rather to protest a system that is so obviously rigged against me.(and you).

as for american libertarianism.
i will say they have the civil rights down.
i totally agree with their philosophy of personal liberty and right to do whatever you want as long as you aint stepping on another blokes shoes.

but when they start with the "free market" sermons i start to look at them as wide-eyed and innocent children.
do they not SEE whats going on?
free market?
what is this free market you speak of?
america is NOT a free market.
it is corporate socialism.
or welfare if you want to troll a bit.

go ahead and de-regulate corporate america.
see what happens.
better yet,just look at some african nations,or former soviet states.
guilded estates with private armies for the uber-wealthy and elite while the majority of the population live in either indentured servitude or total squalor.

i am noticing a disturbing trend here in america.its like they are preparing.
we have a government bought and paid for by corporate america,which does the corporations bidding.
the co-opting of the tea party and the crushing of occupy.
a massive surveillance operation.
militarized police forces across the country.
civil liberties made into mere "suggestions" and no longer inalienable.
executions of american citizens with no due process (bye bye habeas corpus).
a standing army that has been in place for over 60 years and a war on terror that will never end.

it is madness.

so i cannot blame my libertarian friends for calling for smaller government.
because the government has become TOO big and no longer is "for the people,by the people".
it serves its corporate masters.
which is why the "de-regulate" argument truly baffles me.

just as my liberal friends who wish to use the system to correct these imbalances.
what?
the system is utterly BROKEN.
we no longer have a functioning democracy!
why would you even suggest to use a system that threw us all overboard to lick the boots of their masters 30 yrs ago?
the mind..it boggles.

every political philosophy has its flaws.none are perfect.
libertarianism has some very good points while others are a bit...naive in my opinion.

for me the end result is this:
i do not trust power nor authority because i find them to be illegitimate until they prove themselves otherwise.
so i am suspicious when someone tries to force their authority on me based on arbitrary and subjective parameters.(like a cop,or judge or some rich dude).

i am a humanist by nature so my political philosophy flows from that birthplace.
i will never step on you to further my career nor take food out of your mouth.
corporate america has spread a propaganda campaign that is insidious.

capitalism is good.
greed is good.
dog eat dog world out there.
here,buy this,it will make you feel better.
wear that and you will be sexy.
you are lone wolf,against the world,drive this car you lone wolf and be a rebel.

its all bullshit.
human beings feel better when they are co-operating.
when they feel their life has purpose and that they are needed.
not by living in a perpetual 7 yr olds wet dream.

oh
my
god.
you fuckers got me ranting!
i hate you both......
/drops mic

@dystopianfuturetoday
i could not disagree more with your mr simon.

his article smacks of a "lets be reasonable" flavor but it lacks the meat of understanding.

they suspend habeas corpus and we do nothing.
they make it legal to target american citizens and we do nothing.
they create a giant dragnet to collect data from american citizens...all under the auspices of "national security".but dont worry.we dont READ your data..and we do nothing.
they flip the fourth amendment on its head and change "innocent until proven guilty: into "we have suspicions"

and we do nothing.

i guess this all comes down to perspective.
if one still believes in the ideology of a government "by the people for the people" then i guess i can understand a more..optimistic view.

but i cannot hold that such an ideology is still in practice.

i have watched this administration target whistleblowers,protesters and journalists.
anybody who sought to undermine the authority of this government.

i have watched as our government stacked lie upon lie in defense of their actions and when caught it is always the same excuse/reason:national security.

but here is a truth that has held over the centuries:governments lie

the american experiment will not end with a loud clash of ideals and a fight for freedom but rather a whimper and a sigh.

all because we did nothing.

a good article that addresses this very subject:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/surveillance-nsa?page=0%2C0

Bad argument. When you trot out a trite statement like that it sounds as though you doubt how bad it really is over in North Korea. That makes you look almost as ignorant as Rodman does in the interview.

I'm all for not compromising in expectations for American leadership. It's worse somewhere else doesn't excuse anything, and I agree.

At the same time I can also observe that by comparison, America looks like the pinnacle of freedom, equality and opportunity beside North Korea. That's just how bad North Korea is. That still leaves room for me to chime in on the calls for a war crimes tribunal for Cheney, and demanding Kissinger's name be on the list too. I can still decry American detentions without due process, and American AG's denying the right of Habeas Corpus is granted to all under American law.

North Korea is bad, it is bad in the extreme way that we have rarely seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

First, I agree that the NRA is totally nuts. Let's get that right out of the way.

During gun rights discussions on Videosift, I often hear "this isn't the wild west anymore", that gun ownership is no longer justified in modern society. Given that, when NO was reduced to something resembling a post-apocalypse movie, with burglars and looters a constant threat, and with authorities overwhelmed, isn't that exactly the time when people ought to have a way to protect themselves?

Confiscating guns at a time like this is no different than suspending habeas corpus for terror suspects or ignoring freedom of speech because people are critical of the government: that's what those rights are there for.

I know it's probably more fun to paint Obama as a super villain than to make an attempt to understand this issue on a deeper level, but Obama didn't write the detention provision, he didn't cravenly attach it to the annual military budget bill, he didn't vote for it with a veto proof majority, he expressed his dislike for the provision before and after the vote and he waived the offending provision from the larger bill. I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do, or why he is considered the mastermind behind this provision. Election years are always full of these kinds of gotcha lose/lose gambits, and we dutifully fall for them every time.

Funny as this clip is, I'm not crazy about the president yucking it up on late night shows. It seems a little unprofessional to me. >> ^TheSluiceGate:

Did he slowjam about his suspension of habeas corpus in the USA? He's goofing on chatshows while others may very well at this moment be imprisoned indefinitely without charges or trial on US soil.

Did he slowjam about his suspension of habeas corpus in the USA? He's goofing on chatshows while others may very well at this moment be imprisoned indefinitely without charges or trial on US soil.

Did you miss the part where I said I'm against assassination by presidential fiat?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you must have.

"ring of hate and evil"? Seriously?


You insinuated that partisanship is affecting my ability to reason, then link to a video that has jack shit to do with anything I said about the hypocrisy in news coverage. I point out how way off you are, and you call me a shithead.

You're the one who down voted me, douche, and clearly without even reading what I wrote.

"I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do"

"so stop being a judgmental douche"

Jesus Christ, do you even read what you write?

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you're doing. You're going to guarantee how much Fox News I watch?

I don't need the fucking Nielsen ratings to your house to see what you're typing.

"Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network"

Hey, one last defense of the hard hitting local news team!

Your side of this conversation is a parody of itself.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus




No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.
Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

>> ^Taint:

Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus





No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.

Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

Who are you referring to with "we"?

Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?

Is that the "we" you're a part of?

Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?

Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.

I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.

You respond with a link from C-Span.

So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you've ironically managed to not even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus

>> ^Taint:

Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!


That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.

We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."
Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?
Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Ahh, but here's where the rubber meets the road -- I don't really believe him about most of those.

Would Paul actually try to lead an effort to legalize gay marriage? An effort that would almost certainly divide the Republican party, or possibly even unite them against him?

I don't really believe Paul on Social Security and Medicare. Here's why.

I'm not sure what you mean by Paul "disagreeing" on debt. Paul was against raising the debt ceiling, and even sent out whip e-mail to ask people to call their congressman to tell them to vote against the deal that passed.

I don't believe him on abortion, and in any case "let the states handle it" is not my position, nor is it current law. It should be safe and legal everywhere, and supposedly that's how it is today.

I suppose I could see him relaxing enforcement of drug laws, so I'll grant you that. Thing is, I don't know how well he'd do in persuading congress to actually change the drug laws, or change popular opinion on legalizing serious narcotics like heroin.

Here's the thing though, my big three issues going into 2008 were the wars (and associated civil rights issues), health care, and the environment. Paul was with me on one, and radically against me on the other two.

If I had to pick my three core issues this time, I mostly want to see more stimulus, see the Bush tax cuts expire, and a passionate defense of union rights. Paul is vehemently opposed to all of those.

The long and the short of it is, there's nothing that I think Paul could deliver that would be worth all the damage he'd definitely inflict to countless things that I care about.

I'd rather vote for some random Green or Socialist candidate than vote for Paul. But moreover, I'd rather put what little weight I have behind Obama, because it's basically going to be him, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Mitt Romney who's gonna be President.

Now, if we had instant runoff voting, I could easily be persuaded to put a Green as my first choice...

Never said she was outsider, she was insider. What I said was, "Write-in's are impossible." My point was that the "fourth party," i.e., the write-in, can win.

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."

Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?

Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Anyways, you got me on "threatening the mainstream" except that some few people don't become part of something...a party is not a person, it is an emotionless entity. But even so, if an "outsider" just happens to belong to a third party, then he is worth the vote.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...
But if they can "threaten" the mainstream, then they've made it into the mainstream.
The only thing that keeps 3rd parties outside the mainstream is their impotence. If you think their ideas are better than the mainstream, your goal should be to propel them into the mainstream.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...
I sorta hate to let you down this way, but you're talking about Lisa Murkowski. She wasn't some outsider who bucked the system, she was the incumbent Republican Senator of Alaska. She got defeated by a Tea Party challenger in the primary, but then ran as a write-in in the general and won.
That's not a story of the outsider defeating the mainstream, that's a matter of the mainstream defeating the outsider, even though it seemed like the outsider had already won.
It's sorta like saying we need more "Independents" like Joe Lieberman, you know the guy who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000...
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party,
Right, but the transcription wasn't really that far off. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are totally on the same side on most issues except for the ones where Paul agrees with liberals (gay marriage, war).
Think about it, what other topic does Paul disagree with the Tea Party on? Anything?