General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks"
DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks
Last week's controversy over Obama's assassination program forced into light many ignored truths that were long obvious
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 February 2013 15.05 GMT
...
Baker also noticed this: "Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama's hands, not Mr. Bush's." As but one example, the article quoted Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor and fervent Obama supporter, as admitting without any apparent shame that "if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms" because, she said "we trust the president". Thus did we have - while some media liberals objected - scores of progressives and conservatives uniting to overtly embrace the once-controversial Bush/Cheney premises of the War on Terror (it's a global war! the whole world is a battlefield! the president has authority to do whatever he wants to The Terrorists without interference from courts!) in order to defend the war's most radical power yet (the president's power to assassinate even his own citizens in secret, without charges, and without checks).
...
That Obama is systematically embracing the same premises that shaped the once-controversial Bush/Cheney terrorism approach has been known for even longer. All the way back in February, 2009 - one month after Obama's inauguration - the New York Times' Charlie Savage reported that "the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda" and that this continuity is "prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies" (I actually wrote at the time that Savage's alarmist conclusions were premature and overly pessimistic, but subsequently told him how right, even prescient, he turned out to be). In April, 2009, the Obama-friendly TPM site announced that "Obama mimics Bush" when it comes to assertions of extremist secrecy powers. In June, 2010, Obama's embrace - and expansion - of many of Bush's most radical policies had become so glaring that ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero gave a speech to a progressive conference and began by proclaiming himself to be "disgusted with this president", while Bush's most hawkish officials began praising Obama for his "continuity" with Bush/Cheney policy.
That many Democratic partisans and fervent Obama admirers are vapid, unprincipled hacks willing to justify anything and everything when embraced by Obama - including exactly that which they pretended to oppose under George W Bush - has also been clear for many years. Back in February, 2008, Paul Krugman warned that Obama supporters are "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." In May, 2009, a once-fervent Obama supporter, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, wrote a column warning that Obama was embracing many of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses and felt compelled - in the very first sentence - to explain what should be self-evident: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." The same month, former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith - who provided the legal authorization for the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program - went to the New Republic to celebrate that Obama was not only continuing the core Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism, but even better (from his perspective), was strengthening those policies far beyond what Bush could achieve by transforming Democrats from opponents of those policies into supporters.
...
Supreme GOP warmonger Lindsey Graham announced his intention to introduce a Senate resolution praising Obama for his assassination program. RedState's Erick Erickson wrote a Fox News column denouncing civil libertarians and defending Obama: "we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of al-Qaida from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe." Michelle Malkin criticized her own staff for attacking Obama and wrote: "On this, I will come to Obama's defense." Others vocally defending Obama included John Bolton, Peter King, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)Because we all know how much better off we'd be right now with a POTUS Romney.
Congress needs to do something about these war powers that should have never been...
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Answer - absolutely nothing.
It doesn't even stand up to blame it on Congress when some Democrats are twisting themselves into convoluted knots to justify this. If supporters of these reprehensible policies want Congress to do all the work, then at least give them a bone to work with by being against it and voicing strong disapproval.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It doesn't even stand up to blame it on Congress when some Democrats are twisting themselves into convoluted knots to justify this. If supporters of these reprehensible policies want Congress to do all the work, then at least give them a bone to work with by being against it and voicing strong disapproval. "
Frankly, I think the people distorting the debate are the unprincipled ones. I mean, just because they've put themselves on a pedestal to denounce everyone engaged in the debate who doesn't agree with them on one aspect of it or another, doesn't make them principled. It simply means they have an opinion.
The bullshit name calling is for lack of an argument and an unwillingness to participate in the debate. It's all about denouncing, not offering solutions, not thinking about the real issues.
I posted this in another thread.
The rhetoric is to avoid the real debate. It includes everything from portraying Obama as just like Bush only better at it to screaming that Obama is going to kill Americans. If you don't agree with the rhetoric, you're immoral. Yet organizations like the ACLU focus on the issue of trying to sort out the process, and even they will admit that there are instances where lethal force is justified. The issue is who gets to define those instances.
The issue is real and it's not going away. In 2002, another U.S. citizen was killed in Yemen, though it was originally stated that he was not the target.
Derwish had been closely linked to the growing religious fundamentalism of the Lackawanna Six, a group of Muslim-Americans who had attended lectures in his apartment near Buffalo, New York.[2][3]
That an American citizen had been killed by the CIA without trial drew criticism.[4] American authorities quickly back-pedaled on their stories celebrating the death of Derwish, instead noting they had been unaware he was in the car which they said had been targeted for its other occupants, including Abu Ali al-Harithi, believed to have played some role in the USS Cole bombing.[4]
<...>
On November 3, 2002, Derwish and al-Harithi were part of a convoy of vehicles moving through the Yemeni desert trying to meet someone, unaware that their contact was cooperating with US forces to lure them into a trap. As their driver spoke on satellite phone, trying to figure out why the two parties couldn't see each other if they were both at the rendezvous point, a Predator drone launched a Hellfire missile, killing everybody in the vehicle. CIA officers in Djibouti had received clearance for the attack from director George Tenet.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish
Human Rights Watch issued this statement about the target:
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html
It reiterates the conditions for action ("al-Qaeda role," "no control over area" and "no reasonable law enforcement alternative," but it also stresses the risk of a slippery slope, which is the argument that claims: Even if you trust Obama, would you trust the next Republican President?
Are organizations like Human Rights Watch "unprincipled hacks" for offering that position?
Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)That is the question. Your problem seems to be not with whether this is a good policy or not, but just that some people use it to go after your guy.
Could you honestly say that if Dick Cheney put forth the exact same program, you would have gone on DU to defend him from the outrage that would have poured forth?
That is the essence of the 'unprincipled" issue. Blind support for a hero is not a principle.
JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)Congress is the only government entity that can take these powers away. No knots required.
frylock
(34,825 posts)curious to know what your take on the drone kill memo would be if it were Romney calling the shots?
Catherina
(35,568 posts)It's cited in the article. At least some are acknowledging the hypocrisy.
And I admit that Im a hypocrite.
If a republican administration were executing these practices, Id probably join the chorus to condemn them as unconstitutional, authoritarian or worse.
But I trust this presidents judgment that the drones are a legitimate way to take out terrorists who would if they could kill thousands of Americans. Hes making a trade-off, knowing that a successful massive terrorist attack against us would result in far greater damage to our democratic institutions.
Progressives are indignant over the Justice Department memo justifying the policy but Im inclined to accept remarks by White House spokesperson Jay Carney regarding remotely piloted aircraft [conducting] targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists in order to prevent attacks on the United States and to save American lives .These strikes, he said, are legal, they are ethical and they are wise."
...
http://laborlou.com/2013/02/obama-and-drones/
frylock
(34,825 posts)Britney Spears was one.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)This picture is appropriate in more ways than one
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)He initially trusted Bush on his Iraq invasion. He openly admitted it on his radio show. How about the many Dems who voted to give him the authority to attack Iraq?
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I never could and for the same reason I couldn't stand Randi Rhodes.
The many Dems who gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq have been on my shit list for a long time. It's easier for me to forgive normal citizens who gave in to fear than it is to forgive politicians who were voted in to represent us and refused to do so. The old *I was fooled by a psycho buffoon" never cut it for me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)JuniperLea
(39,584 posts)I hate all war and one killing machine is not more murderous than another. Drones save money, and saves lives of American soldiers... but murder is murder.
Splitting hairs detracts from what the main argument should be.
The fact remains that Congress gave the POTUS those rights, and only Congress can take them away.
I hope Obama keeps pushing their buttons until they get rid of all these ridiculous powers.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)No one is or was in favor of "POTUS Romney" on this board.
The twists in logic to defend the indefensible is appalling.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)I'd feel a lot better but they're not. They're just standing fast with scum like Bolton, Malkin, Peter King, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.
At that point you might as well be standing right between Bush and Cheney both, holding their hands and saying "thank you".
ProSense
(116,464 posts)posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022351594
Still, I'll add my responses here.
Seems like Greenwald is still trying to save face.
Is Glenn Greenwald trying to save face?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002791988
Glenn Greenwald and His Repulsive Hypocrisy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/03/1184268/-Glenn-Greenwald-and-His-Repulsive-Hypocrisy
Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435
Wonder if Greenwald considers the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act an "unprincipled" hack?
Flashback: Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022319856
Democrats debate issues and understand that the world isn't black and white. It's beyond disgusting that a hypocrite like Greenwald continues to spew his vitriol at supporters of the President who disagree with him. Given his support for the illegal war in Iraq, his attempts to portray Obama supporters as similar to Bush supporters is pathetic.
Here's something he should consider: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022351762
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)He must be an "unpricipled" hack.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Yes democrats are never wrong and never change their minds...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Greenwald is a hypocrite
Nothing "silly" about that.
Considering that I never supported the illegal Iraq war as he once did, I think it's the height of hilarity for Greenwald to be calling people "unprincipled hacks" for having a legitimate debate.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)it's more like "I trust my president with everything!". If only making it about Greenwald could erase the stench...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If only making it about Greenwald could erase the stench..."
...nonsense. Why on earth is Greenwald so focused on calling Obama supporters names instead of debating the issue?
His entire game is equating Obama supporters to Bush's, likely because he need to come to terms with having supported the Iraq war.
In this debate, there is a real issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2353179
Greenwald's name calling is a pathetic glimpse into his pathetic hypocrisy, nothing else.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Bush bots and Obama bots, and their strikingly similar attitudes about liberties, trust and imperial power.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He's focused on the similarities between Bush (himself) and Obama bots "
Fixed!
John2
(2,730 posts)gentleman take the American people as stupid and can't make up their own minds. He is not the only person on Earth can think intellectually. His premise that President Obama is indescriminately targeting Armericans with some hit list, makes it appear the President is a roque, drunk with power.
He is defending this one guy, that fled the United States because of allegations of him working with known Terrorists. The people collecting this evidence were our own intelligence agencies, including Law Enforcement. They apparently gave this evidence to the President. In 2001, Congress gave the President authority to go after Al Qaeda and persons operating with Al Qaeda by any means. This authorization also comes under the powers of the President as this country's Commander in Chief. The President's Authority means what it says in special circumstances like this and should not be taken lightly by this gentleman. There is very good evidence this man committed treason and was in on assisting Terrorist organizations attacking and killing American citizens.
He lost his rights when he put himself in an adveserial position by fleeing the United States. He was killed in the Middle East. The Middle East is a battlefield and harbors Terrorists. These thoughts were not invented by President Obama but my own thoughts. I'm nobody's stooge and doubt many of the Americans whom agree with the President. War is hell! And if the President did not take action against the traitor, I would be the first to criticize him for not doing so!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To attempt to claim opposition to the war as a platform to attack those who supported it, it is necessary to not support giving the Pentagon to others who supported it, Republican, anti choice, right wing Iraq War Yes voting Chuck Hagel.
I actually opposed the invasion, which is why I don't care for Greenwald much, also why I don't support Republican Chuck. See how that works? What you are doing is damning one of them whiel giving the other the entire military to run.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Well played.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I don't care, I oppose Republicans for attacking anyone based on objection to the Iraq war. President Obama makes his nominations. I gave up opposing them since I opposed Hillary, mostly because I was rooting for Kerry.
Still, what does that have to do with Greenwald attacking Obama supporters?
I mean, my point is my opinion versus his. He wants to claim he was unaware of what I was aware of, and now he's attacking Obama supporters using a bullshit false equivalency.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)man being given power, 'I don't care' and 'I gave up opposing'. Pro, no offense but that is what Greenwald is talking about in the piece. You are harping about HIS IRW support, but in the face of Hagel getting real power, who also made that vote it's 'whatever Obama wants, I don't care'.
It is not consistent, and unless you oppose Hagel and the rest of the IRW Yes men, you really can not use that vote to criticize others. Just not cricket, sorry.
I can, I can say Greenwald is largely not worth my time because he supported the Iraq War. I also say Hagel should not be Sec of Defense and his being made such shows Obama did not think Iraq was all that stupid a war.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Feingold doesn't agree with those assholes. They have their perverse reasons for suddenly claiming to support an Obama policy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2352908
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)As some here will be sure to remind you.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)The best part is that no amount of sneering, screeching, and flailing can negate their hypocrisy. Go Greenwald!
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Well it's either several or one very busy person.
Let me guess, twisting Feingold's statements to their purposes, trust, Greenwald gave the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt in the early days when both Democrats and Republicans were drumming up support for the Iraq war, Palin, Romney and a pony.
Tell me if I guessed right.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)
But there's one new meme! It's in the article and I couldn't believe my eyes
"MSNBC's Chris Matthews decided the program was justifiable because Leon Panetta goes to church often and thus can be trusted."
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Glenn's got game, I'll give him that.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Granted, Republican support was greater at about 82% but yet fully half of our fellow party members supported Bush's invasion of Iraq... many that I knew personally and even in uber liberal San Francisco. There were other people, like Greenwald at the time - mostly apolitical and/or apathetic who just didn't give it much thought. Though some of these people voted for Gore, they just brushed off yet another invasion of yet another country as business as usual and that our government wouldn't commit to war unless it had to. None of these people wanted to listen (in person or via email) ANY of the arguments that I made against the invasion though some subsequently expressed regrets for not caring at the time.
There ex-republicans who post on this board, when they reveal themselves, we celebrate their conversion. There are people on this board who fought against same-sex marriage and yet have come around and we applaud that (we also applaud.
If you visit Greenwald's old blog, Unclaimed Territory, you will see months and years of criticism of the Bush Admin and the right wing. Some people are born political, some come to it slowly, others never end up caring at all.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.br/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Robb
(39,665 posts)That one's got a career more led by a finger in the wind than I've ever seen.
Only possible upside is if war doesn't poll well, we should all be fine with him as SecDef.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Similar to bush but much more articlate and photogenic.
Shuffle the furniture around for a more Feng Shui look to the same continued agenda.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Don't worry though, someone will start a glam thread about Michelle's dress later.
frylock
(34,825 posts)if given the opportunity? I sure did in 2008, and used that against the Clinton supporters quite frequently. i was quite the rube at the time.
"you still buying Obama's bullshit about not voting for IWR.."
...he did finally end Bush's illegal war, which Greenwald supported.
Is Glenn Greenwald trying to save face?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002791988
Glenn Greenwald and His Repulsive Hypocrisy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/03/1184268/-Glenn-Greenwald-and-His-Repulsive-Hypocrisy
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So I assume you support Shock and Awe Hagel, who actually voted for that illegal war as a US Senator to be in charge of other war and peace decisions? I sure don't.
If that vote was so bad that you use it as rhetorical damnation, what does that say of your support for Hagel?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and you can only talk about him, here. LOL!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I was going to say, "Oh, Greenwald. Of course." LOL is better.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Every decision and policy made is now based on whether or not it helps the opposition party. It's no longer about what is right or wrong or what is for the common good. It's no longer about liberty or freedom. Even though what Obama is doing is against the principles of liberalism, we can't oppose it or criticize him because we don't want to do anything that might help Republicans.
And we wonder why America seems to be flying apart at the political seams?
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "
----
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
-George Washington
Washington said, in his mind, political parties destroy liberty and are counter-productive to democracy and individual freedoms. And he's right. History proves him to be 100% correct. Political parties pit people against one another. The party leaders use a herd mentality to shape the opinion of the party members. The leaders then gain significant power over the entire Democracy. And before you know it, you have a virtual oligarchy that represent only the top tiers of society. And there is no way to get these people out of power.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Welcome to DU!
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 30: 1 January 1798 to 31 January 1799
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kydraft.html
Yours is an excellent post. Since I've never spoken with you before, Welcome to DU!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)
You nailed it.
Every decision and policy made is now based on whether or not it helps the opposition party. It's no longer about what is right or wrong or what is for the common good. It's no longer about liberty or freedom.
This is exactly how the one percent keep their predatory agenda going from administration to administration. They can always count on half the country to circle the wagons and defend the indefensible when it is being committed by their/our "team."
Deep, reflexive partisan hatred and partisan loyalty are constantly stoked and reinforced in us through corporate propaganda dividing us into our teams. It's critical to the one percent who have purchased into both parties that our emotional loyalties to our Red and Blue Teams (and willingness to circle the wagons and defend *anything* Our Team does, for fear of helping the Other Team) is fierce and reflexive and defensive enough to override our loyalty to the Constitution and the fundamental civil rights that both parties are destroying before our eyes.
This is the game that needs to be exposed and rejected, resoundingly, by all Americans.
__________________________________________
Bids for blind adulation of the Blue and hatred of the Red
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=2324497&pid=2326611
We are supposed to recoil and vomit...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2320291
This insanity, this GARBAGE, this deliberate partisan political PSYCHOSIS has to stop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)politics that pit people against each other. Demagoguery does too. Still, it's ironic that this claim is being made in an OP titled: "DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks"
Greenwald doesn't wnat to debate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2353179). He wants to name call.
Since you bring up Washington, let me bring up the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Politically driven?
Senator Wyden:
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-doj-memo-on-the-killing-of-americans-during-counterterrorism-operations
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)Thanks for adding GW's voice here. It won't be enough for those who insist on approving whatever Obama does because it's Obama (D) doing it, but it certainly adds a needed weight to the discussion.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it's not the policy, that's the strawman
it's called Iraq and not getting OBL
not one person didn't want obl caught
took a decade to get him.
this whole hate obama alt-media is a sleight of hand lie.
Because no one was not for going into Afghanastan and other places.
it was iran.
patrice
(47,992 posts)to pay the price for their being wrong about the real risks people are facing here at home and around the world.
If the FACT that Greenwald et al COULD be wrong doesn't matter, then they are NO DIFFERENT FROM their own critique of President Obama and, perhaps you'll pardon me, if I go with the "tyrant" I at least have a hypothetical level of influence and control over (if I solicit the collaboration of my fellow citizens and patriots) in preference over the STATE-LESS, nascent archipelagians, whose propaganda wants us to pretend that what we don't know doesn't matter and if it did turn out to matter, if people were to die for what we don't know, that wouldn't matter either.
Meet the "new" boss, SAME as the old boss . . .
And fucking with any hope of U.N. reform, thus, enabling the continued oppressive influence of the IMF in the process;
And enabling fast-and-furious assault weapons markets around the world, while they are at it.
FOUR fingers!
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I can ask coworkers, clients who are dems about the doj memo and they will have no idea what Im talking about, I can tell them what the memo implies and they still will wont care. So what I'm saying is for many people registered democrat, all that is to them is a team color,a mascot.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:31 PM - Edit history (2)
Our political reporting is sick and perverse. We are urged to view elections as a spectator team sport, in which we should play the role of team supporters and cheerleaders, rather than participating citizens with a stake in challenging candidates, making our views heard, and ensuring we are represented in policy.
It was nothing short of sickening to watch election coverage on the cable networks. The vast majority of the reports focused on the horse race...Who is winning? How can Republicans get ahead? How can Democrats get ahead? What did this latest gaffe mean politically for the Red/Blue team? They even provide separate networks for the teams now, so that we can get all the news from our side, without risking spoiling the purity of our loyalties with inconvenient information. Our political "news" in general in this country is dumbed-down. divisive, inflammatory horse-race fluff.
And we are increasingly encouraged not to rock the boat by being active in pushing our candidates to represent us, but to assume that our team has a delicate strategy mapped out that we should not disturb...merely cheer for. How many times were we urged to shut up during election season and not to criticize, for fear of helping the other side? This even though election seasons are *supposed* to be the most important times for citizens to play an active role in letting our representatives know what we expect from them.
And now the "shut up and don't ask questions - Just support the team" garbage is even coming from the parties themselves. Recall that David Plouffe would not even disclose Obama's position on Social Security on TV prior to the election. When he was asked specifically, he responded, outrageously, that that was an issue best left to the Senators at the table for the budget talks:
Obama campaign REFUSES to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594
It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072
The media, and increasingly the parties, invite us to view our elections as a national spectator sporting event, like the Superbowl or the World Series. We are exhorted to simply cheer and vote for our team no matter WHAT it does and to view ourselves as permanent, devoted, and rabidly loyal supporters of either the Red or the Blue, regardless of policy.
The corporate one percent foment and use the tribe mentality
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1489598
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)to a commodity and the bottom line is the new God, intrinsic values and the sacred are dead. Morality, ethics and community are devoured by greed. Torture, war without end and droning from beyond range become the new America
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)which is why so many of us are sad that we must make the "lesser of two evils" choice as it's most often characterized, in every election these days. One needn't make the case that he's as bad as Bush or the Mutt would have been to make the case that in this instance, he's being bad.
As I've noted on several other forums, I'm very curious to see what the reaction of the droners will be should the UN investigations result in a declaration that some examples of their use are war crimes due to a lack of consideration for proportionality, a complete lack of disregard for "distinction" (as all those launched on unnamed/unknown targets or on the basis of "suspicious activity" alone qualify as) etc.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)By Allison Frankel, ACLU Human Rights Program at 11:41am
The Obama Administration recently underwent its first U.N. treaty body review, and the resulting concluding observations made public yesterday should be a cause for alarm. The observations, issued by independent U.N. experts tasked with monitoring compliance with the international treaty on the rights of children in armed conflict (formally known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict or "OPAC" , paint a dark picture of the treatment of juveniles by the U.S. military in Afghanistan: one where hundreds of children have been killed in attacks and air strikes by U.S. military forces, and those responsible for the killings have not been held to account even as the number of children killed doubled from 2010 to 2011; where children under 18 languish in detention facilities without access to legal or full humanitarian assistance, or adequate resources to aid in their recovery and reintegration as required under international law. Some children were abused in U.S. detention facilities, and others are faced with the prospect of torture and ill-treatment if they are transferred to Afghan custody.
By ratifying OPAC in 2002, the U.S. committed to guaranteeing basic protections to children in armed conflict zones, and to submit periodic reports on the implementation of its treaty obligations to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child. We wrote about the latest U.S. report, released in November, which revealed that over 200 children have been held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan since 2008, some for lengthy periods of time. During its review of the U.S. on January 16, the Committee posed critical questions about the treatment of children by the U.S. military and issued recommendations to remedy these human rights violations.
These recommendations include taking "concrete and firm precautionary measures to prevent indiscriminate use of force" particularly against children, and ensuring all allegations of unlawful use of force are "investigated in a transparent, timely and independent manner" and that "children and families victims of attacks and air strikes do always receive redress and compensation." In regard to the detention of juveniles, the Committee urged the U.S. to ensure that all children under 18 are detained separately from adults and guaranteed access to free and independent legal assistance as well as an independent complaints mechanism. Importantly, considering the previous U.S. response to the Committee revealed that the average age of children detained by U.S. forces is only 16 years old and the average length of stay for juveniles in U.S. military custody has been approximately one year, the Committee recommended children be detained only "as measures of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time and that in all cases alternatives to detention are given priority."
The Committee also stressed that allegations of torture and other forms of mistreatment must be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, and that no child should be transferred to Afghan custody if "there are substantial grounds for the danger of being subject to torture and ill treatment." The Committee specifically mentioned the case of Omar Kadr, a former child soldier who was detained by U.S. forces at the age of 15 and was subjected to torture and a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations at the American prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram.
...
http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/us-violating-human-rights-children-says-un-committee
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)This is all our founding fathers warned about and tried to prevent.
And when Social Security is destroyed, we'll be barraged by the same pretzel logic justifications. I don't think I've ever been so disgusted.