Debates
05 Feb 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou're not going to stop a drone strike with a rifle. You might be able to stop another Ruby Ridge. Certainly no guarantee, but at least you've got a chance against tyranny.
I have difficulties with the death penalty. I certainly believe, especially with the racial prejudice in the Deep South, that at least one innocent man has been executed in this country. Even with the mountainous due process afforded condemned prisoners, it is not a flawless situation. But at least there is due process. The article you quoted says it all - if he can do this, what can be not do?
The Supreme Court sanctioned the government compelling citizens to engage in commerce. Now, Obama has granted himself the power to summarily - I'll say it - murder - American citizens. Just because they don't look like me, or believe what I believe, today, does not excuse it. Today, it's American Muslims who do not have nice things to say about America. How long is it before it's middle aged white guys?
This is a very dark time in our country's history.
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyThe issue is not that American combatants fighting American forces or American allies should be stopped on the battlefield and read their Miranda rights. That's a ridiculous scenario. But the extremely broad definition of "imminent", coupled with the lack of a geographic boundary for the policy, leads to a scenario that is not too far-fetched at all of Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles, perhaps a Vulcan cannon, blowing up a house at Ruby Ridge - because today that family would be labelled domestic terrorists and subject to this policy.
Why is it all I hear are a bunch of right winged hate mongers who whine about their Constitutional rights and voter remorse?
This is a policy designed to cause fear, not just abroad, but here at home.
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyThe Obama administration started this policy in 2010, but it's good that you guys are catching up. I'll just hope that my activities won't get me labeled an "enemy combatant".
Why is it all I hear are a bunch of right winged hate mongers who whine about their Constitutional rights and voter remorse?
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672The crux is that they don't have to release info if they deem it a risk to national security. They removed the entire constitution with that one item.
The Justice Department’s chilling ‘targeted killings’ memo
By James Downie , Updated: February 5, 2013
On Monday night, NBC News’s Michael Isikoff published a Justice Department memo justifying the “targeted killings” — without due process — of U.S. citizens who are leaders in al-Qaeda or “associated forces” but are “outside the area of h ...[text shortened]... ut due process and with few, if any, other restrictions. It is past time to hold him to account.
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI do too. To get a fair trial though means the US cannot have anything to do with it. The whole Saddam Hussein thing was pretty much BS. I didn't like him but for our own sake, we should have fair trials. Going about the planet killing people the US doesn't like is very bad as we become enemies of the rest of the world and it is only time before they do the same on US soil against citizens.
I wonder how many people in this thread think Osama should have gotten a free and fair trial (I do).
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNone of us knows the circumstances behind his death. Maybe it was self-defense. I find it unlikely Bin Laden would allow himself to be captured alive.
I wonder how many people in this thread think Osama should have gotten a free and fair trial (I do).
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by joe beyserSaddam Hussein did get a trial in an Iraqi court. How free and fair it was can be argued. During his rule, he made enemies with almost everyone, so his chances of a jury or judge that was impartial was highly unlikely.
I do too. To get a fair trial though means the US cannot have anything to do with it. The whole Saddam Hussein thing was pretty much BS. I didn't like him but for our own sake, we should have fair trials. Going about the planet killing people the US doesn't like is very bad as we become enemies of the rest of the world and it is only time before they do the same on US soil against citizens.
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672Susquatch... If George W Bush had started a program like this, you'd be praising his efforts as a bold step to "keep America safe." Stop being such a hypocrite! 😲😲😲
The Justice Department’s chilling ‘targeted killings’ memo
By James Downie , Updated: February 5, 2013
On Monday night, NBC News’s Michael Isikoff published a Justice Department memo justifying the “targeted killings” — without due process — of U.S. citizens who are leaders in al-Qaeda or “associated forces” but are “outside the area of h ...[text shortened]... ut due process and with few, if any, other restrictions. It is past time to hold him to account.
07 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignAnd why did we invade Iraq again?
Saddam Hussein did get a trial in an Iraqi court. How free and fair it was can be argued. During his rule, he made enemies with almost everyone, so his chances of a jury or judge that was impartial was highly unlikely.
07 Feb 13
The post that was quoted here has been removed"I know of no evidence that US President Barack Obama has been significantly more
interested than most other US Presidents in providing aid to black Africa."
It would be arguable, but it seems that George W. Bush was more involved in aid to Africa than Obama has been.
"I think that I understand their historical contexts better than Whodey, who apparently prefers to believe largely racist stereotypes. Of course, largely racist stereotypes of non-Western peoples seem common and widely accepted among the apparently white Western writers in this forum."
A typical slam of everyone, in self congratulatory style. Are you at all aware of the type of stereotypes that are typical of African leaders in America? What is published generally reflects academic and media perceptions, which generally favor leftist regimes. The Mandelas were always depicted as angelic, until some of Winnie's excesses came to light. The same was true of Idi Amin, some academics swooning in awe of his charisma, and only later learning that he had feet of clay. Mugabe was widely hailed as a savior, of his nation until the racist nationalizations of farmers drove Zimbabwe to starvation and financial collapse.
There may be overall quite a bit of ignorance on African affairs in America, but the general trend has been not to racial stereotyping in a negative sense, but an attribution of angelic and superlative qualities to less than perfect human rulers in less than ideal circumstances. In short the tendency is to idealize and show African leaders in rosy light, not to badly stereotype them.