US actors, intellectuals protest Obama 'crimes'

[Echo In Light]

US actors, intellectuals protest Obama 'crimes'

NEW YORK — US actors and liberal intellectuals joined a list to be published Friday of nearly 2,000 people accusing President Barack Obama of allowing human rights violations and war crimes.

"Crimes are crimes, no matter who does them," the statement reads over pictures of Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush due to appear in the New York Review of Books.

The statement, published as a paid advertisement, accuses Obama, who was elected in 2008 with the enthusiastic support of US liberals, of continuing Bush's controversial approach to human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in domestic security.

It takes aim especially at Obama's decision -- reported by US officials -- to authorize the killing of a radical Islamic cleric and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who is accused of ties to Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

"In some respects this is worse than Bush," the statement says. "First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of 'terrorism,' merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly."

Among the signatories are linguist Noam Chomsky, "L.A. Confidential" actor James Cromwell, actor Mark Ruffalo and prominent Bush-era anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan. By midday Thursday there were 1,804 signatures.

They also lambast Obama for having refused "to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him."

[Bluebear]

1. They never really loved him!

:cry:

[JDPriestly]

13. I hope you are being ironic.

Obama is wrong on these fundamental human rights issues. Thanks to those who are calling him out on them.

[Bluebear]

18. Completely.

[unkachuck]

38. absolutely....n/t

[phasma ex machina]

53. America is wrong on fundamental human rights issues

I have read the WSJ on how corrupt Mexian courts are with an 85% conviction rate. Hello - USA conviction rate is 99% - the highest in the world! ...

The Obama Administration is no different than Bush, for they still refuse to settle or admit that gov't can ever make a mistake! ...

There is no humanity in federal courts. To show any compassion is to be liberal. The US rejects Christian values of the forgiveness of sins or turn the other cheek, or do unto others as you sould have them do to you. There are far too many who use the system for personal vindictive pleasure. The eye-for-an-eye standard was to prohibit punishment to exceed the harm. There are people serving life for pot. America does not respect human rights. They take your right to vote even for tax violations. Death penalty should be voluntary. Stop the bullshit. Enough is enough. Somethings are worse than death. Tortured for life is one of them. - America's #1 Political Prisoner, Martin A. Armstrong

From the Hole XIV
A Nations Humanity Cannot Be Judged by the Death Penalty

The real reason Martin continues to be held in prison as his daughter Victoria Armstrong has stated may be because he will not hand over his computer model's code which President George W. Bush's CIA tried to aquire in 1998. This is constitutionally illegal for the US government to seize copyright material and private property. America is supposed to be all about protecting private property from totalitarian government.

Martin Armstrong's Punishment by a Corrupt State

[Enthusiast]

87. How could George W Bush's CIA

exist in 1998? This does not compute.

[phasma ex machina]

202. Perhaps it's a typo and she left out the H.

Or she sees the CIA as a tool of the Bush dynasty. GW Bush’s cousin, Judge Walker, was instrumental in jailing Armstrong for contempt of court.

[Nikki Stone1]

39. The ones who really love him

have their own forum.

The rest of us expect him to be a decent president. Sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.

[fascisthunter]

111. love ya Bluebear

[ProSense]

2. "In some respects this is worse than Bush"

"They also lambast Obama for having refused "to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes"

Maybe they should have done an ad, or several, immediately after the inauguration demanding that Bush be prosecuted.

Hey, it's not too late.

[wtmusic]

22. Is this a "Godwin Lite" for introducing comparisons to Bush? nt

[marshall]

28. And in what respects is it not worse than Bush?

It seems more accurate that they are saying it is the SAME as Bush, not better or worse.

[KonaKane]

63. You lack perspective.

I dont think it was Obama who launched a war, invasion and occupation based on a tissue of lies.

Have you forgotten already?

[Moochy]

71. But it is Obama who continues the renditions policy,,,

and the 'successful' surge in Afghanistan, furthering the agenda of the perpetual war mongers.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pundaint]

85. We need to pack it in and leave

Staying is not an option

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pundaint]

91. To respond in kind I would have to attack you personally, but I don't need to do that - I have

arguments:

We didn't disrupt Afghanistan in 1978, we are supporting corrupt leaders there now.

Does it matter if civilians get killed by Taliban or us? World policing is more appropriate from the U.N. than us.

The entire nation of Afghanistan never does anything together. It's a bunch of loosely affiliated independent communities. There is minimal federal structure.

We are doing nothing to build the country now, we're just blowing more of it up and causing more collateral damage. Our military lies in their reports on a routine basis. The HMFIC there was complicit in the cover-up and misrepresentation of Tilmans' death by fratricide. Our military leadership is not credible.

We do not even have a description of what success would be.

Our readiness to defend our own borders is placed in jeopard by the wearing out of our ready reserve and the depletion of our materiel.

We are killing our own troops by paying charlatans to handle the logistics, and they have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice American lives for profit.

Our Treasury is bankrupt, and we cannot afford this.

Our legitimate objectives in Afghanistan could be more readily achieved by foreign aid than by occupation. Assisting the people is how the Taliban maintains it's support.

[unabelladonna]

142. i agree with you 99%....

[pundaint]

164. Damn, I'll take "I'll think about it"

[KoKo]

203. K&R!

:kick:

[Fruittree]

89. Thank you - I agree

We shouldn't have invaded either country in the first place but getting out isn't consequence free. It's a mess either way...

[pundaint]

92. Yes, it is a mess either way, but our occupation grows the mess. War doesn't build a country.

We can't participate in the repair until we stop breaking it.

[icee]

99. We are not responsible for the world or the vagaries of the

various development of different cultures. We are uniformly hated, we have no money, we have a government full of liars and poseurs who pay lip service to all problems. Who in the Sam Hell are we to help or more accurately steer any culture? We need to get out NOW, begin to attack and reform our own problems and way of life and then find more suitable ways to aid other cultures than prentending to help so we can erect oil lines across their properties.

[Moochy]

113. Thanks for condescending to lay it out for me. +10 pts for playing the 'you hate brown people!' card

Your post sickens me, and reminds me why i put you on ignore in the first fucking place.

You ascribe all of these racist & sexist ideas to me without batting an eye, when actually you are just projecting.

War is endless, perpetual and profitable because of gullible enablers like you.

""Fuck the Afghans, they're brown and talk funny, I don't care how many of them die so I can score political points and be right on the internet!"


No I'm saying fuck the enablers who think that endless drone attacks on innocents civilians is good policy.

[Chulanowa]

191. be as sickened as you like, your position still leads to the same place

if we abandon Afghanistan, it becomes a disaster for the people of Afghanistan. There is absolutely no other outcome for that course of action, Moogy. I'm certain that somewhere in there, you know this. You know what will happen to the people of Afghanistan. You just don't care, apparently.

So in the end, how does your position come out any different from the manner in which I framed it? You obviously don't care about the fate of the people of Afghanistan, so why is that? If it's not because they're brown, or have a different language than you, or a different religion than you, then by all means, explain to me where your indifference is coming from.

I don't support the war. Invading was a terrible idea, and the way the war has been conducted has been shameful, misguided, and caused even more damage. I certainly don't support the trigger-happy policies used by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

However, it is my feeling that because of this, we owe the people of Afghanistan. We owe them our money, we owe them our sweat, and we owe them our blood, for all that we have robbed, all we have destroyed, and all we have killed. We have been tearing Afghanistan apart since the Carter administration, Moogy; America owes these people all we can give, to repair the damage we have caused. To that end, I feel we must keep supporting their military and police forces and taking the offensive against the Taliban and other likeminded fuckheads in the hills, as a start for the reparations we owe.

if we haul ass out of there, we just once again show the world that we are childish bullies who can fuck something up, and lack any initiative to even try to make amends. Further, we leave the Afghani people in the lurch; they end up paying the price for our violations. Double, in fact, since they are still owed.

I don't know why you have your position, Moogy. But your position is simply untenable, from both an ethical and a pragmatic standpoint.

[midnight]

128. I think this is the safety approach that should of been thought about before the surge......

What you, and every single other person advocating immediate withdraw is saying is "Fuck the Afghans, they're brown and talk funny, I don't care how many of them die so I can score political points and be right on the internet!"

Obama was warned by the troops about why this surge was wrong. It had nothing to do with "these" people being brown.....

The complaint had everything to do with only 100 bad men who were found to be in that country and that spending 1 million per soldier per year was an outrages sum in this nation building debacle. But it goes beyond this for the soldiers. They realize that the govt. is corrupt .... Another piece of this nightmare for our troops.

The people of Afghanistan are living in horrific poverty. If we gave the mothers and fathers a few million dollars to help with crop production for food instead of blowing these people up, it would make a big difference. But just sticking around and blowing the place up in not our responsibility. The U.N. has offered to step in and this is what should happen.

[Patchuli]

130. We were promised that we would pack it in

and leave Iraq a lot sooner than it appears that we are. What is the reason to stay there, again another place we should never have been? I have supported President Obama but not on the wars or continuing anything Bush did.

[newspeak]

134. Isn't it just mindblowing how opening Pandora's box works?

* can lie us into a war. On 9/11 he could have done what Clinton did and hold the culprits accountable and put them on trial. But no, the war hard on president (who I believed would find a way to start a war just because daddy would have been so much more popular if he continued war) had to get us into FUBAR war so his and Cheney's oil buddies and war profiteering buddies could make some mucho dineros on the taxpayer's bill. And, with the help of the MSM, they sold it so well to a very gullible public.

We have paid for this mess and continue to pay for this mess, while our infrastructure and our economy suffer. There is no interest in forming some kind of democracy in places like Afghanistan--a ruthless dictator will work fine as long as they tow the corporate line and the government line. Don't delude yourself. Remember that "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" * moment with the taliban? As we are responsible for the deaths of more and more people over there, how does that stem the flow of terrorism? It promotes it? It's a great recruiting tool, and yet we still do the same heinous acts over and over again, expecting a different outcome. And who is Kharzi? Isn't he the oil man put into place by the * administration?

Yeah, * opened the box, and now it's "we can't get out now", just the way they planned it. A complete FUBAR. Vietnam redux no matter what anyone thinks.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

135. Wow this is completely worthless. n/t

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

150. The only idea I have

regarding Afghanistan is to arm the women. They can hide these weapons under their burqas. I guess it would be a type of 'civil war.' Men are not going to give these women any rights. The women will have to fight for them. However, I realize the women have been so oppressed by their religion and the patriarchy that they might have given up the will to fight...I often hear, 'I suffer in silence.'

And arm the women in Darfur as well. When they go in search of wood, they can carry their weapons in self-defense.

I know it isn't a 'peaceful' way of arriving at Democracy and Freedom, but there haven't been many cases of that in history if ever.

These Taliban dudes understand three things....violence, oppression, destruction. I wonder how these dudes would feel if that violence was directed at them by all of their wives.

Just an idea...no need to get all upset at me or anything. I know how da boyz love their power and patriarchy and all.

Or maybe we could welcome those Afghanistan women who want to leave their husbands? They'd hate it here, I guess. We seem to be at the other extreme of oppression where young women are pressured by MSM and peers to wear as little as possible. Both extremes are bad. I wish the males could feel the pressure to expose their sexuality just for viewing and critique. No more short basketball shorts. No more tight jeans. No more speedos. Just big, saggy pants with ugly boxers hanging out. Alas.

Sorry for the ramble...it's Saturday and I'm relaxing my mind for a while.

[Hardrada]

163. We can't change them no matter how long we stay.

Best to come home and sabe our blood and treasure for our own suffering people.

[butterfly77]

182. They know its the truth ...

but they won't admit it, they also know that you can't just stop a war and be out the next week they will complain no matter what..

Just like on many other issues no one has ever asked this much from a President in 1 year and 4 months espically with what he has to deal with they are FULL OF SHIT!

[KonaKane]

190. While he draws out troops in Iraq, continues with closing gitmo,

etc etc.

As I said, anyone who actually tries to compare this president with the precedeing one is woefully lacking perspective, at the very least.

[marshall]

98. I'm not talking about my perspective, I'm asking about the article's perspective

It says "in some respects this is worse than Bush". My question is, from the perspective of the actors and intellectuals (a motley crew for sure) how is it not worse. This implies some ways it is worse, some ways it is not worse. I'm just trying to figure out what they are talking about, in detail.

[icee]

103. When Bush invaded Iraq, there was ostensibly a valid reason

for doing so. Those reasons turned out to be phony. When that was learned we should have left Iraq immediately. Pretty much the same thing in Afghanstan...except our motives for entering there were as self-serving. Anyway, there were ruses in place for going into these places. This is the Bush, Cheney legacy. But now we KNOW all this and are still fighting in these places and in the case of Afghanistan expanding our activities. From the perspective of the actors doing something we now KNOW is wrong is worse than doing something we didn't always think was wrong. That's my take on it.

[Moochy]

106. That's my beef with Pelosi & Reid since 2006

So those of us who knew it was all bullshit from reading alternative left news sources.... We were right.
Moderates were wrong, duped by their jingoism , tempted by the promise of a Good War.
And now the wars of US empire require a moderate steward. But endless war must prevail now, that is the neo way.

[femrap]

151. 2006...

what a waste of effort on my part. Worked my ass off to get Dems in so we could Impeach the criminals.

I knew then that we were Burnt Toast. That was my moment of Betrayal. That's why I didn't get excited by Obama. They're all the same.

A political dude who was like me...a Unreconstituted Democrat...now says: The Republicans are like the well-oiled machine of The Mafia. The Democrats are just unorganized shoplifters. But I do think the Dems are getting better at thievery.

[butterfly77]

183. I guess now that,,

we haven't gotten what we wanted (impeaching,jailing Bush&company you will be working on the next best thing impeaching Obama..

[femrap]

200. Aren't you cute?

Go make apologies and excuses to someone who is stupid like yourself.

No one in DC gives a rat's ass about you or me.

I am fending for myself and trying to stay out of the way of the willfully ignorant.

You sound like Rush. And with that I can ignore you.

[tomp]

115. with all due respect, you're only half right.

ostensibly: 1. outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended
2. apparent, evident, or conspicuous: the ostensible truth of their theories.

ostensible to the brainwashed and simple only. the rest were complicit, dems and repubs alike. ruses? yes. but, anyone who thought there was a good reason is either brainwashed, simple, or complicit. those are the ONLY possibilities.

anyone with eyes in their head knew with near-absolute certainty that there were no wmd's in iraq meriting invasion. anyone with a basic competency in logic knew that we should not have invaded afghanistan before we fully investigated 9/11 (which has still not happened).

not "worse" now because it was KNOWN to be wrong before. in one way it's better now because it exposes obama and the complicit democrats as working hand in hand with the repubs, the mic, and the corporate powers that be. after obama, THAT cannot be denied, though it was known before.

[icee]

122. US policy may be controlled by the MIC but the average citizen

or even the braindead actors did not know, or probably care that much to investigate the allegation of WMD's or Saddam being involved with al Qaeda. I agree with much of what you say, but I am speaking on behalf of actors. I was doing extra work at that time and talked to actors every day. Many didn't even know where Iraq was let alone that they were supposed to possess WMD's. So I am speaking for the simple. Myself, I was convinced they didn't have them almost from the beginning.

[tomp]

127. so let's be clear...

..are you talking about the "braindead" actors you knew at the time and generalizing to the actors who are signing on to the ad? that's what it sounds like to me.

i would need to know to be able to properly understand your repsonse.

[icee]

132. Yes. The generic ones who now KNOW about continuing

unjustifiable wars which were the same GENERIC ones who only may have suspected (or not) something when Bush was President but did not know that the war(s) were unjustifiable.

[marshall]

136. Maybe Obama now knows something we don't?

I don't think they make everything available to the public, regardless of what they say.

[frylock]

153. the same thing was said about bush..

that he knew something we didn't. didn't buy it then, sure as hell am not buying it now.

[still_one]

3. well they don't like it then let them vote for someone else /nt

[cali]

4. yes, yes. Obama is worse than bush.

[Luminous Animal]

43. In some respects. If the Bush administration announced that it had the right

to assassinate a U.S. citizen, this board would erupt.

[Chulanowa]

81. If the Bush administration announced...

Why announce, when it can keep things secreted away in the cheneyverse?

[Raineyb]

169. Surely you're not implying that making an announcement mitigates the

situation.

[Chulanowa]

189. Nope

But there are people here acting as if these actions were exclusive to Obama.

Quick question; Would Jimmy Carter have battened an eye during his term? I doubt it. he wouldn't have announced it.

[muffin1]

96. Exactly.

DU went bat shit crazy every time Bush committed a crime (which was often) - and rightly so.

Why are these same people not outraged when Obama does the same kind of things?

I'm truly sick of the meme that we 'never wanted him' or we are 'bitter pumas' or we're 'trying to be hip (WTF).

I, along with the majority here, worked my ass off to help elect him. Maybe I'm just a little pissed that I worked so hard for this man, and ended up with someone I don't even fucking recognize. In fact, I was getting ready to go out yesterday - changing clothes in the bedroom - and the TV was on in the living room. I could hear Obama speaking, and from out of nowhere I mumbled "Shut the fuck up" - just like I used to do when shrub was in office. It was sort of a knee-jerk reaction. I've been disappointed and angry at Obama for some time now, but that's the first time that has happened. Just struck me as kind of sad...

[ChiciB1]

120. YOU Are NOT Alone "muffin1" Because I've Been Doing The Same Thing

for some time now!! So tired of "pretty speeches" that keep people entertained, keeps his numbers high, but leave me COLD!!

I used to post here several times a day, but now have cut back drastically! Been checking here because of the OIL SPILL and aftermath because I live in Florida, but felt a need to support your view about Obama!

I too worked VERY hard to get him elected, and hardly know THIS person anymore! I'm really upset about the Specter/Sestak issue, but "the machine" is out in FORCE for Specter and this is just ONE race that makes my head spin!!

I've felt alone and left out for quite some time now, basically deciding to stop hitting my head against the wall all the time. Wanting to be informed, but the stress of what keeps happening is almost too much for me right now... soooooooooooo I check in less and less!

Yes, seems I've given up, but to all who may call me out, I WORKED SO HARD, for so VERY, VERY long and I'm just about worn out! Even if I don't contribute these days, I KNOW issues that keep going on ARE going to impact my life, but feeling helpless and getting reminded all the time keeps my stomach in knots and hyperventilating has become an issue with me too!

Guess I've lost MY SPINE too! I NEVER wanted to feel this way, I DO want this country to rebound and become GREAT and RESPECTED as it was once, but all I can think of is ROME most of the time!! It REALLY DOES HURT more than I thought it would!!

Should I apologize for not being supportive? A question that REALLY haunts me because I'm not sure WHY I should apologize for something I CAN'T support!! I'm GLAD to see some big names beginning to emerge, it's taken a long time!! Could only be wishful thinking now, but I do WISH they have some real success!

We DO seriously NEED some of that CHANGE to happen!! And then there's HOPE.... which I don't do and really think has gone by the wayside for me!!

:hug: :scared: :hurts: :cry: :shrug: ;)

[muffin1]

156. Thank you for your support, ChiciB1.

It really can be like beating one's head against the wall around here. I'm really glad you are here now, and I hope you'll stick around. We need the liberal voices - now more than ever, I think.

Hang in there...

:hug:

[tango-tee]

158. There are more of us than you may think, dear muffin.

So many people have become disenchanted with the Hope-and-Changenator.

[muffin1]

160. Hi tango-tee

It's always good to see you! If someone told me a year and a half ago that I would feel like this now, I would have thought them mad, ya know?

The fight continues.

:hi:

[tango-tee]

162. Same here!

I keep hoping it's only a bad dream, but then realize - hey, this is it. It's real. Huge disappointment.

Think I'll have one of those :beer: and here's to you! :toast:

[eilen]

161. Yeah I sometimes get the deje vous Bush rage from time to time

--like when it is reported Obama supports offshore drilling or reporting what is going on in education.....

[Senator]

94. +1

[secondwind]

5. Yes, but wait! It proves how Democrats are so much more honest and discriminating

with their leaders! I love this (don't ask me why).............but for some reason, I think it is a 'good thing'that out party includes dissidents, and those who dare to speak out.....

[Echo In Light]

8. The lockstep approach was a common criticism of repubs within Bush/Cheney era

[ProSense]

11. Idiocy was also a common criticism of Repubs within the Bush/Cheney era.

"accusing President Barack Obama of allowing human rights violations and war crimes."

It continues.

[Echo In Light]

15. So, everyone who disagrees w/you, you're calling an "idiot?"

[ProSense]

19. No, anyone who believes the administration is allowing war crimes.

Idiotic

Why didn't this group take out an ad demanding prosecution of the Bush administration?

[ima_sinnic]

20. well, duh, of course he's "allowing" war crimes--do you see him prosecuting anyone?

sheesh.

oh, I forgot, it's Obama.

[ProSense]

21. Why didn't this group take out an ad demanding prosecution of the Bush administration?

Because they're full of shit. They're not interested in Bush being prosecuted. They're interested in creating a spectacle around the Obama Presidency.

If they were interested in prosecuting Bush war crimes, they would have been pounding this home for the last year.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. LOL, I'm guessing they did.

[ProSense]

26. No, they really didn't

"In some respects this is worse than Bush...They also lambast Obama for having refused "to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him."

What they did was take out an ad claiming that Obama is worse than Bush. What's there to prosecute?

[Luminous Animal]

65. What's there to prosecute? What's there to prosecute????

What's there to prosecute??????? War crimes. Torture, rendition, and the fictional designation of "enemy combatants".

[wtmusic]

25. And the purpose of "creating a spectacle" would be...what?

To get their names in the newspaper? :silly:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

52. No, because you actually just tried to sell us the idea that no one

cared about these things enough to mention them until Obama became President, and are now making noise to cause him problems. No sentient being on this board is going to be able to swallow that, or your current attempt to dismiss them as 'kooks'.

[ProSense]

57. "tried to sell us the idea that no one cared about these things" I did no such thing.

Here is the exact point I made:

Why didn't this group take out an ad demanding prosecution of the Bush administration?

Because they're full of shit. They're not interested in Bush being prosecuted. They're interested in creating a spectacle around the Obama Presidency.

If they were interested in prosecuting Bush war crimes, they would have been pounding this home for the last year.


"Caring" and making a public/high profile protest are not the same thing. Also, the current ad was directed more at Obama than holding Bush accountable:

"In some respects this is worse than Bush...They also lambast Obama for having refused "to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him."

The ad is basically claiming that Obama is in "some respects this is worse than Bush."

What's there to prosecute?

[Raineyb]

170. Let me get this straight. Your argument is that they have no credibility because they didn't

put out an ad demanding that Bush be held accountable during the Bush administration?

How fucking idiotic is that argument. Of course they aren't going to put the ad out during the Bush administration they never expected Bush to prosecute anyone. Bush just did whatever the fuck he wanted. They expected Obama to go after the criminals from the last administration.

And it is worse if you expect someone to ameliorate a situation and they refuse to do anything about it.

The depths of imbecility to which your argument dives is beyond comprehension.

[Echo In Light]

193. +1

[RainDog]

48. give me a fucking break

people HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THIS since Obama was elected. They and many others were speaking out about this WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

you do a good job with presenting information about specific policy issues, but you should give up this line of b.s. - it's worthless.

Obama has continued AND strengthened the Bush torture policies. Obama has taken violations of the Geneva Conventions FURTHER regarding American citizens.

Face it.

Democrats are not as harsh as Republicans because they can win the batshit crazy rabid right vote. But this administration is just as willing to violate the Constitution as Bush was - and this is something Obama directly lied about - his willingness to uphold the Constitution in the face of abuse by the Republicans regarding issues of privacy, illegal search and seizure... not to mention the international criminal law that regards torture as state policy as a war crime.

Quit trying to blame the people who are speaking out. Look at where the blame belongs. It's not on those who expected Obama to be something other than a corporate whore.

[ProSense]

50. "people HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THIS since Obama was elected"

But did they take out an ad?

"Quit trying to blame the people who are speaking out. Look at where the blame belongs. It's not on those who expected Obama to be something other than a corporate whore."

Wait, is he a "corporate whore" or an accomplice to war crimes?

What people have been doing since Obama's first day in office is screaming a lot of nonsense, conflating issues and promoting distortions and misinformation.

How's that working out? Do you think anyone is going to take distortions seriously?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Finally trotted all the way around the bend.

No substance. No argument. Just spittle and drool.

Say. Is there ever anything that this administration has done or hasn't done or said or hasn't said that you found less than perfect?

[ProSense]

59. I'm sorry,

"Is there ever anything that this administration has done or hasn't done or said or hasn't said that you found less than perfect?"

Are you waiting for me to agree with the kooks who claim that President Obama is worse than Bush and is allowing war crimes?

Don't hold your breathe.




edited missing words.

[Jakes Progress]

60. Not even clever.

That wasn't the question I asked. You know it wasn't. You quote the question in your post and then pretend that it says something it doesn't. In addition you make claims about things that aren't said and aren't implied. Of course no one really expects you to give an honest answer to an honest question. Credibility Zero.

Now is when you accuse me of being a nazi or being a republican or never supporting the president. Your supposed attempts to defend the president do more harm to him than all the posts that call him to answer for his actions. You alienate those that anyone who really wanted the president to do well would try to woo. Is that something you do consciously or unconsciously? It is by design and intent or just the by product of fuzzy thinking?

[saracat]

73. What an accurate and well put analysis! Thank you JP! Well done.

[flyarm]

79. + 10,000! dead on !!! you nailed it!! eom

[icee]

104. That was very good, Jake. This happens all the time here. I

was expecting you to be called a Freeper any minute. No, I do not think Obama is worse than Bush. However, I do think Obama has broken more promises than Bush. But, then, I do not think Presidents are in charge anymore. Well, good luck; I need to exercise a little so I can get my spirits up for the day's worrying about everything.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. so glad you like it!

warms my heart to see it. Enjoy.

[Shining Jack]

76. Kooks ?

Teabaggers are kooks,uneducated and plain dumb.Liberal intellectuals including Noam Chomsky,no less
are kooks to you ? Wow,you must have smoked something last week and can be legally considered
PUI* today for saying something so absurd.:eyes:


*Posting Under the Influence:hippie:

[tango-tee]

159. Abandon hope, ye who enter into correspondence with that one.

Hopeless case. Either that, or a paid WH shill.

[Jakes Progress]

177. Always conjectured

as a shill but another line of thought is a job alienating all Democrats in the name of supporting Obama. Neither of those would be allowed, and I'm assuming the mods would catch on, so the best guess is hopeless case.

[Luminous Animal]

68. Apparently, you take distortions seriously. Otherwise, you wouldn't

spend so much time promoting them.


I don't think this Democratic Underground is living up to some people's expectations. There is a lot of democratic than Democratic.

[RainDog]

72. they aren't distortions

this is a war crime:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

[Raineyb]

171. Who gives a fuck? WHat good would putting out an ad during the BUSH administration do when

we already knew he wasn't going to do a goddamn thing about the crimes being committed by members of his administration.

This is the most idiotic argument I've ever seen. You really need to stop smoking whatever the hell it is you're smoking.

[panzerfaust]

201. Some were speaking out before he was elected, or nominated

Obama is a Democrat, but he is not a liberal.

[RainDog]

54. but for those just tuning in...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/detention

don't want to bring prisoners to trial b/c confessions obtained under torture aren't worth the board they were watered on. -- in addition to possible compromises to intel... however, we know from the Bush years that intel obtained under torture is not considered reliable, so almost a tautology...

Obama's claim of no torture isn't quite the truth...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11228

Alexander states: "If I were to return to one of the war zones today...I would still be allowed to abuse prisoners." How come? In August, Holder's task force on interrogation, commissioned by the president, "recommended no changes" to the Army Field Manual, thereby retaining the torture loopholes focused on now by the tracker of al-Zarqawi.


Obama's FISA betrayal:

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408

The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”

But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.

[muffin1]

110. Is the administration prosecuting war criminals?

No, they are not. I wish we all had been protesting for the last year. So what? Because the protests are starting now instead of a year ago, they somehow aren't still valid?

[Puregonzo1188]

197. Um...they did...numerous times...

Here's a link to one of the many ads they ran in the New York Times:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/flier/nyt.pdf

[Mr Rabble]

67. Many of them did exactly that. Further...

the Obama administration is literally guilty of war crimes as a matter of fact. This is not in question. OF course they wont be prosecuted for them, as no American president ever has, but that does not change the facts.

The Iraq occupation is a war of aggression. Aggression is the supreme war crime according to Nuremberg.
That is just the most obvious example.

Just because he is "our guy" does not exempt him from the law.

[wildbilln864]

143. exactly! thank you!

"Just because he is "our guy" does not exempt him from the law. "

[MadHound]

78. Bagram AFB,

Go check it out and get back to us.

Oh, yeah and ads were taken out demanding prosecution of the Bush administration, along with protests, petitions, etc.

What did you do? What will you do now?

[Ignis]

144. Because they thought their votes for Obama would do it.

Silly us, it seems that the current admin has no intention whatsoever of prosecuting the war crimes of the previous admin--thus leaving a stain on America's name and reputation.

Fool me once, etc.

[Flaneur]

30. Drone attacks, torture, murder of US citizens without trial...

refusal to prosecute Bush-era crimes, arguing for human rights-violating Bush era policies to continue.

Pretty ugly stuff, no matter who does it.

[TheWatcher]

204. Ahhhh, The Direct Deposit went through.

Fresh Material.

[frylock]

155. now it's considered to be a virtue

[Freddie Stubbs]

207. Cindy Sheehan is not a Democrat

[freddie mertz]

6. Hard to dispute the facts in this case.

So I guess the smears will be coming along in....5... 4.....

[G_j]

7. where do I sign?

[glitch]

10. me too. And I'd like it to include crimes against nature. nt

[Catherina]

29. Right here

The things that were crimes under Bush are crimes under Obama.

Outrages under Bush are outrages under Obama.

All this MUST STOP.

And all this MUST BE RESISTED by anyone who claims a shred of conscience or integrity.



Join Cindy Sheehan, Cornel West, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Ray McGovern, Carl Dix, Bill Quigley, William Blum, Joyce Kozloff, Ann Messner, David Swanson, Sunsara Taylor, Stephen Rohde, Fr. Bob Bossie, Peter Phillips, Jed Stone, Tomás Olmos, Peter McLaren, Jodie Evans, Elaine Brower, Matthis Chiroux, Dennis Loo, Larry Everest, Andy Worthington, Blasé Bonpane, William Ayers, Dahr Jamail, Kathy Kelly, Mike Gravel, Rev. Dr. George F. Regas, Donald Freed, Rocky Anderson, Frank Summers, Tom Morello, Ann Wright, Edward Asner, Sarah Kunstler, Emily Kunstler, Michael Ratner, James Cromwell, M. Cherif Bassiouni and...

Add your name to this online statement and donate money so that it can be published in major publications.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2941

In the past few weeks, it has become common knowledge that Barack Obama has openly ordered the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, because he is suspected of participating in plots by Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki denies these charges. No matter. Without trial or other judicial proceeding, the administration has simply put him on the to-be-killed list.

During this same period, a video leaked by whistleblowers in the military showing U.S. troops firing on an unarmed party of Iraqis in 2007, including two journalists, and then firing on those who attempted to rescue them – including two children – became public. As ugly as this video of the killing of 12 Iraqis was, the chatter recorded from the helicopter cockpit was even more chilling and monstrous. Yet the Pentagon said that there would be no charges against these soldiers; and the media focused on absolving them of blame – “they were under stress,” the story went, “and after all our brave men and women must be supported.” Meanwhile, those who leaked and publicized the video came under government surveillance and are targeted as “national security” threats.

Also during this period, the Pentagon acknowledged, after denials, a massacre near the city of Gardez, Afghanistan, on February 12, 2010, in which 5 people were killed, including two pregnant women, leaving 16 children motherless. The U.S. military first said the two men killed were insurgents, and the women, victims of a family “honor killing.” The Afghan government has accepted the eyewitness reports that U.S. Special Forces killed the men, (a police officer and lawyer) and the women, and then dug their own bullets out of the women’s bodies to destroy evidence. Top U.S. military officials have now admitted that U.S. soldiers killed the family in their house.

Just weeks earlier, a story broken in Harper’s by Scott Horton carried news that three supposed suicides of detainees in Guantánamo in 2006 were not actual suicides, but homicides carried out by American personnel. This passed almost without comment.

In some respects, this is worse than Bush. First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of “terrorism,” merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of “preventive detention." Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use such lethal force and extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.

Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime, have now been consecrated into “standard operating procedure” by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him or any future president, Democrat or Republican.

We must end the complicity of silence and say loud and clear:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1170/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2941

[G_j]

32. thanks

done
war crimes are war crimes

[pundaint]

86. +1 He did say "make me"

[sce56]

119. Here is a picture to go with that poster I saw it on BradBlog

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7839

The Lowered Bar: No Court Order Required for President to Assassinate a U.S. Citizen
Eavesdrop on the phone calls of a U.S. citizen without court order? No.

Target a U.S. citizen for assassination without court order or trial? No problem!...
The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.
...
To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the approval of the National Security Council, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

[bvar22]

129. "If the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

Now WHERE have I heard that before?

[G_j]

131. they should probably

morph all the presidents back to Reagan. I wonder what that would look like?

[inna]

165. Thank you very much. That really needs its own OP.

:thumbsup:

[murdoch]

36. Obama has Honduran blood on his hands

Even if you give Obama a break for Afghanistan, which I don't, with US help we had a bloody coup d'etat in Honduras, with people continually being killed. All under the aegis of Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Go ahead, apologize for them. Obama never campaigned on this idea that he'd support coups of elected leaders in places like Honduras.

I proudly voted Nader in 2000 and 2004. In 2008 I voted Obama for a handful of reasons. One being I thought what they said on TV might be right, that people were too racist to vote for him, and that they may be lying on polls so they don't sound racist, so I voted for him so that the margin he would lose by would not be so large.

I will never vote Republican (unless they take a 180 degree turn back to the 1860 Abraham Lincoln or the 1925 Robert La Follette type, which seems highly unlikely), but I vote for people who represent me, and do not vote for Republican-lites.

People say you have to win. Nonsense. Italy, Japan, France - plenty of countries went decades without the left party being in power, and those countries are often much more progressive than ours. This November I am voting for the Green party or the like.

[Cal Carpenter]

9. Are they referring to Chomsky as a 'liberal' intellectual?

Aaaargh!

:freak:

Maybe if we understood what political terminology actually meant we could actually discuss political theory? Jesus fucking christ. Who writes this shit?

edited for typos because I sure as shit better not have typos when complaining about crappy writing :eyes:

[EFerrari]

41. Anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan is a liberal to these people. lol

[Jamastiene]

77. +1

[ChadwickHenryWard]

109. Well, he's certainly closer to the left than the right.

Since anarchism isn't allowed in America, you really have nothing to compare him to. "Liberal" it has to be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. "Crimes are crimes no matter who deoes them." Right on! K&R

[spanone]

14. worse than bu$h*? these fuckers are taking LSD

[Flaneur]

31. I don't think Bush claimed the right to murder US citizens without trial.

Am I wrong?

[walldude]

42. No you are not... and

I don't ever see anyone talking about that. It's the worst violation of Freedom and the Constitution I have ever seen, yet Obama is given a pass. I gave up debating it when I kept being told, are you ready for this... "BUT HE'S A BAD GUY". So the arguement seems to be it's ok to kill someone on the word of the government alone as long as the government says he's a bad guy. It's fucking insane.

[wtmusic]

16. Obama still doesn't "get it" about assassination, war crimes, torture

Holding some people accountable is way past due.

[struggle4progress]

17. This is childish. Anyone, who thinks structurally about the American political

system, knew that Obama would operate within the constraints of a media controlled by corporate forces and a government bureaucracy dominated by years of conservative appointments. Much campaign money comes from people who work within and are comfortable with the status quo. Thus, the options allowed to the President are more limited than we might want to believe

Confronting the political establishment and changing it is not a matter of shrieking shrilly in the hopes that its members will have a change of heart: it is a matter of organizing concrete political grassroots resistance, based on a careful and detailed analysis of political and economic structures; it involves hard work across the entire scaffold supporting the power structure; and it involves shifting the political center

[Usrename]

83. I have to agree with you on this.

Bringing charges of War Crimes to this Supreme Court would do more harm than good.

They would simply legalize fascist tyranny ala pre-war Germany.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. The Supreme Court would not preside over war crimes trials

So that is not a valid argument, because they'd have nothing to do with it. The SCOTUS would not be the venue of such trials.
Here is what Leonardo DaVinci said: He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur. Discuss.

[Usrename]

133. What court do you think would hear this case?

I guess you think there is some separate court in this country, a court that cannot be appealed?

What court is that?

on edit>

I agree with Da Vinci but there has to be a smart way to go about this. There should be a plan, a particular sequence of goals (stepping stones) that should be implemented in order to get things moving in the right direction.

This particular SCOTUS would overturn any war crimes convictions for any Bush-era criminals. Yes, they do have the power and the inclination to do this. I think the first step should be to impeach Justice Scalia. Do you know that he had a sleepover with the defendant in a case that was before him and then he refused to recuse himself when confronted about the apparent conflict of interest? I think he should be impeached over this regardless of whether or not the impeachment would result in his successful removal from the court. I think it should be done on purely political grounds. Force his defenders to argue publicly that "of course it's ok for judges to have overnighters with the defendents in their cases before they rule, what's wrong with that?"

Scalia has already made that argument in writing, so the case of impeachment should be very simple and it should be focused on the fact that a Supreme Court justice doesn't think he should have to follow the law.

The lawlessness cannot be confronted with this particular court.

[pundaint]

We no longer have 10 years to wait for the change we need.

Murder in our name is happening right now. Our leaders are presenting a false America to the world. It is appropriate that citizens disavow this behavior.

[Echo In Light]

208. Bingo

[oxymoron]

205. +100

[ixion]

23. "Crimes are crimes, no matter who does them,"

Indeed.

k/r

[The Northerner]

27. Every politician should be held accountable regardless of party. K&R

[amborin]

33. siding w/ Bush DOJ re: Mr. Arar takes the cake

[Moochy]

74. keeping the DOJ full of career bush staybehinds

it's a big ship full of Bush administration fascists who are all apparently rowing toward Perpetual War.

Obama can't turn this big ship of state around you see, sure, less innocents must die, but it's sheer hippie folly to think that all systematic murders of foreign nationals could just be stopped by his speech, you see. he's just the president! Can't you be happy that less innocent people must be murdered by drones??? jeesh people!

[and-justice-for-all]

34. Well this is clearly misguided..nt

[Bold Lib]

35. Many people here questioned why President Obama did not investigate Bush's crimes.

We see now why. It is a very elite old boys club and one president will NEVER set a precedent by investigating a previous president. It is because that president knows if such a thing starts he/she will be investigated as soon as the next president comes in.

[saracat]

37. Gee, one of the signatories is Obama's pal. Bill Ayers! and Ed Asner!

[AllentownJake]

40. I'm so fucking sick of the Leftbaggers

:sarcasm:

Welcome to the club guys. Now prepare for the fascist wing of the party to call you everything from not pragmatic to Sarah Palin enablers.

[saracat]

75. Put up those umbrellas! The acid rain is gonna fall!

Same old , same old.

[Moochy]

107. With complete support from the site owner!!!

Yay big tent bullshit!

[ChiciB1]

123. I AM Among Like-Minded Friends At Times!!! I So Agree With You From One

"Leftbagger" to others here!!

:hi: :toast:

[KoKo]

181. LOL's...That's the next label that will be put on Progressive Democrats...

I wonder if Frank Luntz is doing work for the DLC? Certainly Carville and Matalin are out there spewing their usual obfuscation. And Donna Brazille is still the spokesperson for the Dem Party.

Where are the NEW VOICES Obama was supposed to bring in..? I don't see them on the Cable or Network Media or in the Op Eds in the failing Print Media.

Where are they? Are we Dems just supposed to focus on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh FOREVER...as if THEY are not the Voices of the PAST and not the FUTURE that Obama was elected to bring us in his viewpoints and in all his campaign promises. ???? WHERE IS THE CHANGE? :shrug: I wish I could find it. I feel like Bush looking under the table at the DC Press Club...looking for the "WMD's" ..and Obama said "Watch out for those Drones" to the Backstreet Boys cautioning if they ever came after his two girls.

CHANGE....PATOOTIE!

[robinblue]

45. K and R.

[RainDog]

47. I saw this ad today. it's very effective

and it's the truth.

[Mari333]

49. knr

[Jakes Progress]

58. Bunch of artists and intellectuals. Must all be commies, you think?

Sometimes those in power have to look at the people that are complaining about their actions. No one the hell cares if some pudding brained teabagger complains? But when people that stand for what you say you stand for and have backed it up with their actions and to the threat of their lives and livelihood complain --- it's time to try to listen.

[Luminous Animal]

61. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Good for them

Obama has been our own Tony Blair, keeping most of the abuses of the previous administration in place and adding a few of his own.

[suffragette]

118. "Obama has been our own Tony Blair"

That's as apt and concise a summation as I've seen.

The similarities are deep and disturbing, in style and in substance.

As you note, keeping many of the abuses of the previous administration and adding some is one example.

Then there's the similarity between Labour's shift to New Labour and what the DLC is terming New Democrats. Similar branding and similar ideas. And most importantly reshaping the party from within, leaving voters with fewer and less distinct options.

There's also the lauding of the pragmatic approach, a hallmark of Blair's that we're now hearing applied evermore to Obama.

The more I think of this, the more disturbing it is, especially considering the way that Blair then and Obama now use this to embrace and enact fundamental changes that would never be accepted from the Tories or Republicans by, respectively, Labour and the Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

157. I voted for him (reluctantly because I already saw a certain Blairishness in him)

but I am SO glad that I didn't volunteer or door knock or phonebank or give money for his campaign or talk up his candidacy among my friends--as I did for Kerry, only to have him concede with undue haste while my feet were still sore from walking around Minneapolis all day in the cold with only a brief stop at noon for a free hotdog at campaign headquarters.

I would have felt like such a chump if I had.

I'm glad that the country was able to elect a person of color. I wish my approval went beyond that.

If we get corporate and military-friendly policies no matter who's in the White House, what's the point of voting Democratic? (And no, I would NEVER vote for a Republican unless they became the Republican party of 1860, which I don't see happening anytime soon.)

[suffragette]

196. Blairishness is an apt term

And yeah, I would be that chump and am feeling it.

It's long struck me that in some ways it was harder in some ways for the Brits with Blair than for us with Bush. At least with Bush, we could confront the head-on takeover with head-on pushback. Not the case when it's an internal shift of your own party.

And now we have our Blair.

Doubly interesting in light of the recent UK elections showing long term effect of this on Labour. There's a lesson in that and a hard one.

[deaniac21]

64. They had better watch out for the drones.

[Senator]

69. When You Get Behind the Wheel of the Torture Getaway Car...

...you inevitably end up in a moral/legal ditch.

It won't be surprising if it costs him the keys in 2012. Or sooner.

--

[krabigirl]

70. I don't know why they were surprised. It was clear from his campaign website that he was pro-war.`

Not Iraq per se, but for the war in Afghanistan and opening a front in Pakistan.

[tavalon]

82. Liberal intellectual?

What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a slur, like Latte Liberal. Does it just mean a liberal who can read, because that pretty much includes all liberals (not so much for the anti-intellectuals) or does one have to have a PhD before one can take on that title?

[Lorien]

149. No, it simply means an intellectually curious human being whose politics are left of center

Neither the term "liberal" OR "intellectual" should ever be viewed as a slur by any thinking person.

[slay]

84. If we don't call out Obama on this stuff - the same stuff we WOULD have called out Bush on

we're no better than the Republicans. Right and wrong is not a party issue. Good for them.

[Autonomy]

90. Anwar al-Awlaki is still alive

and therefore there is no crime. This "protest" is kind of kooky. The mindset that says, "Because Obama is not prosecuting Bush, he is guilty of Bush's crimes," is a wonderful highlight of the extremism of this group of signatories.

[EFerrari]

121. It's actually international law. Under the UN Convention against torture,

when a head of state learns that a torture program is in place, he is obligated to investigate and prosecute. I don't remember the term (amount of time he gets to do it) but there is one. This happened on Obama's watch and the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture pointed it out at the time. Maybe March of last year. Here it is:

CIA torture exemption 'illegal'

US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm

And that's really only one of the situations in question. Another is probably the Red Cross confirmation that we currently have a black site at Bagram:

Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8674179.stm

[Usrename]

141. The whole 9/11 Commission Report is illegal.

It's based on confessions obtained by waterboarding. There is no other corroborating evidence, either. The whole commission is made up of war criminals since not one of these folks has denounced what they did. And remember, these commissioners were specifically chosen for their honesty and credibility. It would be rofl funny if it weren't so damned tragic.

[EFerrari]

172. Never occured to me but you've got a point there.. Oh, brother.n/t

[Autonomy]

174. Obama is no more bound by "International law" than I am

Thankfully. It's a misnomer. Unless the US Congress writes it, and the US president signs it, it's not really "law".

[EFerrari]

175. The United States is a signor to the convention. Not that our word

actually means anything any more. So in a sense, you are right.

[Usrename]

194. We do have a statute against War Crimes:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

War Crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.— (1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
(B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
(C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
(i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
(5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States obligations under that Article.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

I don't think anyone in the world doubts that people were murdered by being tortured to death.

[Autonomy]

195. "if death results to the victim" Like I said, al-Awlaki is alive

therefore it does not apply to him. Also, "persons taking no active part in the hostilities", does not apply to al-Awlaki, who is an active participant in hostilities.

[Usrename]

198. Hundreds died in US custody, at least 25 were murdered.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/ex-state-dept-official-hundreds-of-detainees-died-in-us-custody-at-least-25-murdered/

on edit>

al-Awlaki is a US citizen and I'm not sure how a president ordering the murder of a US citizen would be considered a War Crime under any circumstances (unless maybe there was another Civil War or something) and besides, his murder was ordered by Obama, not the previous administration which has been shown to have committed War Crimes.

[Autonomy]

199. Law enforcement often issues shoot to kill orders

for armed and dangerous criminals in the commission of a crime. It's not really controversial.

[Shining Jack]

93. Kick !

[muffin1]

95. K&R n/t

[QC]

97. They hate us for our freedoms. n/t

[ChiciB1]

124. Fight Them OVER There... So We Don't Have To Fight Them Here!!

Yeah, that's the BATTLE CRY OF THE REPUBLIC!
:sarcasm: :nuke: :grr:

[ecstatic]

100. That headline is a bit--exaggerated?

[Echo In Light]

209. How so?

[defendandprotect]

101. What took so long . . . really amazing that we pretty much ignore all of this here . . .

[Moochy]

108. DU Taboos ...

The uncomfortable Truth is deleted more and here every day....and it sickens me the bunker cheerleader mentality here from so many.

[KoKo]

185. There's been some push back...but most of us hoped Obama would turn back to us..

There's been ramping up as it seems that his "Advisors" don't really care to listen to some in the Dem Party who've been working for change. Finally some of his donors and supporters are starting to speak out and that gives the rest of us who have questioned where he's going some encouragement. It's a good thing.

[placton]

105. These criticisms have the advantage of

being quite accurate.

[fascisthunter]

112. GOOD! I care less whether one is a D or R or I... crimes are crimes

[DissedByBush]

114. Okay Anwar al-Awlaki, turn yourself in

And we'll try you for treason as a citizen.

Until then you're on the run with our nation's enemies, which makes you a legitimate target.

[Flaneur]

140. So...you haven't actually tried this guy yet, but you're ready to sentence him to death.

Nice.

[DissedByBush]

187. We don't try people on the battlefield

We kill them where we find them.

[scentopine]

116. Obama - release the torture photos and videos just like you promised...

and release the records of oil executive meetings before the invasion, release the records on rendition and wiretapping and spying on Americans.

Until then you will go down in history as the president who promised change and spent every working day of your term in office fight real reform and real change.

What a squandered opportunity for real leadership with morals, values and principals.

Instead we get

Blind eyes toward
torture
wiretapping and spying on Americans
wall street corruption and influence over policy
outsourcing
union busting
oil drilling
2 goddamn wars where rural Afghans trust the Taliban more than the US

We get the worst of neo-con and neo-lib philosophies in a mash up of bi-partisanship

Things continue to get worse and worse for people - this is fueling the tea party and dividing democrats.

Fucking centrists - unprincipled, reptile like predators, everything is for sale. Everything.

Centrists see everyone as meat for the "free" market. They see the world in terms of share holders. The rich and powerful have preferred stock options, with special voting privileges and exceptions from common and civil law.

The other 95% of us are issued a few shares of common stock, telling us if we do what they say, the value will go up and benefits will trickle down.

And just like the real corporations who control our government, the centrists and other right wingers are selling everything that isn't nailed down to Asia and all points east. They are sucking every last bit of value and intellectual property out of the USA, selling it, and pocketing the cash.

This is what you get with a reptilian centrist. Always the opportunist, triangulating in real-time.

Republicans are very clear about their philosophies so its easy to see that they are shit. With democrats, its much, much more difficult since they are shape shifting all the time.

[Mari333]

117. [phone]

[Moochy]

125. righteous

:kick:

[KoKo]

179. So many Promises......so much obfuscation and delay..."Look Forward"..."Not Backward!"

What's Done is Done...and "Mistakes were Made." Let us NOT DWELL ON THE MISTAKES....LET US MOVE FORWARD FOR AMERICA... MORE DRONES...MORE KATRINA's ....MORE COVERING UP THE FILTH!

[Echo In Light]

206. +1

[grahamhgreen]

126. Torture is wrong.

[defendandprotect]

188. And it's so shocking that anyone would say otherwise . . . and how easy

it is to convince people that we have the right to invade another country -- two

countries whose government/people did nothing to us -- and to torture people.

Bring it out in the open, show it in all its ugliness and still there will be people

so confused as to support it.

Basically, what I've always heard about torture, I think is the truth . . . i.e.,

that it's about frightening the WHOE population.

It's not really about the people you torture -- it's about creating torturers --

and about creating a frightened citizenry!

Those who support torture should think about that --

[Greyhound]

137. There's an even 100. n/t

[ejbr]

138. Bump

;)

[readmoreoften]

139. + even more

[earcandle]

146. Our leaders are hateful and stupid when it comes to ethics, logic, and passion, but brilliant when

it comes to making money out of their war crimes.  

The country (america) is no longer america as we know it. 

How do we get out?  Start our own economy, own our own labor
forces, our own banks, 
and create international organizations that protect us, the
common man/woman.

and when we do ask our children not to fight. 

[earcandle]

147. but first, we have to learn to stand as one collective american, no more factions. no more parties.

just one collective with principles in place everyone can
trust. 

[Lorien]

148. Love James Cromwell

He's volunteered for a non profit that my cousin runs for decades now. A true progressive who is passionate about fighting for Social, economic and environmental justice. Thank goodness for public figures like him who take the time to bring attention to such important issues.

[Individualist]

152. Those things were wrong when Bush did them; they're still wrong when Obama does them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

154. "Crimes are crimes, no matter who does them,"

This needs repeating 100 times a day around here.

[Mosaic]

166. I'm with Chomsky on this

Even with the president's faults, the alternative, the washed up geezer, would have this country attacking Iran and driving this country into third world status very quickly. I agree though in general, crimes are being committed in America's name, again. It must stop.

[skyounkin]

167. I'm not famous

but I would sign the letter too.

War crimes are war crimes.

Not prosecuting them is complicity.

Period.

[earth mom]

168. Glad to hear that some famous people have the balls to step up and speak out!

Kudos to them! :applause:

[ProSense]

173. If Obama is worse than Bush, what now?

Frankly, hyperbole isn't likely to have much of an impact.

That has always been the problem with over-the-top claims, such as arguing that Dems who voted for the IWR are war criminals. Instead of focusing on the person who launched the war, the outrage is diluted with hyperbole. Since Obama took office, the war criminal claim has been expanded to include Afghanistan. Well, that would make every member of Congressl with one or two exceptions, a war criminal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

176. This can only improve the president's standing. Middle America, and

non-ideological voters hate Hollywood and the "liberal" intelligencia. It might be interesting to see how this plays out.

[KoKo]

180. True...THEY KNOW NOTHING...but they give a Hell of a LOT OF MONEY to Dem Party!

So.....Let the Repugs and Libertarian/Indies give to the Dem Party.

Let it all be the same as it's been. But, SOME OF US...FIGHT FOR REAL CHANGE...not BRAND NAMES.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

178. I'm so Glad to SEE THIS! Some of these same Stalwarts protested against Bush!

And, they waited until like some of us...they couldn't take it anymore.

All that HOPE for CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN! And the CHANGE was nothing but More of the Same!

We can't give up. If Democratic Party wants just their version of Reagan then let them have it...But, let the rest of us work for REAL CHANGE...not some PEPSI CUTE BRAND of CHANGE OF TASTE!

GO FOR IT!

[glitch]

186. +brazillion. nt

[Shining Jack]

192. I totally agree.

:thumbsup: