When Hillary voted in favor of cluster bombs, did this advance the best interests of the US?

[whereisjustice]

No, it didn't. And neither did drones. In fact, the massive civilian death toll associated with an idiotic foreign policy simply angered an entire region to rally around the motto "Death to America".

Oops. Her bad.

She'll do better when she's president, right?

[Dawson Leery]

1. When Bernie voted time and time against against any regulation

on the ownership of firearms, did this advance the best interests of the American people?

Oops, his bad.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Except that is a outright lie

Epic fail

He did vote for restrictions.

[pnwmom]

11. He voted against the Brady bill and he voted FOR the NRA-sponsored PLCAA,

which overturned liability laws in all fifty states that previously allowed people to sue gun manufacturers and sellers.

So when the Colorado families lost their loved ones to a deranged shooter -- who should never have been able to buy his arsenal, much less online -- they had no recourse against the gun and ammunition dealers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[beam me up scottie]

15. They posted an outright lie and all you can do is shout SQUIRREL!!!

Why am I not surprised.

[Duckhunter935]

17. Yep

That is why Bernie has an NRA rating of D-

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/why-bernie-sanders-alleged-gun-moderate-gets-a-d-minus-from-the-nra/

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[neverforget]

26. You're a subject of discussion by the non alert stalking website

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=831&sid=4b9bcd731a0b64f957be6f840a29407c

Who knew that they can't handle political disagreement in an adult way?

[SwampG8r]

34. SSome of them are on mirt

But they swear they can compartmentalize their hatred and judge posters fairly

[Duckhunter935]

35. right

[beam me up scottie]

36. They hate me at the Cave too, when the trolls hate you you're doing something right.

Our super secret fb page is bigot and troll free, thankfully.

[neverforget]

49. Did they create that site just to get around the Meta restriction on DU?

They can't quit you BMUS!

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=846

They can't stand the heat so they created a website to complain about the website that isn't 100% behind Hillary.

[beam me up scottie]

51. They're outraged that I posted an op about anti-Semitism?

BMUS blows the whistle from the perspective of a deaf dog!

Postby sancho » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:36 pm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... pid=624166

(Sancho's sermon for Sunday morning)

Here, she links an article about anti-semitism as "dog whistles"; code language that is meant to only be heard by a select group. Even if the extreme examples in the article were accepted; what does that have to do with posts on political blogs? Here's what I see...

BERNIE IS THE MASTER OF THE DOG WHISLE!! BMUS is a deaf dog!!

I"ve pointed out many times, that Bernie often seeds the language in his speeches and responses that are "music to the ears" of gun nuts, anti-immigrants, the white male privileged, the MI complex, and YES, the Israel-can-do-no-wrongers. The NRA, Liberty University faithful, and Univision viewers hear it! Sometimes it's a phrase, sometimes it's inclusion or exclusion of logical phrases, and sometimes it's embedded in Bernie's action history. This is the reason that Bernie attracts a subset of Archie Bunkers, religious right, and white male supporters. That's why many immigrants and minority don't hear the message they want to hear.

I'm not going to repeat here all the OPs on DU that drew the ire of BMUS and the pack-of-dogs attacks, but it's not really that hard to find. One reason I thought of it was the MTP interview that Bernie gave a few weeks ago where he clearly used "dog whistle" language over gun control. If BMUS wants to debate her accusations of anti-semitism; she's going to have to screenshot this post because I'm not going to be in threads on GDP anytime soon. It's simply not hard to find example after example in Bernie's language - and it's consistent with his "behind closed doors" votes and manipulations. Hillary on Ellen, MTP, FTN, etc. simply doesn't use dog whistle language!! She tries to explain complex issues and is honest about her thinking. Despite the "email CT" and screaming of the BSers - Hillary's language has less "dog whistles" than Bernie by a dog-track mile!

To connect most dog whistling today (common in political speeches) with anti-semitism (which does occur, but is localized in most American cultural) as "pervasive" is paranoid or delusional. That's especially true if you see a boogie man in EVERY comment and post if BMUS disagrees with it!! If you're not nuts, then you must be one of the most conniving people on the internet. Of course, it's possible to be both.

You may not agree with some of us ex-DUers, or Hillary supporters, or bloggers on other sites. The thing that is particularly egregious in this case is that BMUS needs to look at John 8.7! Take my word for it, just because something is in the New Testament doesn't mean is must be anti-Semitic! No dog whistle here - just straight shooting language that even an evangelical gun nut would understand. Luke 4.23!!

User avatarThinkingabout

Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: BMUS blows the whistle from the perspective of a deaf dog!

Postby Thinkingabout » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:54 pm

Huummm, guess we have been corrected and trained in the BMUS school, NOT. Maybe they will hire her at Liberty University.



Good post Sancho.

Why would an atheist read the bible or apply for a job at Liberty U? I get my fill of religious hypocrites and Archie Bunker types reading the posts at their website.

These people are seriously unhinged and obsessed with me.

[neverforget]

56. Pointing out anti-Semitism should be a no brainer. But you're a Bernie supporter

so you're evil incarnate to them. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the Clinton Court.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I have been railing against religious bigotry here since I joined in 2004.

In fact I'm famous for it in some circles.

But I guess that was all a ruse to fool people until Bernie could run for president and I could call out the imaginary anti-Semitism that everyone but HC supporters is able to see.

Makes perfect sense if you're a poster at hillarysupporterswhohatebernie.com!

[Duckhunter935]

16. Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

So when the Colorado families lost their loved ones to a deranged shooter -- who should never have been able to buy his arsenal, much less online -- they had no recourse against the gun and ammunition dealers.

Except they lost under Colorado law. The firearms manufacturer sold the legal product to a federally approved FFL. The manufacturer is forbidden by federal law to sell to an individual end user.


In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

[pnwmom]

19. The family that now owes over $200k in legal bills -- because they sued the sellers and

are now responsible for the sellers' supposed legal costs -- lost due to combination of state and federal laws. The repeal of the PLCAA was key for them.

But this is just one case. Sanders was WRONG to vote to join all the Rethugs who voted for the NRA sponsored bill to free sellers and manufacturers of liability, even in the case of negligence.

[Duckhunter935]

21. What case of negligence?

They followed federal law and the manufacturer did not sell or have any contact with the end user that committed murder.
What is the reason they should be sued?
Manufacturers can and are sued for faulty designs just like any other product.

A 2010 CNBC documentary, "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation," explored allegations that for decades the company covered up a design defect, which Remington continues to deny. But now, under a nationwide settlement filed Friday in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/remington-700-massive-fix-countrys-most-popular-gun-n262721

Firearms manufacturer Taurus has agreed to a voluntary recall of nearly 1 million pistols as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that alleges nine handgun models had defects, including one that caused some to inadvertently fire when dropped.

"This is not an anti-firearms lawsuit. This is a defective product lawsuit," said Birmingham attorney Todd Wheeles, co-lead counsel representing plaintiffs in the 2013 federal lawsuit. "This hopefully will help save lives by taking defective firearms off the street."

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/07/taurus_agrees_to_voluntary_rec.html

[pnwmom]

24. The sellers were negligent. The PLCAA also overturned laws holding sellers

responsible for not selling to lunatics.

[Duckhunter935]

31. Colorado Law did

[Duckhunter935]

28. Actually the Brady center should pay

As the family were members and they agreed with and were represented by them. Read the judgement, it is very interesting.

The named plaintiffs have active roles in the Brady Center as shown in the attachments to LuckyGunner’s reply and in press releases from the Brady Center heralding the filing of their lawsuit and identifying three of its lawyers as representing the plaintiffs. Two of those attorneys attended oral argument on the defendants’ motions and signed pleadings filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the attorneys from Arnold & Porter.It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court. LuckyGunner has made the argument that because this civil action was a meritless “political lawsuit,” plaintiffs’ counsel should have joint liability for the fees and costs. The procedural requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) have not been followed and for this court to take the initiative to issue an order to show cause under Rule 11(c)(3) would prolong this matter which is on appeal. Ruling now on these fee applications may enable any disagreements to be added to the issues on appeal. There is no dispute that the Colorado statutes cited above provide for recovery of the moving defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in defending this action.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/269155336/Judge-orders-Brady-to-pay-203K-in-defendants-legal-fees

[HooptieWagon]

30. Maybe they shouldn't have spent $200K on a case they were sure to lose?

[Duckhunter935]

33. They did not spend 200K

the Brady center and the employees files a frivolous lawsuit and were required to pay the defendants costs. See my other post as it is broken down in the judges order.

[pnwmom]

42. These are the overblown legal costs of the gun sellers, which they plan to donate to the NRA.

They acknowledged that the award was much higher than their actual costs (there was only one hearing) .

[Duckhunter935]

45. The costs were all detailed

in the judgement. Itemized for each defendant. Who actually acknowledged they were too high? Link please.

I have been kind enough to link to every thing I have stated.

[pnwmom]

52. "We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion! Lucky Gunner has said that it is going to donate all these fees to "gun rights" groups. The thought is disgusting to us that Lucky Gunner does not even plan to use this money to pay for their attorney's fees.

Lucky Gunner wants to use blood money to fund the NRA and like-minded groups. See for yourself. Check out Lucky Gunner's self-serving description of our case then click on "Head Here" (the green words at the end of Lucky Gunner's last sentence) to find out how the money is to be distributed.


http://www.luckygunner.com/brady-v-lucky-gunner

The Brady Center predictably appealed the judge’s ruling and we are prepared to continue defending your rights and ours. While it is not yet clear when the $111,971.10 fee reimbursement will be paid, we are going to donate 100% of what is recovered to groups that support and defend the 2nd Amendment. We will fight to recover these funds from the Brady Center and to hold the Brady Center responsible for yet another frivolous lawsuit.

Please tell us where you want the recovered fees to go by voting in the form below. A number of organizations were added per shooter requests on June 23. We will end the voting on August 1, 2015. Once we have recovered the fees, we'll cut checks to each organization receiving votes on a percentage basis. In other words, if "Organization A" gets 5% of the vote, it will receive 5% of whatever is recovered.

[Duckhunter935]

62. I know the case

They were members of the Brady organization. Were told they would lose in court and continued anyway. The defendants fees were all itemized and in none of your links do they say they were not correct.

2:38 They admitted they were told they would lose and went ahead anyway, knowing they would have to pay those legal fees.

Brady center filed the lawsuit as they admitted here at 2:33. They are not appealing as they would lose again at 4:40
http://www.msnbc.com/newsnation/watch/aurora-shooting-victims-parents-face-fees-491899971529

[pnwmom]

64. None of this makes it morally justified for an arms dealer to sell military quality ammunition

online to un-vetted individuals who could be planning violently deluded or terrorist acts.

Or to support a law, the PLCAA, that helps make this possible.

[Duckhunter935]

66. most ammiunition is military grade

with the exception of hollow points which are not as the do too much damage. Military grade ammunition is designed not to break up up or expand.

They should do what they are doing now, try and get laws changed not sue for political purposes.

[pnwmom]

67. And Bernie Sanders should introduce a law to repeal the PLCAA.

He's not running for Senator of Vermont now.

He's running for President and that law, while popular in rural Vermont, is not what the U.S. needs.

[Duckhunter935]

68. Why, he is right on this one

It is there to stop SLAAP suits just like they had to do for small aircraft manufacturers. Treat them the same as all others and the law would not be needed. Some tried to litigate them out of business with many unwinnable frivolous lawsuits.

[Duckhunter935]

18. That is why Bernie has an NRA rating of D-

That is why Bernie has an NRA rating of D-

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/why-bernie-sanders-alleged-gun-moderate-gets-a-d-minus-from-the-nra/

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[TM99]

4. Except sanders did vote for regulation.

Do you need help finding a list of these?

[SamKnause]

5. That is a lie.

[frylock]

7. Conservatives lie to promote thier views..

it's just what conservatives do. They lie.

[Ed Suspicious]

20. It's funny. They post this shit at a place they dub "Bernie Underground," a place that skews 90%

in favor of Bernie Sanders for president, all the while seemingly expecting not to get called out on a blatant lie.

[Duckhunter935]

22. I am sure the OP will retract that lie

[HooptieWagon]

32. Doubtful.

They can't win on issues...lies is all they got.

[whereisjustice]

9. lol - when senate democrats voted against ban of assault rifles, Sanders voted for ban

When Hillary voted for the Iraq War, Sanders voted against it.

When Hillary voted for cluster bombs, Sanders voted against them.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

[beam me up scottie]

14. That's a lie: Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

Why would you post a blatant lie?

[sulphurdunn]

37. This is a red herring.

The thread was about HRC voting for the continued use of cluster bombs. Ninety-percent or more of the tens of thousands killed and maimed by cluster bombs are civilians. Undetonated cluster bombs continue killing years after hostilities cease. So, were I inclined to use a red herring myself, I'd note that while she voted for holding gun manufactures liable for what their customers do with their weapons , she also voted not to hold cluster bomb manufacturers liable for what the Pentagon does with theirs. Oops! her triangulation.

[Scootaloo]

53. So, about those cluster bombs...?

Or the Levin amendment, maybe you can tell us about your candidate voting against that one?

[FarPoint]

59. Very sharp.. M

[reddread]

2. which interests?

fully and successfully advanced certain interests.
not ours.
definitely.

[SamKnause]

6. Exactly !!!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. There is certainly blood on the hands of Hillary Clinton.

But it's ok because they are nameless faceless brown people on the other side of the world, if you're a true liberal you can look past all the dead and do whats right for the wealthy here at home.

[Hydra]

10. Brown people don't count, or something like that

So in her world, there's no blood on her hands- she did what was right for her carr...I mean, her country!

[pangaia]

12. "carr...." . ooppss.. exactly...

[Fuddnik]

13. Just look at how well our interests were served with the Honduras coup.

Not to mention the grateful Honduran people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Killing people is just "pragmatic politics" and politically expedient "reality".

Look where it got her. She's (allegedly) the front runner for the office of President of the United States.

[Mr.Bill]

25. It advanced the best interests

of the people who sell cluster bombs to the government. That's how everything works in Washington. Everything. Politicians who advance the best interests of the country or the people are a dying if not dead breed.

[NuclearDem]

27. The F35, on the other hand, is undeniably essential to national security.

Why, one of these days, it might even fly long enough to get to that base in Vermont!

[PosterChild]

29. Absolutely , yes. As a people...

... we have the right and the responsibility to defend ourselves and our allies in the world at large. Drones and cluster bombs belong in our arsenal .

Sanders (i belive ) said he would continue to use drones. Wouldn't he also use cluster bombs ? And if not he might want to say so, so that the American people can judge his fitness to be the commander in chief.

[sulphurdunn]

40. Drones and cluster bombs

were designed to be used against division sized enemy advances along miles long fronts and to inflict mass casualties on advancing enemy soldiers. The overwhelming number of casualties when they are used in insurgency conflicts, for which they were never intended, are civilian. If you want to keep the drones for surveillance that's fine. Save the cluster bombs for battlefield warfare. We don't need to slaughter non-combatants on the other side of the world to defend ourselves.

[PosterChild]

47. You seem to want...

...to use weapons for the purpose and situations for which they were designed, and with due regard for the situation and the consequences . Why would you think clinton would disagree? And why would we not want the commander in chief to be able to excersize such judgement ?

[sulphurdunn]

70. Dropping cluster bombs

on mud huts and using drones to light up weddings is not the purpose for which such weapons were developed. Neither GW Bush nor Barack Obama seem to have exercised sound tactical judgment in their deployment. It is highly unlikely any current presidential candidate would do any better for reasons having nothing to do with the military efficacy of their use. When deployed as these weapons have been used for the last 13 years, they are nothing more than weapons of terror. The judgement of the current or next commander in chief notwithstanding.

[PosterChild]

75. Reasonable and responsible people may....

.... disagree about such matters . I'm afraid must disagree.

[PosterChild]

74. I disagree with your characterization of drones...

.... but I don't have a great deal of knowledge about cluster munitions. I leave such judgements up to the professionals and I do nothing want to be limiting them a priori in situations of national need and importance .

[whereisjustice]

41. Saying the US cannot defend itself without cluster bombs is a Dick Cheney worthy quote

As far as Sanders' position on Cluster bombs? That seems clear.

Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011

Guess who didn't support this?

Just because Hillary is willing to spend trillions to kill 100,000+ innocent people while displacing millions more and in the process destabilize a large part of the globe, doesn't mean she is qualified for commander in chief.

Her bad judgement proves just the opposite.

[PosterChild]

44. We may (or may not) be able to...

.... defend ourselves without cluster bombs. However, unless there is a very clear advantage to entering into a limitation agreement, i want to have the option.

According to the summary, the bill you referenced doesn't prohibit the use of cluster bombs, it just requires a clean up plan.

Directs the President, within 90 days after the use of such munitions, to submit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a plan for cleaning up any such munitions or submunitions which fail to explode and continue to pose a hazard to civilians.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr996/summary

[whereisjustice]

48. You missed something important - the actual bill. Here it is S558, not the Dick Cheney edit

There is plenty of scientific consensus that these munitions, like land mines, are killing and dismembering thousands of civilans - far more civilian casualties than combat casualties.

However, I'm sure you can find a neo-con think tank that will argue that the US in grave risk for not using cluster bombs, chemical and bio weapons, radiation weapons, land mines, thermal weapons, sonic weapons, etc.

Potentially all these give advantage to the one who uses them.

Yet none of these weapons can substitute for good foreign policy, which Clinton had a chance to demonstrate, and failed.

S.558 -- Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 558 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 558

To limit the use of cluster munitions.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 10, 2011

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CASEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To limit the use of cluster munitions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS.

No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any Federal department or agency may be obligated or expended to use any cluster munitions unless--

(1) the submunitions of the cluster munitions, after arming, do not result in more than 1 percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments; and

(2) the policy applicable to the use of such cluster munitions specifies that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

The President may waive the requirement under section 2(1) if, prior to the use of cluster munitions, the President--

(1) certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States; and

(2) not later than 30 days after making such certification, submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report, in classified form if necessary, describing in detail--

(A) the steps that will be taken to protect civilians; and

(B) the failure rate of the cluster munitions that will be used and whether such munitions are fitted with self-destruct or self-deactivation devices.

SEC. 4. CLEANUP PLAN.

Not later than 90 days after any cluster munitions are used by a Federal department or agency, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan, prepared by such Federal department or agency, for cleaning up any such cluster munitions and submunitions which fail to explode and continue to pose a hazard to civilians.

SEC. 5. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

In this Act, the term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.558:

[PosterChild]

65. Thanks! I'll take a closer look...

...couldn't help noticing this, however:

The President may waive the requirement under section 2(1) if, prior to the use of cluster munitions, the President--

So, superficially , this doesn't seem to be an effective limitation on the use of cluster bombs.

RE: Yet none of these weapons can substitute for good foreign policy, which Clinton had a chance to demonstrate, and failed.

Good foreign policy is impossible without the threat that these weapons and others represent. Rather than being a substitute, the means to war are a foundation of good foreign policy.

[whereisjustice]

69. Once again, your edit left out this important part limiting use of cluster bombs

This is not superficial. It's a substantial limit on use of cluster munitions. Congressional cowards didn't want the accountability for killing thousands of civilians with these horrible weapons.



SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

The President may waive the requirement under section 2(1) if, prior to the use of cluster munitions, the President--

(1) certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States; and

(2) not later than 30 days after making such certification, submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report, in classified form if necessary, describing in detail--

(A) the steps that will be taken to protect civilians; and

(B) the failure rate of the cluster munitions that will be used and whether such munitions are fitted with self-destruct or self-deactivation devices.

Using a cluster munition against a small target in a populated area should be a war crime. So should using a weapon that leaves 20% to 30% of ordinance unexploded.

There is no self-defense purpose for the way the weapons are used. By your argument we should use nuclear weapons until ISIS is defeated because only a projection of force leads to outcomes in our favor.

Further reducing your argument for violence is the simple fact that our enemies know we have and use these weapons. It is only empowering them to gain more supporters. Although, I suppose it makes some right-wingers feel better about themselves knowing so many innocent men. women and children have been killed in the process.




LONDON — A US cruise missile carrying cluster bombs was behind a
December attack in Yemen that killed 55 people, most of them civilians,
Amnesty International (AI) said on Monday.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/06/07/us-used-cluster-bombs-yemen-civilians-amnesty

[PosterChild]

73. After looking into it further...

.... it seems that neither HR 996 or S 558 have gone anywhere. And although I'm not an expert they seem to contain loopholes and exceptions large enough to fly a cruise missle through . And although she has opposed something similar, clinton was not in the senete when this bill was proposed.

But, assuming you are right, that it is a substantial limitation , I see no reason to a priori limit our choices in advance of a situation or circumstance that might warrant their use.

A soldier should always regret having to use his sword but should never regret it not being sharp and sturdy.

[BlueWaveDem]

46. True, I'm pretty sure drones carry cluster bombs.

[Scootaloo]

55. Well, your screen name was well-chosen, I'll grant that much n/t

[PosterChild]

76. Thx, urs 2. n/t

[kelliekat44]

38. I forgot. She was the only one who voted for that action. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. She has a focus group and a poll on it already.

[BlueWaveDem]

43. Which was the cluster bomb vote?

Because she stood on the senate floor and specifically stated her vote was not for war.

[whereisjustice]

54. SA 4882 amendment to defense bill

SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire,
utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the
rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure
that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any
concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or
temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages,
camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups
of nomads.

[whereisjustice]

50. Many don't realize that Hillary joined with Republicans to support cluster bombs against civilians..

by voting against this simple amendment.

Today, cluster bombs are fueling resentment as they continue to kill and dismember civilians.

If there is a war on terror - the objective seems to be to terrorize impoverished civilians.

SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Leahy) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire,
utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the
rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure
that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any
concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or
temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages,
camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups
of nomads.

[peacebird]

57. I rememeber being shocked by Hillary's support of clister bombs. No *good* reason for it.

Does anyone have insight into WHY she would support such heinous weapons? The bomblets resemble bright colored toy balls, and many children are maimed or killed when they pick up the unexploded balls......

[whereisjustice]

60. It was said she was worried that it might make her look weak. Oh, the irony.

[peacebird]

61. Jeez. But little children are maimed and killed when they mistake bomblets for colorful toys....

Why wasn't THAT her primary concern? It is well known that children see the brightly colored balls and think they are toys.... Princess Di campaigned against cluster bombs tirelessly, and brought us countless images of maimed kids from hospitals in war zones just to raise awareness of these awful devices. To try to get them banned.

[whereisjustice]

63. Here is a very good essay on the subject: "Cluster Bombs Are Not Good for Children, Hillary"

All senators are expected to inform themselves on the issues before they cast a vote. The evidence is overwhelming. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was unaware of the humanitarian crisis when she voted to continue the use of cluster bombs in cities and populated areas. A U.N. weapons commission called cluster bombs "weapons of indiscriminate effect." For years the international press reported the horrific consequences of cluster bombs on civilians. On April 10, 2003, for example, Asia Times described the carnage in Baghdad hospitals: "The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs." Reporting from a hospital in Hillah, The Mirror, a British newspaper, became graphic: "Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that 'all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside.'"

Even after wars subside, after treaties are signed, after belligerents return home, cluster bombs wreak havoc on civilian life. Up to 20 percent of the bomblets fail to detonate on the first round, only to become landmines that later explode on playgrounds and farmlands. Children are drawn to cluster bomb canisters, the deadly duds that look like beer cans or toys before they explode.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/13/cluster-bombs-are-not-good-children-hillary

[whereisjustice]

71. btw - food rations similar in appearance to unexploded cluster bomb ordinance

AMMAN, 2 April 2003 - UNICEF is deeply concerned by reports about the Humanitarian Daily Rations, or HDR, being handed out by coalition forces in southern Iraq. The rations are covered in bright yellow plastic wrap which is identical to the colour of a bomblet currently being air-dropped called BLU 97.

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/2003/03bnapril2wus.htm





http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/06/07/us-used-cluster-bombs-yemen-civilians-amnesty

[MindfulOne]

72. No, but it advanced the interests of some of her top campaign contributors.

J.P. Morgan Chase, for example:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/CMC%20PRESS%20RELEASE_Banks%20Behaving%20Badly%20-USD27bn%20invested%20in%20cluster%20munition%20producers.pdf