Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar

Sutton

By J.R. Moehringer
$27.99

more items

 
Report

Thought Crime in Washington

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 28, 2011
Joseph Voves (CC-BY)

By Peter Van Buren

(Page 3)

In this sense, Morris Davis represents a chilling precedent.  He raised his voice.  If we’re not careful, the next Morris Davis may not.  Federal employees are, at best, a skittish bunch, not known for their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking.  Actions like those in the Davis case will only further deter any thoughts of speaking out, and will likely deter some good people from seeking federal employment.

More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it.  It’s okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions.  If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the U.S. government will support your right to do it 110% of the way.  However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on U.S. policies and you’ve got a problem.  In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the U.S. government.

Morris Davis’s problem is neither unique nor isolated.  Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, “Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States.  While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.”  Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.

Government is different than private business.  If you don’t like McDonald’s because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen, or eat at home.  You don’t get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic.  We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government.  It really is that important.  Ask Morris Davis.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq as a State Department Foreign Service Officer serving as Team Leader for two Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Now in Washington, he writes about Iraq and the Middle East at his blog, We Meant Well. His book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), has recently been published. To read about the grilling he’s gotten from the State Department for his truth-telling, click here.

[Note on further readings: You can check out the ACLU’s full-filing text on behalf of Davis by clicking here.]

[Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the U.S. Government. It should be quite obvious that the Department of State has not approved, endorsed, or authorized this post.]

Copyright 2011 Peter Van Buren


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 12, 2011 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

RE: ardee, December 11 at 7:41 am

“As far as JD is concerned,

Descending to calling me an agent of the GOP, how really, truly stupid.”

**************************************************************

a•gent [ áyj?nt ]
 
1. somebody representing another: somebody who officially represents somebody else in business

2. somebody providing service: somebody who provides a particular service for another

3. government employee: an investigator or representative employed by a government or other organization

The word that describes you best is “Collaborator.” (Cyr inadvertently provides the best word to describe the work of you and your ilk.)


Definition of COLLABORATE


1: to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor


2: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one’s country and especially an occupying force


3: to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected


You are in fact collaborating with the GOP in criticizing Obama, and, you are performing a service for the GOP, so you qualify nicely as being a collaborating agent. The GOP is the enemy of Obama and the enemy of ordinary Americans thus, you are collaborating with the enemy of ordinary Americans, (99%, whatever…) the actual occupiers of Wall Street are the ones with skyscrapers not the ones who used to have tents in Zucotti Park. The real occupiers also occupy much of Congress via their GOP sycophants.


Obama says he wants everyone to be rich, but he wants the richest to be less rich and ordinary Americans to be richer; thus Obama is the enemy of the 1% and their sycophants, (The GOP.) Obama is a believer in capitalism as are the great majority of ordinary Americans; let’s call them the 67%, but Obama and the 67% want capitalism to be fairer.


GOPer Lindsey Graham says the Consumer Protection Act is the work of a Stalin, GOPers want to further reduce taxes on the 1%, they want to reduce the Capital Gains Tax to zero, they want to eliminate the EPA, and eliminate all government regulation of business. It is the GOP that is the occupying force, the enemy of Obama, and the enemy of ordinary Americans.


You function as a collaborating agent with the GOP with your false accusations, it is what it is, and your taking umbrage is merely an attempt to deny that which can not be denied.


The appropriate phrase would be “How really, truly cogent,” not “How really, truly stupid.”

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 12, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

sure r2d2—- the only reason that I don’t nod right along with your bullshit
inferences and non-existant proof is because I can’t comprehend.


if only I was bathed in the pure white light of stupidity then I would agree with
your bullshit, but, alas, my ass works off facts.

Report this

By ardee, December 12, 2011 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

As I initially stated:

This is not for hetero, he wouldn’t comprehend it anyway, or claim not to at any rate.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 11, 2011 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

ardee~~~

yhatever you state and whatever sad state you’re in…....y’ain’t shown that the US
still tortures.


you don’t use the word correctly, but, anyway, if you remain focused on calling it
torture…....I used to converse with a guy named Jeffrey Kaye, a psychologist on
the west coast.

look his work up on the internet…....you’ll like it much.

Report this

By ardee, December 11, 2011 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

As I initially stated:

This is not for hetero, he wouldn’t comprehend it anyway, or claim not to at any rate. This is for those who express genuine concerns about our practice of torturing and whether or not we have lying bloody torturer in the Oval Orifice

As far as JD is concerned,

Descending to calling me an agent of the GOP, how really, truly stupid.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment

In desperate attempts to deny their heinous guilt, depraved Democrats often pretend that their free-will choice to affirmatively vote for (D) nuanced corporate party fascists they favor to wage perpetual war, competently manage neoliberal economic policies, and permit protect polluters is no different than paying taxes that people are forced to pay to survive in the corporate state.

It is the disingenuous liberals’ insistence that their choosing to provide popular mandates affirmatively supporting a continuum of corporate state crimes is a necessity that ensures that evil always succeeds.

The corporate party’s ignorant Republicans vote for war because they think it is the answer.

It is the corporate party’s “intelligent” Democrats’ votes that make war the only answer.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 10, 2011 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

Saint David the Seer sees 99% of Americans as
traitors to America.

Saint David is a burn-out thinks everybody else’s
shit stinks but his is Angelfood.

Saint David avoids being a collaborator by paying no
sales taxes, filing no income-tax statements, and
refusing to get a driver’s license.
As well he disdains associating with any physician
who accepts a state license issued in accordance with
requirements imposed by political appointees from
those mainstream political parties.

For Saint David and Purity of Essence, we bow our
heads.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 10, 2011 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

collaborator:

a person who works with an enemy who has taken control of their country

Example: a corporate collaborating corporate (R) & (D) party dedicated voter

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 10, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

By ardee, December 9 at 3:07 am

JDmysticDJ, December 8 at 10:38 am

This last effort of yours is nothing more than a sad diatribe showing plainly that your defense of the status quo is far too difficult for you.
Descending to calling me an agent of the GOP, how really, truly stupid.

***************************************************************

I understand now. My pointing out that you are using tactics similar to that of right-wing demagogues is inadequate to dispute the unsupported claim that Obama approves of torture, while your calling people “Multihued Scoundrels,” Multihued lying sack ,“ Multicolored sad sacks” “Truly Stupid,” and writing that people have “Their head up their rectum beliefs,” are “Strident and ignorant,” “That they have made “A jackass of themselves,” etc. is a validation of your unsupported argument regarding Obama approving of torture.


Fifth Col•umn

1.  secret or subversive group: a secret or subversive group that seeks to undermine the efforts of others and promote its own ends.

Not a good definition of your ilk. Your ilk are not a secret group. Your ilk are very vocal and open with your false accusations, but clearly your ilk are attempting to undermine the efforts of others in order to promote your own ends. To what end your ends? Jill Stein and the Green Party have absolutely no potential for gaining majority control of our government. At most the Green Party will succeed in splitting the opposition to Republicans thereby allowing Republicans to take majority control of our government.

I would very much like to enlighten you as to what is currently occurring in the Halls of Congress, but instead I’ll ask, “Do you know what is currently occurring in the Halls of Congress?” I don’t believe you have a clue as to what is currently happening in the Halls of Congress. I believe you have no other interest than that of promoting your impossible dream. I believe that if you took the time to follow our politics you would distort the realities to serve your ends and that you would be oblivious to the reality that Democrats are currently struggling to promote the interests of ordinary Americans and that Republicans are bound and determined to destroy the social safety net and promote the interests of environment destroying corporatists. Republicans are currently demanding actions that would have the following consequences: the further degradation of our environment, the further enrichment of corporate interests, and the further weakening of the economic health of ordinary Americans.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

I foresee an unwanted but unavoidable compromise coming up, a compromise made necessary by Democrats lacking sufficient political power to achieve their goals, and it is you and your ilk that seek to further diminish the political power of Democrats. I also foresee you and your ilk screaming bloody murder when that necessary compromise comes to pass and I foresee you and your ilk screaming bloody murder regardless of whether Democrats hold the line or submit to compromise. What will finally transpire is uncertain but what is certain is that you and your ilk will scream bloody murder regardless of final outcome. For example, you and your ilk have been screaming bloody murder about the occupation of Iraq, and now you and your ilk are screaming bloody murder about the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, a reality that you will not acknowledge as being something positive, to you the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq is another proof of Obama’s perfidy.

Now, Bill Quigley is a great American advocate and protector of civil liberties by my appraisal. His 20 condemnations of the Obama Administration are, I believe, valid. I have tautologically stated my opinion that Obama’s National Security and Foreign Policy actions are reprehensible and tragic. My point has been and continues to be that turning over our government to Republicans will not end these violations of civil liberties or tragic foreign policies, quite the contrary, under Republicans these policies will be escalated not eliminated. Republicans have clearly stated their intentions and objectives and their criticisms of Obama have been unending.

Is Jill Stein the best choice? I believe she would be the best choice, if only… Jill Stein has stated her objectives clearly in a general way, but, sadly, Jill Stein’s objectives can not and will not become a reality under current political realities, or perhaps even in any foreseeable political reality. The reality that could possibly lead to Jill Stein’s election would of necessity be a reality of much greater catastrophe than we are now experiencing and even if things deteriorated to such a point there is no guarantee that the election of Jill Stein or equivalent would result. As it now stands, Jill Stein will be seen by the electorate, at worst, as a kook not to be given any consideration, and at best as a political anomaly with good ideas but not as a viable political candidate. I as a member of the electorate see it that way. Jill Stein is not and will not be a viable political candidate now or anytime in the near future. I am a great admirer of Eugene Debbs. Eugene Debbs ran as a Socialist candidate for President several times and he never received anything but a tiny insignificant percentage of the vote during the height of the Robber Baron era. If the economy continues to suck, the American electorate will become reactionary and vote for those who will make their circumstances even worse.

I could continue to expound and pontificate about: Political realities, progress coming in increments, sometimes encompassing generations not single elections, making best choices in order to advance progress, new paradigms evolving rather than suddenly occurring, but such would be a waste of my time and futile when dealing with the likes of you. Are you being counter productive, are you demanding the impossible under current realities, are you being juvenile and irrationally emotional? Yes you are!

Let us imagine the impossible, that Jill Stein would be elected President of the U.S. Would you also condemn Jill Stein as you have condemned Obama for not achieving objectives? Recognizing the most villainous is not at all difficult, but you in a futile effort to achieve your impossible dream insist on equating the better with the worst.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 10, 2011 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

aredee~~~~~ he said no more torture, b ut left loopholes…


So what if the ACLU agrees tht Obama ended torture…....

Loophole #1—-is that he flat-out says no torture for “armed conflict” detainees,
which were the guys who were being tortured by the Bush admin—- it was always
illegal to torture regular prisoners under fed statutes—it was only the so-called
“illegal combatants” who were said to be “torturable”.


This is the ACLU statement that the guy in your link is working from

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-orders-guantanamo-
closed-and-end-torture


neither your linked guy nor the ACLU say that torture has continued.

What they’re saying is that OTHER things weren’t prohibited.

Now you can piss and moan about those other things….but you can’t say that the
Obama admin tortures and that Obama has blood on his hands because he has
people tortured.

Your simply reading incorrectly and jumping from “because there still is A, then
there must be C” 

doesn’t work.

and you can call me stupid for failing to agree that your unwarranted inferences
are true…but you simply have no grounds for your assertion that torture is
ongoing.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

part 4 , an dlast

On the Red Cross’s monitoring of detainees, the executive order reads:

All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.

Here again, if a detainee is not one captured on the battlefield by US soldiers in an armed conflict, Obama’s order provides no guidance as to his fate.  Government and private thugs may evidently still brutalize detainees obtained in counterterrorism operations and hide them from the Red Cross, unless and until the president issues a further executive order, or Congress passes a law, closing this loophole.

Loophole 4: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue.

Obama’s executive order on torture does not label any particular practice “torture,” but instead requires that future interrogation practices conform to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. This may be in deference to Bush administration officials who authorized procedures like waterboarding while simultaneously declaring, “ America does not torture.”  Debate in some circles will doubtless continue, therefore, over whether waterboarding; deprivation of food, water, and sleep; humiliation; and infliction of severe bodily pain and injury indeed constitute torture.

The executive order imparts the following limitations:

Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes [emphasis added].

By this language, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation procedures are prohibited by implication because they are not authorized by the Army Field Manual.  But like other parts of Obama’s order, this prohibition apparently applies only to persons detained in an armed conflict.  As discussed above, we are left to wonder whether detainees grabbed in counterterrorism operations can continue being tortured.

Conclusion

The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick.  Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture.  The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

part 3

Moreover, we know that many Guantanamo detainees from Pakistan and Afghanistan were sold to US officials by bounty hunters paid up to $25,000 per detainee, regardless of innocence.[2]  Are these persons to be considered “individuals detained in [an] armed conflict”?  Or must they be arrested while fighting on the battlefield to fit this qualification?  Put differently, are blameless, uneducated goat herders who were sold into detention by warlords and mercenaries exempted from the president’s clarified prohibition of torture, simply because they never stepped foot on a battlefield?

Another concern is the US military’s deployment in American cities, which began on October 1, 2008, according to the Army Times.[3]  Perhaps this deployment is in preparation for social unrest in the event of an economic collapse.  If martial law were declared in America , how would citizens be treated?  What if they were detained in FEMA detention facilities?  Could they be tortured under the umbrella of “counterterrorism operations” because that is different from “armed conflict”?

To Americans wishing to remain free of torture, a far greater threat than detention during armed conflict is that resulting from what the federal government labels as counterterrorism operations, conducted both on US soil and overseas.  Unfortunately, President Obama has not yet clearly addressed torture in this category.

Loophole 2: Only the CIA must close detention centers.

President Obama has ordered the CIA to close detention centers, except those “used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis,” which can stay open indefinitely.  Exactly how long a duration is “short-term” and “transitory” is unclear.

The executive order states:

The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

This sounds wonderful, but what about other federal agencies?  Can the FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Defense Intelligence Agency maintain detention facilities where torture may occur?  Can private military contractors like Blackwater do so?  Under one interpretation of Obama’s executive order on torture, those facilities may still operate and even expand, provided the CIA doesn’t control them.  Is it cynical to suspect this could be window dressing?

Loophole 3: Officials may still hide some detainees and abusive practices from the Red Cross.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

part 2

the order states in part:

Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].

This sounds salutary: America should not torture people detained in armed conflicts.  But are such conflicts the only situations in which the US military, federal agencies, and private security companies can detain people today in the name of the war on terror?

Hardly.  Many US and foreign citizens have been detained in counterterrorism operations, which another of Obama’s January 22 executive orders carefully differentiates from armed conflicts.

In that other executive order, entitled “Review of Detention Policy Options,” a special task force is commissioned to review procedures for detention suspects.  This order clearly distinguishes between “armed conflicts” and “counterterrorism operations”:

The mission of the Special Task Force shall be to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.

As the president has made this distinction, so should we.

To date, counterterrorism operations have resulted in hundreds of arrests of persons in America and abroad, having nothing whatever to do with any armed conflict.  Does President Obama wish limits on what is done to these people when detained and interrogated?  His executive order on torture is silent on the issue.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

This is not for hetero, he wouldn’t comprehend it anyway, or claim not to at any rate. This is for those who express genuine concerns about our practice of torturing and whether or not we have lying bloody torturer in the Oval Orifice.


part 1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041

Obama’s Torture Loopholes

by Prof. James Hill

 
Global Research, January 26, 2009


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects.  Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.

When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”

The ACLU summarized the new orders:

President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.

Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:

These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.[1]

Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed.  Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.

Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”

The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.

The order states in part:

Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].

This sounds salutary: America should not torture people detained in armed conflicts.  But are such conflicts the only situations in which the US military, federal agencies, and private security companies can detain people today in the name of the war on terror?

Hardly.  Many US and foreign citizens have been detained in counterterrorism operations, which another of Obama’s January 22 executive orders carefully differentiates from armed conflicts.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 10, 2011 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

After their votes allowed Democrats to wage more wars “better” and have torture done more discretely, the liberals’ outrage over war and torture has disappeared.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 10 at 7:29 am

Do you honestly believe that others who read the provided links are as blind to their content as are you? Do you even care what a jackass you have made of yourself and how your opinions carry no weight precisely because you are so blind to the obvious?

You are an advertisement for birth control.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 10, 2011 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

that’s better, son.

rather than continuing to put up links that DON’T show
that Obama tortures, you can just blame it on me and
slink off to try something else.

good enough.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2011 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

The multicolored sad sack…

Your increasingly strident and ignorant comments, showing plainly that you either have a reading disorder or a refusal to see anything contradictory to your own head up your rectum beliefs, are seriously silly.

Sad for you, a waste of time for everyone else.

Report this

By prosefights, December 9, 2011 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

Deal with real crimes.  Like genocide.

Friday December 9, 2011 17:58

Don Noack
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
(505) 844-2145
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES CORPORATE OMBUDS OFFICE

Hello Mr Noack,

No response from you since yourphone message
http://www.prosefights.org/deaton/audio/noack/legalbadkdea.mp3
prompts to me inquire about your efforts.

Matters surrounding our stolen $22,036 appear more dire as time progresses.
http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/intervene.htm#serious

Please tell us:

1 Who you talked to
2 Date(s)
3 What was their response to settlement
3 Phone numbers and email addresses of who you talked to.

If you, perhaps even with help from others, are not able to get Sandia National Laboratories management to get matters settled, then we must take other steps to recover our $22,036 stolen from our Sandia Federal Credit Union retirement-protected savings accounts.

Please ack if you receive this email.

Regards,
bill payne

J Orlin Grabbe inspiration.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/audio/warrior.mid

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 9, 2011 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

ar2dee2~~~~ look, you dumb little flunker


you started off spouting shit about Obama continuing torture—-not civil liberties
breaches…..,now either put up some stuff to back your ignorant mouth or sit and
spin ...and concede that you’re talking shit without knowing shit.


you wanna talk about civil liberties violations, I’m with you…but stick to the facts,
silly little robot, and stop inventing your own set.

Report this

By ardee, December 9, 2011 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

Multihued lying sack

You are not even trying to disguise your bullshite any more. From Quigley:

When the Bush government was caught hiring private planes from a Boeing subsidiary to transport people for torture to other countries, the Bush administration successfully asked the federal trial court to dismiss a case by detainees tortured because having a trial would disclose “state secrets” and threaten national security. When President Obama was elected, the state secrets defense was reaffirmed in arguments before a federal appeals court. It continues to be a mainstay of the Obama administration effort to cloak their actions and the actions of the Bush administration in secrecy.

Solitary Confinement

At least 20,000 people are in solitary confinement in US jails and prisons, some estimate several times that many. Despite the fact that federal, state and local prisons and jails do not report actual numbers, academic research estimates tens of thousands are kept in cells for 23 to 24 hours a day in supermax units and prisons, in lockdown, in security housing units, in “the hole”, and in special management units or administrative segregation. Human Rights Watch reports that one-third to one-half of the prisoners in solitary are likely mentally ill. In May 2006, the UN Committee on Torture concluded that the United States should “review the regimen imposed on detainees in supermax prisons, in particular, the practice of prolonged isolation.” The Obama administration has taken no steps to cut back on the use of solitary confinement in federal, state or local jails and prisons.

Special Administrative Measures

Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) are extra harsh conditions of confinement imposed on prisoners (including pre-trial detainees) by the Attorney General. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons imposes restrictions such segregation and isolation from all other prisoners, and limitation or denial of contact with the outside world such as: no visitors except attorneys, no contact with news media, no use of phone, no correspondence, no contact with family, no communication with guards, 24 hour video surveillance and monitoring. The DOJ admitted in 2009 that several dozen prisoners, including several pre-trial detainees, mostly Muslims, were kept incommunicado under SAMS. If anything, the use of SAMS has increased under the Obama administration.

Your bullshite wont fly when people actually read and think for themselves. Like your republican counterparts you believe that folks will not do the research thus anything you choose to lie or distort will fly.

You really, truly suck.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 9, 2011 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ~~~~  you’re absolutely correct that ardee wouldn’t know his “rendition’
from his “extraordinary”——-he’s innocent of much understanding but he means
well…..

so please, have more patience and try to help the kid learn something so he CAN
keep his good intentions off the road to hell.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 9, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

ardee,  Quigley wrote about erosion of civil liberty….not torture…..not a word
there about Oabama and torture.


and the second thing you’re quoting is Obama forbidding torture!!!!!!

If you had any grasp of the law, you would understand that by saying ” without
guidance by the Attorney general”  he’s declaring that nobody else may authorize
it and that there is no implied consent that allows it, only expressed consent.

unless you can point to an instance where the AG HAS approved it, you now know
that it’s not done.

and it aint being done by the CIA under Petraeus.

You want to prove the US still tortures, my guess would be to look to
Afghanistan….....it ain’t going on around here.

Report this

By ardee, December 9, 2011 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

For the multihued scoundrel:

I doubt that anything short of sticking your face in the blood of the victims would suffice to shake your zealotry in defenseof your corporate Democratic stooges.

However, others might be more rational on the subject:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/01-7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

On January 22, 2009 President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations “unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance.”[137]

Oh , I see, so torture is bad unless it is good. Only 19 huh, gee how will we gain any intelligence whatsoever?

Report this

By ardee, December 9, 2011 at 4:07 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, December 8 at 10:38 am

This last effort of yours is nothing more than a sad diatribe showing plainly that your defense of the status quo is far too difficult for you.

Descending to calling me an agent of the GOP, how really, truly stupid.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a painting in many (D)evious shades of blue:

“Democrats being unwilling to create a constitutional crisis by impeaching the sitting president and his co-conspirators in 2006 in no way indicates that Democrats approve of torture.”
____________________

People who do not condone torture done, nor wish to enable torture policy to continue to be done with impunity, do not consider it a “constitutional crisis” to impeach and prosecute those who have either engaged in torture or renditioned people to other countries to be tortured.

However, by their inaction when they could have acted to impeach and prosecute, it is clear that Democrats consider acts of torture to be something less than a misdemeanor offense… something acceptably done, provided it’s not advertised.

In 2006, the aggressive “progressives” got out the vote for Democrats, promising that Conyers would provide impeachments for war criminals, if only more Democrats were elected.

After the tsunami of Democrats washed into Washington, on their many promises of good to come that they always cleverly qualify and never keep, Conyers wouldn’t walk his impeachment talk. No, the “progressive” Democrat, Conyers, protected war criminals… and he himself, Conyers, had the peace activists arrested who demanded that he walk his impeachment campaign talk.

After the “progressives” got their “historic progress” in 2008, by having a half-black man, Obama, be now able to commit the highest crimes that only white men could commit before, the limits Republicans had placed upon torture were removed; privacy was invaded more; human rights were made more expendable; environmental destruction became “sustainable development”; war was greater privatized and became far more generally acceptable; and a sick system that profits from sickness was more sickly liberal mandated to have greater profits from ever more denial of healthcare… and so Single-Payer advocates were arrested.

Now, what distinguishes a “progressive” Democrat from a “regressive” Republican is their position on whether gays should, or should not, be allowed to be openly gay, while committing war crimes in close quarters with the “normal” warped minded but sexually straight “good Christian” boys.

Liberals warn that “fascism” will come if Republicans march forward, but when their Democrats quick march human progress backwards that’s “reform”!

What “progressives” have proven is that nothing moves America further far Right faster than getting more Democrats elected does.

If “progressives” were progressive they wouldn’t be corporate party Democrats.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 8, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

RE: ardee, December 8 at 2:55 am

The fabrications are all yours. You present unwarranted and unsupported accusations as being fact.

As I have attempted to point out previously there is a difference between “Extraordinary Rendition” as practiced by Republicans and “Rendition” as practiced under Obama’s orders. Obama’s “Rendition” amounts to sending suspected enemy combatants to their country of origin dependent on the guarantee that they will not be tortured. Would you prefer that suspected enemy combatants be sent to Guantanamo with little legal recourse? The facts relate that some suspected enemy combatants returned to their countries of origin were found to be innocent and are now free and participating in political activism in their countries of origin.

It’s clear that you were a supporter of Ralph Nader and that you are now supporting the Green Party. You are free to pursue your impossible dream, but sadly, the expectation that you will pursue that dream without resorting to the same kind of demagoguery as is practiced by the Right appears not to be an expectation to be expected. Rather than attack Obama and the Democrats with falsehoods why don’t you instead offer the virtues of Jill Stein and the Green Party?

I have never doubted that your heart is in the right place and that you seek the best for America, but I have attempted to point out that your activism can only serve the interests of the Right and be a detriment to America. Now I must conclude that your enthusiasm for the Green Party has led you to the practice of demagoguery, and false accusations of equivalent perfidy. I don’t believe that you lack the political acuity to distinguish the difference between Democrats and Republicans so I can only conclude that your attacks and claims of equal perfidy are intentional falsehoods. I can only assume that you have grossly underestimated the capacity for evil of the Right, as have many before you. I believe the German people underestimated the Nazi capacity for evil, and I believe that Latin American believers in Liberation Theology underestimated the Right’s capacity for evil.

Now I can only believe that you are a disingenuous and harmful practitioner of demagoguery who is attempting to advance a hopeless cause at the expense of that which is better while facilitating the worst. In the final analysis you and your ilk are harmful as are the Koch Brothers, The Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. etc. ad nausea. Not as harmful, but harmful just the same. It just might be that condemnations of Obama and the Democrats coming from the Left will discourage Obama voters thus providing majority rule to Republicans, as happened during the 2010 mid-term elections.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 8, 2011 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

ardee~~~~ my mind is quite open to thinking that torture exists,but you haven’t
posted any link that shows Obama is part of it…...put up one link that’s germane
and clear.

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2011 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Democrats are opposed to torture and Republicans are in favor of torture, such is the truth and this truth is documented explicitly and unquestioningly. The Bush Administration authorized torture and Obama, much to the condemnation of Republicans, banned torture.

What an utter fabrication. Obama has continued rendition and torture ( the purpose of rendition) as the links I have posted plainly show ( despite the refusal of heterochromatic, December 7 at 8:35 am to actually read them with an open mind they plainly show Obama’s position.)

As we approach the national election, and considering the incompetence of both the President and his Party, I would expect these Democratic Loyalists to become more strident, less rational and much, much more desperate.

If the electorate is serious about positive,progressive change we will have to understand the fact that neither member of the Duopoly Party that runs this nation for its corporate masters offers any hope of change. Vote Green.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 7, 2011 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment

The corporate party’s Democrats advertise hope, but deliver despair.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 7, 2011 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

as I kind of admire most of what Stein has to say, (unlike the gunk from David)  I’m
gonna go practice some incantations.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

RE: By David J. Cyr, December 6 at 4:57 pm  

Democrats are opposed to torture and Republicans are in favor of torture, such is the truth and this truth is documented explicitly and unquestioningly. The Bush Administration authorized torture and Obama, much to the condemnation of Republicans, banned torture.

I know for a fact that members of the U.S. military including members of JSOC have committed War Crimes unlawful and been prosecuted for those crimes, and that U.S. personnel have committed what I perceive to be War Crimes legally sanctioned.

During the Vietnam era William Calley killed over 160 old men, women, and children that had been herded into a ditch. His commanding officers attempted to cover up his crimes and a Republican President pardoned him for those crimes. When U.S. personnel torture people they are violating the law, thanks to Obama. Under Republicans that torture was legally sanctioned

A.  Democrats being unwilling to create a constitutional crisis by impeaching the sitting president and his co-conspirators in 2006 in no way indicates that Democrats approve of torture.

B.  Likewise for Obama who’s first act of office was to ban torture, initiate the closing of Guantanamo, and the closing of CIA Black Sites. Obama’s agenda did not include dividing the country and creating even more turmoil than his election and agenda caused. You should know that Obama is not a socialist and a hater of capitalism as was claimed by his opponents (Incidentally, I personally hate [?] capitalism.)

C.  The John F. Kennedy Memorial University is an invention of your delusional mind. The School of the Americas was established:

“In 1946, in the early days of the Cold War, the Latin American Training Center – U.S. Ground Forces[1] was established in the Atlantic sector of the Panama Canal Zone, in the US army base of Fort Amador.[2] During 1949 it was expanded and became the U.S. Army Caribbean Training Center, seated into a former hospital building on the grounds of Fort Gulick[3] (now housing the Melia Hotel).[4]
It was once again expanded and renamed the U.S. Army School of the Americas in 1963. It relocated to Fort Benning in 1984, following the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty.[5] More than 61,000 military personnel attended these United States Army schools.[1]”

Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. Twenty one years before the School of the Americas was moved to Fort Benning Georgia.

“Founded in Panama in 1946—and relocated in 1984 to Fort Benning when Panamanian President Jorge Illueca evicted it—calling it “the biggest base for destabilization in Latin America”—

“For the past two years, a group of US legislators, led by Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-MA), have vowed to shut down the facility”

The greatest abuses of the School of the Americas came to light during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan when Newt Gingrich [R], Dick Cheney [R], Henry Hyde [R] and other Republicans were vigorously and vehemently defending Reagan’s support for death squads (Freedom Fighters) trained at the School of the Americas against criticisms by Democrats.

You Cyr are an ignoramus, blinded by a seemingly inexplicable hatred of Democrats. Democrats are preferable to Republicans to all but compassionless right-wing morons and fanatical left-wing morons.

You won’t, but if you should read Obama’s speech from yesterday even you should be able to discern the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

By heterochromatic, December 6 at 5:15 pm

Thank you for providing Truth about Jill Stein, but the full truth is even more sinister. Jill Stein is not just the personification of Satan or the embodiment of Satan; Jill Stein is Satan. I know this to be true because I read it at truthoutaboutstein.org. truthoutaboutstein.org gives the correct interpretation of the Book of Revelations in the Bible. Jill Stein is identified as being the Great Whore of Babylon which is a pseudonym for Satan. So my conclusion is that Cyr can only be one of Satan’s demons smile

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 7, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

ardee~~~ and your empty assertion does nothing to prove
any guilt. everyone has an opinion, they’re like you.

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2011 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 6 at 8:23 am

Your blindness in no way invalidates the truth of Obama’s guilt.

Report this

By prosefights, December 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Filing adminstrative motions is a fun part of free speech.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/intervene.htm#motion

Especially when it involves Iran and the liberal arts ‘educated’.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 6, 2011 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

Cyr—-that was brilliantly vacuous…...you assign responsibility with the precision
of a scattergun in an earthquake.


Jill Stein is responsible for the Spanish -American War, sells crack to kittens, and
has done nothing to stop torture throughout the world.

 

We’re all equally guilty, but some animals like Stein are more equally guilty.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 6, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Contented liberals are smugly satisfied that an Obama return to the Clinton era covert rules for torture of “suspects” is providing the appearance that Democrats don’t use torture.

All the corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberals believe is require for unsubstantiated “proof” of their innocence is for Obama to mouth the same words that Bush did — “America doesn’t torture” — and for no trophy pictures to now be allowed.

When JSOC (see linked article below) perpetrates its indiscriminate kill/capture home invasions and abducts for lengthy interrogation any male members of the family they haven’t murdered for attempting to defend their family, are we to believe those disappeared for long periods (some returning, some not) are all courteously treated by just “good cop” interrogators?

What Democrats have not done (see A, B, C below) leaves liberals with no credibility in their denying their support for torture.

We can be reasonably certain that Democrats have covertly continued torture, and that Democrats will continue to use torture.

A) If Democrats were not using torture, the 2006 elected Democrat Congress would have moved to at a minimum impeach many members of the Bush regime Executive Branch for the highest of crimes (aggressor war and the use of torture on suspects). Democrats didn’t even attempt the minimum, the embarrassment of impeachments.

B) If Democrats were not using torture, the 2008 elected Obama would have moved to arrest and extradite for trial in international court many members of the Bush regime Executive Branch for the highest of crimes (aggressor war and the use of torture on suspects). Democrats just MovedOn to wage more aggressor wars.

C) Democrats clearly have no opposition to the use of torture, because they have never when they could have shut down the School of the Americas — the John F. Kennedy memorial university at which America provides foreign military thugs a liberal education in the arts of torture, assassination, and other more nuanced means of political repression targeting democracy advocates.

The corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberal “proofs” that their Democrats are not using torture are solely reliant upon the word of those who use greatly flawed ambiguous information to compile kill/capture lists of Afghan civilians; a reliance solely upon the word of those engaged in waging serial wars of aggression; a reliance solely upon the word of recidivist war criminals publicly guilty of the highest crimes punishable by any court… war criminals that liberals have voted for.

America is Obamanably waging aggressor war against the people of Afghanistan. There is no higher crime. If liberals were what they advertise themselves to be they’d be demanding the arrest and extradition for war crimes trials of Obama and many other Democrats they voted for.
______________________

This is what Obama voters voted for…

How McChrystal and Petraeus Built an Indiscriminate “Killing Machine”
Monday 26 September 2011

http://www.truth-out.org/how-mcchrystal-and-petraeus-built-indiscriminate-killing-machine/1317052524

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 6, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

ardee, I’ve read your links. There’s not a thing there that shows that Obama has
tortured anyone.

All i see is that his admin has defended court cases about renditions in the
previous admin.

Show us something about torture performed by the Obama admin id you want to
continue saying that Obama tortures.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2011 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Hetero asks for proof of Obam’s bloody hands. Can he separate the wheat from the chaff?


http://tinyurl.com/72dcpwl

I would also repeat the links I already provided and he evidently missed:

ardee, December 2 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment


Obama? Torture? Obama? rendition?

Oh yeah!

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

JD~~~~~  heterochromatic, December 3 at 11:34 am

Obama did not fail, the U.S. Congress failed; the first of many obstructions of
Obama’s agenda. Obama took the oath of office on January 21, 2009.~~~~~

I’m with ardee on this one…Obama FAILED.  he met strong opposition from
Congress and he folded in face of it. 

here’s a link

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-
center/

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 4 at 5:36 am

Interesting, you reply to charges of demagoguery with more demagoguery.

“That’s a position that clearly conflicts with the rest of the anonymous avatar’s three contiguous pages posted of contortionist liberal — ill “legal” — logic apologia for Obama… irrational rationalizations of the stale old liberal argument that Democrat evil is better than Republican evil, therefore evil is better than good.”

First a trivial matter, my so called “Avatar” is, I suppose, anonymous [?]. My so called avatar is one of 4 pictures provided by windows XP. I chose it because of its ethereal serenity. Its ethereal serenity appealed to me when I selected it and its ethereal serenity continues to appeal to me; it is representative of my best inclinations. Your, shall we say, avatar, is a misrepresentation of who you are, is it not? Your misrepresentation of who you are is fine with me and not a serious consideration, but it is a misrepresentation, is it not, of course it is.

I dispute your contention that this comment by me is conflicted.

“Believing, as I do, that war is a criminal act in all but the most extreme of circumstances legally sanctioned war becomes a moot point, but distinguishing between the most vile of criminal acts and lesser complicity is logical.”

My three pages were necessary to explain my position. As I stated, people who kill innocents for sport or because of hatred can not be equated with those who kill out of a perception of legal legitimacy; my clarification was that most wars can not be perceived as legitimate making the discussion of legality a moot point. However, those who kill believing that their killing is sanctioned by law can not be equated with those who kill knowing that their killing is illegal. Most Americas believe, wrongfully in my opinion, that the killing in Afghanistan is legal and justified. I don’t suppose we can equate the elderly matron in small town America with the soldier who takes body parts from the innocents he’s killed as trophies, can we? Distinguishing degree of complicity is logical is it not? Perception of right and wrong is a mitigating factor, is it not? One who believes that his wrongful acts are not wrongful, but the contrary, should not be prosecuted with as much prejudice as one who knows his wrongful acts are wrongful should he. The punishments meted out by the Nuremburg Tribunals varied did they not? Can Obama be equated with Hitler and his henchmen? Can the elderly matron in small town America be equated with Obama and his Generals? Can Obama be equated with George W. Bush or any of the Republicans now seeking the office of president? I think not, and that is the essence of the difference between Republicans and Democrats by my appraisal. Again, for the umpteenth time I will reiterate my belief that Obama is a war criminal in a nation of war criminals. Ending the war crimes will require making the best choices and can not be accomplished by merely making accusations; accusations that will be given no credence by the most warlike but might be given credence by those who are anti-war in belief, and this is where making best choices becomes an imperative. Of what value is a moral and principled stance if that moral and principled stance results in more immorality rather than less? Condemning Obama for his militarism has value, but facilitating greater evil has no value in terms of eliminating evil.

Lesser evil is not good and your asserting that is my belief is demagoguery. Lesser evil is not good, it is only lesser and preferable.

(More below)

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 5, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

ardee~~~ you have some evidence thatObama has continued torture?

I’ve not seen any.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 4 at 5:36 am (Cont.)

You write:

“There is no legality or “Just War” in the corporate party’s Democrat voters’ choice to make “necessary” the escalation of resource war in Afghanistan that unjustly and war criminally collective punishes Afghanistan’s entire impoverished population, for crimes that were allegedly committed by 19 members of a blowbacking CIA operations created organization (1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from UAE, and 15 Saudis).”

I concur with the above statement by you and the above statement by you is the consensus view of knowledgeable and moral people in my opinion, but the above statement by you can not change past or current realities, nor does the above statement by you offer a viable strategy for changing the current realities.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 4 at 5:36 am (Cont.)

You write:

“America’s resource war of aggression against the people of Afghanistan is only “necessary” because 99% of America’s voters voted for it. Everything about it is an atrocity. The higher the rank is the greater and the more vile the complicity in war crimes is. There’s no greater complicity in all of America’s war crimes and crimes against humanity, in its aggressor war against the people of Afghanistan (MovingOn into Pakistan, on their way to Iran), than Obama’s and that of all those who voted for Obama to redeploy from the “dumb” war in Iraq to their “real” war in Afghanistan, as campaign promised… and popular vote made necessary.”

Again if the 99% [?] had voted for something other than Obama/Biden, McCain/Palin then perhaps we would be better off but such was not, and is not, a rational expectation. Would we be better served by McCain Palin along with a Republican majority created by destroying the consensus for Obama/Biden. Pointing out that it is not the Obama Administration that has its sights set on Iran is lost on you. Such is a fact that apparently has no relevance to your dialectic of treacherous conspiracy. The popular vote you detest so much served to make an attack on Iran less likely and not more likely.

You write:

“The abysmal immorality of liberals is regularly demonstrated in their prompt provision of putrid plenary indulgences forgiving any and every evil, provided the evil is well done by Democrats.”

Pointing out that people who believe Democrats are preferable to Republicans do not forgive every evil is also lost on you. You condemn all from the left including Bernnie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, and all from the Left who do not share your extreme and fanatical condemnation. The fact that consensus is a necessary evil in democracy is also lost on you. You are opposed to consensus and prefer dissent which is a strategy to nowhere in terms of meeting objectives in a democracy.

Finally, demagogues like you, if given credence, create as much potential for random acts of violence by deranged lunatics as do Glenn Beck and his ilk. Thankfully your audience is limited to the tiny percentage of fanatics who share your views more evident here at truthdig. I’m wondering if you’re disappointed that there are not nations powerful enough to vanquish our nation and give Obama the Nuremburg treatment, or do you prefer a terrorist bomb or a lone gunman scenario? Am I guilty of demagoguery here in this instance or merely correctly accessing a potential threat? The harm you and your ilk do is palpable, a detriment to the progressive agenda, and if you and your ilk gain more popularity an outcome of greater tragedy will be the result. You are a nihilist only with nihilist goals; a hate filled demagogue whose distorted and false perceptions are counter productive and extreme beyond any rational proportion. Pointing out that Democrats are preferable to Republicans is a reality you simple can not fathom and raises your hackles of anger replete with accusations of the greatest perfidy. Reading your writing it appears you think that all who voted for Obama are as guilty as the most brutal of terrorists. Such is demagoguery pure and simple and where your demagoguery is deemed insufficient you resort to blatant falsehoods and a denial of reality. Is the impossible task of electing Jill Stein and a sufficient majority to change our politics so important to you that you are willing to put rationality and very real consequences aside, or are you only concerned with defending a defenseless position in order to save face. A face that is false and misrepresented. Your psyche would be better represented by a face sporting horns. Dorian Gray had nothing on you smile

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

It is not the lack of a call for prosecution that causes me to object to accusations, it is the lack of any evidence to support those accusations that causes me to object, actual orders to ban torture, closing Black Sites etc. is meaningless to you. You are lost in a world of unfounded conspiratorial thinking based on your apparent hatred of Obama. You are not being reasonable or rational you have let your hatred take control of your mind. Three years from now, if we should e so cursed, and Republicans are in control of our government you will still deny your complicity.

I’m weary and need sleep. “Stay tuned” I’ll be getting back to you.

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2011 at 3:54 am Link to this comment

Sorry for the double:

Amnesty International is currently calling for the prosecution of George W. Bush and officials in his administration because the highest National Security officials in the Bush W. Administration authorized torture and have admitted doing so. Missing from Amnesty International’s call for prosecutions are Obama and the highest officials in his Administration. I suppose the reason for Obama not being subject to Amnesty International’s calls for prosecution is because there is no evidence to support claims that Obama condones torture, quite the contrary.

Oh dear, currently calling for prosecution might be interpreted as the slow march of justice. Perhaps, in three years time, when Amnesty calls for the prosecution of Obama we can revisit this. Further, does a lack of any call for criminal prosecution then transfer, in your mind, to a lack of guilt? That’s pretty specious.

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2011 at 3:50 am Link to this comment

Obama did not fail, the U.S. Congress failed; the first of many obstructions of Obama’s agenda. Obama took the oath of office on January 21, 2009.

Obama is the President is he not? As such it is his responsibility to push his agenda, keep his promises, inform the American people and bear the burdens of his office.

He has done rather little of any of that.

’Any claim that the White House didn’t fight to close Guantanamo is just flat wrong,’ spokesman Tommy Vietor said.”

There are fights and there are fights, and then there is cosmetic lip service to a cause blatantly unimportant enough to Obama to bring to the people.

When coupled with Obama’s continuation of rendition and torture and, despite your denials of the obvious, Obama has continued this heinous practice, the picture is rather clearer than your attempts to deflect from his abysmal failures as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.

Then there are the glaring lack of prosecutions of the blatant criminal activities of our financial community that flourishes still under Obama’s “watch”.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

RE; ardee, December 3 at 5:02 pm

Obviously you deny the links provided do not provide evidence that Obama condones torture as has been asserted, quite the contrary is the reality. Your unwillingness to admit the truth here has nothing to do with awareness it is strictly a denial serving dialectic of treacherous evil. So what is “ridiculous” is subject to interpretation.

As has been stated before by me, redundantly out of necessity, Obama has bloody hands, but not hands bloodied by condoning torture. Every fact shows that Obama is opposed to torture and has made every effort to eliminate torture.

Amnesty International is currently calling for the prosecution of George W. Bush and officials in his administration because the highest National Security officials in the Bush W. Administration authorized torture and have admitted doing so. Missing from Amnesty International’s call for prosecutions are Obama and the highest officials in his Administration. I suppose the reason for Obama not being subject to Amnesty International’s calls for prosecution is because there is no evidence to support claims that Obama condones torture, quite the contrary.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 5, 2011 at 2:51 am Link to this comment

RE; heterochromatic, December 3 at 11:34 am

Obama did not fail, the U.S. Congress failed; the first of many obstructions of Obama’s agenda. Obama took the oath of office on January 21, 2009.

January 22, 2009, “He [Obama] signed executive orders to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center within a year and to ban harsh interrogations.”

A statement from “Human Rights First” January 22, 2009:

“We commend President Obama for acting quickly through these executive orders to enforce a single standard of humane treatment for all US intelligence interrogations. As commander-in-chief, he has provided clarity throughout the military chain of command. By unequivocally rejecting torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment, shutting down secret prisons, providing Red Cross access to prisoners in US custody, rejecting the legal opinions that facilitated and excused torture, and announcing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, President Obama has rejected the false choice between national security and our ideals. Our nation will be stronger and safer for it.”

“May, 2009, “The Senate has denied President Barack Obama’s request for 80 million dollars to be alloted to facilitate the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp located on the Eastern coast of Cuba.”

The argument is made that Obama lacked the political will to close Guantanamo, or as the demagogues assert, Obama is evil and he never intended to close Guantanamo; facts indicate that Obama lacked the political power to close Guantanamo. What appears to be a concerted effort from the Right to spread fear further diminished Obama’s power to achieve his goal of closing Guantanamo.

Huffington Post:

“During 2009 and early 2010, he is totally engaged in the struggle to get health-care reform,” a White House participant said when asked about the president’s engagement with the effort to close Guantanamo. “That occupies his mind, and his time.

Obama has conceded that Guantanamo will not close anytime soon. ‘Obviously I haven’t been able to make the case right now, and without Congress’s cooperation, we can’t do it,’ he said this month in an interview with the Associated Press. ‘That doesn’t mean I stop making the case.’

Administration officials lay blame for the failed initiative on Congress, including Democrats who deserted the president, sometimes in droves. The debate, they said, became suffused with fear — fear that transferring detainees to American soil would create a genuine security threat, fear that closing Guantanamo would be electoral suicide.

Some Democratic lawmakers pleaded with the White House not to press too hard, according to administration officials.

The White House asserts it was fully engaged in the effort to close Guantanamo.

’Any claim that the White House didn’t fight to close Guantanamo is just flat wrong,’ spokesman Tommy Vietor said.”

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 4, 2011 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a painting in many shades of (D)evious blue:

“Believing, as I do, that war is a criminal act in all but the most extreme of circumstances legally sanctioned war becomes a moot point, but distinguishing between the most vile of criminal acts and lesser complicity is logical.”
_________________

That’s a position that clearly conflicts with the rest of the anonymous avatar’s three contiguous pages posted of contortionist liberal — ill “legal” — logic apologia for Obama… irrational rationalizations of the stale old liberal argument that Democrat evil is better than Republican evil, therefore evil is better than good.

There isn’t anything less criminal about America’s war against the people of Afghanistan than America’s war against the people of Iraq. Both are private profit motivated aggressor wars… completely criminal from start to finish.

There is no legality or “Just War” in the corporate party’s Democrat voters’ choice to make “necessary” the escalation of resource war in Afghanistan that unjustly and war criminally collective punishes Afghanistan’s entire impoverished population, for crimes that were allegedly committed by 19 members of a blowbacking CIA operations created organization (1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from UAE, and 15 Saudis).

America’s resource war of aggression against the people of Afghanistan is only “necessary” because 99% of America’s voters voted for it. Everything about it is an atrocity. The higher the rank is the greater and the more vile the complicity in war crimes is. There’s no greater complicity in all of America’s war crimes and crimes against humanity, in its aggressor war against the people of Afghanistan (MovingOn into Pakistan, on their way to Iran), than Obama’s and that of all those who voted for Obama to redeploy from the “dumb” war in Iraq to their “real” war in Afghanistan, as campaign promised… and popular vote made necessary.

The abysmal immorality of liberals is regularly demonstrated in their prompt provision of putrid plenary indulgences forgiving any and every evil, provided the evil is well done by Democrats.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By ardee, December 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, December 3 at 11:22 am

I wonder if you are as aware as am I that any links offered in refutation of your ridiculous position are consistently dismissed immediately by you, a rather childish and obstinate position. There are actually a panoply of links addressing the topic of Obama’s bloody hands, and you could easily search them up , but you care only to continue to propagandize for your party. A waste of all our time I think.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 3, 2011 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ—Obama may mean well, but he failed to take a stand and stick to it.

Guantanamo is still in business…...even at that important, but small, step he
failed.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

RE: ardee, December 2 at 3:30 pm

Here I am again at the tail end of an exhausted thread engaged in a futile argument with you and maybe one or two others.

I don’t know why you exerted yourself to provide these links regarding two incidents; a critical reading of these links only reinforces my argument regarding the differences between Democrats and Republicans. The forced extradition from Afghanistan of an alleged corrupt business man to face charges of fraud in no way related to national security issues does not in any way provide evidence that Obama condones torture. Mr. Azar was apparently treated inhumanely while being forcibly extradited but this apparent reality does not provide any evidence that Obama condones torture, and any suggestion that it does is demagoguery. What’s most obvious is that this Azar incident does not substantiate the claim that, “…Obama who removed the limitations upon torture that the Cheney/Bush regime had imposed, so that now torture is done without any limitations — liberal sensibilities pleasingly done out-of-sight-out-of-liberal-minds, in undisclosed “Black site” locations that “suspects” are now discretely disappeared to.” Nor does the reality that Obama failed to intervene in a “States Secrets” case uninitiated by the Bush Administration prove that Obama condones torture.

Of late, I find myself engaged in an effort to expose demagoguery and those who practice demagoguery, which brings me to the subject of Glenn Greenwald. Mr. Greenwald has been a constant critic of Obama.

“In a discussion about Civil Liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said “I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it.”

You must know by now that I consider the above to be dangerously counter productive and essentially nihilistic. It has long been my contention that Greenwald and his ilk offer a political non-strategy that only facilitates the worst and harms the better. It is my belief that the political chaos that Greenwald promotes provides the breeding ground for the success of burgeoning fascism. Incidentally Greenwald is a self admitted non-voter who has no allegiances with any Political Party; his only allegiances seem to be with the nihilistic and the Gay Community. Pointing out these realities will arouse the vehement ire of many, I know, but realities they are none the less. I will forego any further comment; doing so would obfuscate the issue being discussed here and cause even further animosity and vitriol.

I have digressed greatly but I stand by my criticisms of Greenwald and his ilk, such are harmful demagogues not worthy of any credence by my appraisal.

Obama is a good but misguided man by my appraisal and I do not believe he is capable the evil that will be wrought by his opponents if they are given the opportunity. Obama’s enemies are the worst kind of hypocrites; moral reprobates that espouse and claim moral virtue.

Report this

By ardee, December 2, 2011 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Obama? Torture? Obama? rendition?

Oh yeah!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html

Target Of Obama-Era Rendition Alleges Torture


http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-10/news/17187621_1_cia-prisons-extraordinary-rendition-mixed-signals

President Obama’s Justice Department signaled in a San Francisco courtroom Monday that the change in administrations has not changed the government’s position on secrecy and the rights of foreign prisoners - and that lawsuits by alleged victims of CIA kidnappings and torture must be dismissed on national security grounds.

“Judges shouldn’t play with fire,” Justice Department lawyer Douglas Letter told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is considering a suit accusing a San Jose company, Jeppesen Dataplan, of arranging so-called extraordinary rendition flights for the CIA.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/09/state_secrets/

Washington, D.C.
Monday, Feb 9, 2009 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability — resoundingly and disgracefully

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 2, 2011 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 1 at 10:56 pm

The horrors of war are very real. It is my belief that all who are the proponents and advocates of war are complicit in the deaths, atrocities, criminal acts, and many horrors. In the sense that Obama is the Commander and Chief and is prosecuting war he is complicit. Again, and redundantly, I will reiterate my belief that Obama is a war criminal just as all who approve of war are war criminals. My minority view in this respect will be considered extreme by many. I am opposed to honoring our warriors; in the final analysis our warriors are the proponents of war and “Scoundrels,” motivated by nothing other than patriotism of tribalism and many can only be considered mercenaries in the truest sense of the word. Some who volunteer for military service are simply making career moves calculated to improve their financial status and prestige.

com•plic•i•ty:

Involvement in wrongdoing: involvement with another in doing something illegal or wrong.

Those who are proponents of war are complicit in the horrors of war by my appraisal. Although the conduct of war is regulated criminal acts are a reality of war. Violations of international law, rules of engagement, and the rules of basic humanity have always been associated with war. Examples of such are legion throughout the historical record. Cruelty and criminality are intrinsic to war by my analysis. That being said, the criminal acts perpetrated by soldiers who make sport out of killing innocents and non-combatants or who kill simply out of hatred must logically be distinguished from most others who are complicit in war. Perpetrators of illegality can not be equated with those who conduct war in a legally sanctioned manner. Believing, as I do, that war is a criminal act in all but the most extreme of circumstances legally sanctioned war becomes a moot point, but distinguishing between the most vile of criminal acts and lesser complicity is logical. Commanders in the field, who sanction illegality, fail to prosecute illegality, or conceal illegality from higher echelon commanders are, in my opinion, equally complicit with the illegality. Commanders in the field, who sanction illegality, fail to prosecute illegality, and conceal illegality, are in violation and are guilty of rupturing the chain of command. Higher echelon commanders who are kept ignorant of illegality should not be considered equally guilty of illegality. In cases where illegality becomes evident extrapolating guilt on the part of upper echelon commanders out of suspicion is suspicion and suspicion only lacking real evidence to substantiate that suspicion.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 1 at 10:56 pm (Cont.)

The links provided illustrate the cruelties and injustices of war but they do not provide any evidence of Obama’s illegal actions; illegal actions that would be a violation of his own issued orders as Commander and Chief. The ignored reality is that those found to be in violation of Obama’s orders have been prosecuted and found guilty. Whether justice was meted out appropriately in those instances is an entirely different matter and justice being meted out appropriately is the responsibility of courts and not the responsibility of the Commander and Chief. Obama having the ability to micro-manage all aspects of government and the conduct of war is not a rational expectation. The President of the United States like other higher echelon executives are macro-managers, delegating duties and in some cases relegating duties. Subordinates found to be inadequate to perform duties are subject to being relieved of duties. In the case of the conduct of war subordinates who present claims of capturing and interrogating perceived enemies will be considered to be fulfilling their duties. When subordinates give the perception of fulfilling duties by sanctioning illegal acts then they are guilty of criminality. All along the chain of command subordinates might have a vested interest in concealing illegal acts. Such concealments proceeding along the chain of command can only result in false information being conveyed to the highest executives. In cases where real or de facto illegal tortures are concealed from higher echelon commanders can the higher echelon commanders be found guilty of illegality? Perhaps higher echelon commanders can be perceived to be guilty of dereliction of duty by neglect, but guilt of illegality can not be proved under such circumstances.

It is not at all inconceivable that journalists who focus singularly and specifically on one aspect of the conduct of war might be more knowledgeable in respect to that one aspect than are higher echelon commanders, especially when higher echelon commanders are being fed false or incomplete information from subordinates. Journalists who extrapolate based on suspicions and not having concrete evidence to substantiate suspicions or claims are no match for subordinates who have access and directly influence higher executives, especially when subordinates, who might have a vested interest in concealing evidence, are in direct control of the evidence that might substantiate a journalist’s suspicions; point being that Macro-managers are limited by the information available and the credibility of that information.

When allegations of torture or other illegality are made, where those allegations can not be proved they will be given short shrift. Suggesting that Obama would give credence to journalists lacking conclusive evidence over trusted advisors is a scenario very unlikely. Personally I believe that Obama and other higher echelon leaders should give more credence to journalists, who have some measure of credibility, than they presently do, but my perspective and the perspective of highest executives can not be the same or equated equally. How often have we seen elite leaders reject the assertions and allegations of those deemed less credible and knowledgeable at town hall meetings, interviews, and press conferences etc. they do so with a smirking arrogance or with an attempt to educate those who they perceive to be the lowly and uninformed. Such attitudes are not exclusive to elite leaders they are also prevalent in society in general wherever criticisms or suggestions are offered by perceived underlings.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, December 1 at 10:56 pm (Cont.)

I appreciate the effort but the links provided by you do not convince me that Obama is guilty of torture contrary to his orders banning torture. Prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and other places do not qualify as being “Black Sites.” U.S. interrogators having access to prisoners in foreign countries might be perceived as co-operation between nations or something more nefarious, but allegations that torture in such prisons is condoned by Obama are unsubstantiated.

At issue here is my contention that Democrats are preferable to Republicans in every respect. The differences between Republican directives on handling of perceived enemy combatants and Obama’s directives on handling perceived enemy combatants should be clear to all but such is disputed by the practitioners of demagoguery.

I quote, “Yes, the same Obama who removed the limitations upon torture that the Cheney/Bush regime had imposed, so that now torture is done without any limitations — liberal sensibilities pleasingly done out-of-sight-out-of-liberal-minds, in undisclosed “Black site” locations that “suspects” are now discretely disappeared to.”

“Demagoguery is a strategy for [attempting to gain] political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.”

Report this

By ardee, December 2, 2011 at 3:19 am Link to this comment

If I thought there was even the remotest possibility that an anti-war third party led by Jill Stein or anyone else would became politically powerful enough to achieve a majority status in our government I would support that third party, but such can only be considered a pipe dream. I will not support a counter productive political martyrdom which can only be perceived as beneficial to the worst and a detriment to the better.

A self fulfilling prophesy I guess…..

We all must decide for ourselves as to the best course of action to bring about an end to the fascist governance we now all reside within. For example, I myself think that continuing to vote for the Democrats is an exercise in futility and is, worse, a vote for the continuing control of our government by the corporations.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, December 2, 2011 at 2:04 am Link to this comment

RE: 07/12/11 - The Nation - Jeremy Scahill - The CIA’s Secret Sites in Somalia: the video
http://tinyurl.com/3aqeck4

what a hoot, Pat Buchanan: “... and why isn’t this all over the major media?” bloody hell! what a
piece of theatre - like PB doesn’t think any of us know the editors are all assets?

and Scahill, a regular on Democracy Now and a Nation scholar (both foundation funded
deflective source outlets) knows very well how far he can go…

he knows intelligence operatives’ missions in strategic 3rd-world nations are to instill chaos and provoke
civil war - failing states is the mission - moreover, half the terrorists they pick up are working
(unwittingly) under western intelligence operatives - Scahill also knows if he reported that he
wouldn’t even get a byline in The Nation and would loose his book / lecture contracts, never
get another Puffin grant, etc.

so, why torture them if they’re unwitting fools run by the global intelligence nexus? - well… 1. it’s
convincing theatre;  2. only way to make ‘em say what you want; 3. make it end and flip one
into a double agent - remember the all-time champion of waterboarding, KSM - well… read all
about him: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html

[...]
But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where
they identified the Shaikh Mohammed’s body as their husband and father. The body was kept in
a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a
graveyard in the central district of Karachi.

[...]

good work David - collecting all those links - and I’m sure you know the score - here are a few
more especially for ...tic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2licF3t49zc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=9QvdXLA2-Y8&NR=1
btw: the American in native dress is a proven provocateur - real name Perlman - e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clSylHIhUo0

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 2, 2011 at 12:03 am Link to this comment

~~~~~A Navy warship was used for detention and prolonged “interrogation” of the
suspect by “intelligence officers.” While failure to Miranda was used for smoke,
consider what’s actually implied by this quote (below), regarding the pre-trial
preparation:

“After the interrogation was complete, the FBI stepped in and began the
interrogation from scratch, in a way that could be used in court.”~~~~~

and what’s the problem with bringing him in to stand trial?

or in interrogating him about things in Somalia not directly related to his crime
and not used against him?

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 1, 2011 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, of a painting in many shades of (D)evious blue:

“Obama closed the ‘Black Sights’ (sic), banned torture, and limited rendition to countries of origin contingent on the guarantee that those sent to their countries of origin would not be tortured.”
____________________

What Obama closed was just a few over media exposed covert black sites used during the Bush regime. Obama’s current black sites are more diffuse and generally within occupied war zones and other military controlled areas, including Navy ships at sea. The Obama renditions that outsource torture to countries of origin is a return to the Clinton regime policy of torture by proxy in countries like Egypt. The suspects are delivered for torture, and those who provide the service are allegedly technically required to say, for the “plausible deniability” record, that they won’t torture the suspects they’ve been given to torture. Note: Michael F. Scheuer, a CIA Intelligence officer who was responsible for renditions during the Clinton regime, testified before Congress that such assurances to “not torture” were neither sought nor received during the Clinton years. With Obama’s regime being essentially a rerun of the Clinton and Bush policies, it’s not reasonable to assume that suspects Obama delivers to countries that habitually torture won’t be tortured today, as they were before.

No black sites now? Read ‘em (below), carefully, chronologically… and weep. They’re even blacker sites now, because most people who were concerned with black sites back when they were labeled “Bush’s” are now closing their eyes to Obama’s, to not see them:

11/28/09
New York Times - Alissa J. Rubin
Afghans Detail Detention in ‘Black Jail’ at U.S. Base
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29bagram.html?pagewanted=all

01/28/10
TomDispatch - Anand Gopal
Afraid of the Dark in Afghanistan-Obama’s Secret Prisons:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175197/

Note: Gopal reports on the history under the Bush regime, and then how procedures changed under Obama:

“The actual change, however, is more subtle: the detention process has shifted almost entirely to areas and actors that can best avoid public scrutiny: Special Operations Forces and small field prisons.”

10/26/10
This Can’t Be Happening - Dave Llndorff
What Are They Hiding? Obama Administration Defending Black Site Prison at Bagram Airbase:
http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/272

12/20/10
This Can’t Be Happening - Dave Llndorff
Tortured Logic: It’s Clear Where the Secrecy-Obsessed Obama Administration is Headed in Its Pursuit of WikiLeaks:
http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/361

07/05/11
USA Today (AP)
Somali man brought to U.S. to face terror trial
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-05-somali-man-faces-us-terror-trial_n.htm

Note: A Navy warship was used for detention and prolonged “interrogation” of the suspect by “intelligence officers.” While failure to Miranda was used for smoke, consider what’s actually implied by this quote (below), regarding the pre-trial preparation:

“After the interrogation was complete, the FBI stepped in and began the interrogation from scratch, in a way that could be used in court.”

07/12/11
The Nation - Jeremy Scahill
The CIA’s Secret Sites in Somalia:
http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

08/08/11
The New America - OBAMA & what he said what he did:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_15_27/ai_n58103942/pg_2/

12/01/11
Nation of Change - Marian Wang
Under Obama Administration, Renditions and Secrecy Continue:
http://www.nationofchange.org/under-obama-administration-renditions-and-secrecy-around-them-continue-1315411956
_____________________

Fascist nations allow elections because their people will reliably elect fascists.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 1, 2011 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

prose~~~~~ there are many crimes, you would be well-advised to forget linking
genocide to overthrowing Khomeini….

was it genocide when Sadat was assassinated ...or was it homicide?

Report this

By prosefights, December 1, 2011 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

‘overthrowing Khomeini hasn’t a thing to do with genocide.’

Inciting Saddam Hussien to attack Iran may have been illegal?

Let’s wait for New Mexico federal court 97 cv 266 OFFICIAL [stamped FILED by clerk of court] criminal complaint affidavit WRITTEN investigation to advise us if a crime was committed or not.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 1, 2011 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

no prose,


overthrowing Khomeini hasn’t a thing to do with genocide.

Khomeini was a single nasty old goat, not a race of them.


it’s not genocide to overthrow his regime.

Report this

By prosefights, December 1, 2011 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

“which law was possibly broken?  was it illegal to meet with King Hussein in 1980?”

§ 1091. Genocide

(c) Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

§ 1091. Genocide
How Current is This? (a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;


This law?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 1, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, November 29 at 7:19 am

Response to a practitioner of demagoguery; presenting the image of a sinister looking mug shot found on his truthdig profile along with his avatar of a clean cut looking young man.

I see that another is as fed up with David J. Cyr’s diatribes of demagoguery as I am. David J. Cyr’s diatribes of demagoguery remind me of political attack ads which attempt to smear a political opponent.

“Yes, the same Obama whose liberal led “Justice” Department aggressively sought to send Tim DeChristopher to federal prison for 10 hard years, for having harmlessly temporarily impeded a small portion of an ongoing “environmental” regulatory permitted massive environmental atrocity.”

Tim DeChristopher was sentenced to 2 years; 2 years too many, but not 10 years. The Auction in question was a legacy of the Bush Administration. Neither Obama nor Holder indicted Tim DeChristopher. “Last Wednesday, US Attorney and Bush lackey, Brett Tolman, indicted Tim on two Federal counts carrying up to ten years in prison;” the fact that the Bush Administration “grandfathered in” appointees to the Justice Department is common knowledge.

“The land grab Tim disrupted was itself so questionable that in January 2009, US District Court Judge Urbina halted the leasing process, granting the NRDC and others a temporary injunction. In February, Obama’s Interior Secretary Salazar outright canceled the Bush-era leases, citing the BLM’s failed pre-leasing review process.”

I suppose that many of us here, myself included, believe that Tim DeChristopher should be wined and dined and given awards, instead of being imprisoned. I personally don’t believe that Tim DeChristopher’s action qualifies as being civil disobedience; Tim DeChristopher’s action bears more resemblance to an act of sabotage than an act of civil disobedience in my opinion; a noble and justified act of sabotage, but sabotage just the same. Sadly, Tim DeChristopher was convicted by a jury of supposed peers. I’m uncertain as to whether Tim DeChritopher was aware of the personal consequences of his actions beforehand but after the personal consequences became evident he stated that he was willing to accept those consequences, and that he did not regret his actions.

I have been unable to ascertain the legal ramifications of Obama stepping in to halt the prosecution or to intervene in the sentencing phase, but I suppose that his doing so would have consequences also. It strikes me as highly unlikely that Obama would be willing to intervene in the judicial process; such an intervention would surely be accompanied by accusations of dictatorial action.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 1, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, November 29 at 7:19 am (Cont.)

More of David J. Cyr’s diatribe of demagoguery:

“Yes, the same Obama who has increased military dependency upon private contractors (mercenaries), and exponentially increased dependency upon remote-controlled unmanned drones — a most immoral and exceptionally cowardly form of weaponry.”

There has been a slight increase in the number of armed private contractors (Mercenaries.) Records of the number of armed private contractors have been poorly kept. Armed private contractors are employed providing security.

From NPR:

“… It has been difficult to assess how much the Pentagon relies on armed civilians because their numbers have been unclear.

Defense Department officials now say that more than 18,000 armed security contractors are working in Iraq or Afghanistan under Pentagon auspices, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service that was obtained by NPR. (National Public Radio)
The bulk of the gun-toting contractors — some 13,232 as of June 30 — are in Iraq, where they guard U.S. bases, defend convoys and serve as personal bodyguards for high-level officials. The remaining 5,165 armed civilians perform similar functions in Afghanistan.”

Implying that our military is “Increasingly dependent” on armed civilian contractors strikes me as being something of an exaggeration,

NPR:

“Still, the Pentagon numbers represent only a portion of the overall number of armed civilians in either war zone.

“Armed security contractors make up only a small portion of the overall Pentagon contractor workforce. The Defense Department employed a total of 193,674 private contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan as of June (compared to a total U.S. military deployment of 189,678 soldiers), according to a separate Congressional Research Service report.

Security contractors accounted for only 11 percent of private contractors in Iraq, for example, while more than half of the contractors performed support operations on U.S. bases, such as laundry and catering services”

“The Pentagon’s surveys reveal that the makeup of armed private security contractors varies considerably between the two war zones. In Iraq, less than 5 percent of the armed civilians are Americans, while less than 8 percent are Iraqi. The remaining 88 percent come from other countries, such as Fiji, Nepal, Chile and Nigeria.”

The exponential increase in the use of unmanned drones along with an exponential increase in collateral damage caused by drone attacks is the primary reason, but not the only reason, that I believe Obama is guilty of war crimes. However, the dilemma is that the use of drones will not decrease if Obama is removed as Commander and Chief. I’m wondering if David J. Cyr would prefer the use of smart bombs, attack helicopters, or ground forces rather than unmanned drones by those who are bound and determined to prosecute these wars against real or perceived enemies.

More correctly, it would seem that David J. Cyr, like me, would prefer that our government cease all hostilities against foreign nations and totally withdraw all military forces from foreign lands.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, November 29 at 7:19 am (Cont.)

I fear that acts of war will increase exponentially if Obama is removed as Commander and Chief. Obama is winding down the war in Iraq and has pledged to end the war in Afghanistan by 2014, which has been cause for much criticism from the current Republican candidates for the Presidency. These candidates for the presidency have stated that they would leave the prosecution of the wars to military leaders, that we need to give more support to the nation of Israel, and that an attack on Iran is necessary. Republicans are recognized as being “Hawks” on military issues.

David J. Cyr’s condemnation of Obama’s foreign policy is by my appraisal cogent and well justified, but the issue is complex and fraught with danger. There will be no quick or easy fix; extricating ourselves from these wars will require making the best choices. 

The hope that a third anti-war Political Party will gain sufficient political power to gain control of our government is a futile one. This is a harsh reality indeed. Short of an insane attempt to overthrow our government our choices are limited. The likelihood that the current anti-government populist movement will gain sufficient strength and numbers to coerce a change in foreign policy is, sadly, next to nil. Short of a scandal so heinous as to cause an immediate upheaval, or a national catastrophe so severe that the people would rise up in mass, our options would appear to be limited to one or the other of the dominant Political Parties. That being said, I believe the people of this country are so inured to scandal that a heinous scandal would only result in a change of allegiances between the two Political Parties or an increase in political apathy. The people of this country did not rise up and overthrow the government when the U.S. completely destroyed the life preserving infrastructure in Iraq during the first Iraq war. The people of this country did not rise up and overthrow their government when the U.S. vetoed humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq after the first Iraq War which resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqis, half of those deaths children, as documented by the most reputable Medical Journals and humanitarian organizations and which was recognized by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright. The people of this country did not rise up and overthrow their government when the U.S. Invaded Iraq; an invasion that was justified by falsehoods, quite the contrary, the people of this country re-elected the president who intentionally manufactured falsehoods in order to invade Iraq. It appears that there is nothing heinous enough to motivate the people of this country to overthrow or turn against corrupt and morally bankrupt leaders. I feel foolish even mentioning such scenarios, just as foolish as those who seem to believe that a third Political Party will gain the political power necessary to take control of our government. Yes I am in favor of re-electing the “Same Obama” and in favor of giving his Political Party majority power. I would be in favor of a primary challenge to Obama coming from a Democratic peace candidate but that too seems to be more than a little unlikely to become a reality. The sad fact is that the polls show the wars are a low priority to the American People.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, November 29 at 7:19 am (Cont.)

If I thought there was even the remotest possibility that an anti-war third party led by Jill Stein or anyone else would became politically powerful enough to achieve a majority status in our government I would support that third party, but such can only be considered a pipe dream. I will not support a counter productive political martyrdom which can only be perceived as beneficial to the worst and a detriment to the better.

Back to Cyr’s counter productive demagoguery which asserts the better is not better and is equal to, or worse, than the worst.

“Yes, the same Obama who during his POTUS campaign made it clear that Democrats wouldn’t allow sane and sensible Single-Payer healthcare here, because there were ‘too many legacy systems’ for the corporate party’s Democrats to protect.”

Cyr and others are like a child throwing a tantrum because he can not have what he can not have. Political realities dictated that any attempt to implement “Single payer healthcare” would be destined to failure. The meager improvements in health care that were finally passed into law after interminable months of debate, accompanied by a minor insurrection and vitriol in governance remarkable; demonstrated the unfortunate art of the possible. The legacy of the Democratic Party is supporting the interests of ordinary people as opposed to the interests of Big Business. No amount of revisionist history coming from right-wing ideologues or anti-government, anti-Democrat demagogues can blot out that legacy. Demagoguery asserting the protection of “legacy systems” is non-specific and devoid of examples of mysterious and nefarious legacy systems. Assertions of protection of legacy systems may strike some as being convincing, but more than likely they will not know what they are being convinced of, as it stands, this accusation of protecting legacy systems is merely intellectual gobbledygook, and more of the tautological demagoguery.

“Demagoguery is a strategy for [attempting to gain] political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.”

(More below)

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, don’t be so hard on the Cyr….

he rejects it all and any continuation of American political life just doesn’t suit his
short deck.


remember

Accordions are a waste of dischords.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

RE: David J. Cyr, November 29 at 7:19 am (Cont.)

More demagoguery:

“Yes, the same Obama who removed the limitations upon torture that the Cheney/Bush regime had imposed, so that now torture is done without any limitations — liberal sensibilities pleasingly done out-of-sight-out-of-liberal-minds, in undisclosed “Black site” locations that “suspects” are now discretely disappeared to.”

A blatant falsehood reprehensible in its lie; the Bush Administration abducted 3000 people sending them to “Black Sights” and foreign countries to be tortured. Obama closed the “Black Sights,” banned torture, and limited rendition to countries of origin contingent on the guarantee that those sent to their countries of origin would not be tortured. If anyone has evidence of Obama’s complicity in torture I would be very much interested in seeing that evidence.

More?

“Near 70 million voters afflicted with Ovis Spongiform Encephalopathy were fear-filled flocked to the polls by MoveOn in 2008, to ensure that the corporate party’s Democrats would have a popular vote mandate to preserve and protect the putrid policies of the corporate state… to merely paint over the rot to allow the rot to remain and get more rotten.”

The sheep with sponge like diseased brains are those who buy into the counter productive and tragically harmful demagoguery presented by Cyr, Hedges, and others here at truthdig. Thankfully the 70 million made the best choice in 2008 and removed the worst from dominant political power. Tragically the sponge like diseased brains convinced a sizable percentage of the 70 million not to vote for the better in the 2010 mid-term elections and the results of that tragedy are manifest. The corporate sycophants are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and are in an even better position to obstruct policies and programs that will lift us out of recession. Absolutely no shared sacrifice, destroy the social safety net, further impoverish the poor, further enrich the rich, etc. etc. anyone that does not see the truth here is ignorant of the facts or thinking with a diseased sponge like brain.

More of a strategy for [attempting to gain] political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.

“In a POTUS positions debate, in October of 2008,  the local leader of the corporate party’s Democrats (representing the “progressive” corporate candidate) repeatedly insisted that troops should be redeployed from Iraq to the “real” and “necessary” war in Afghanistan and on into Pakistan. In my closing statement in that debate, I predicted that — just as JFK did — the affable Obama would make fascism fashionable again. He did, with the eager assistance of near 70 million corporate party Democrat voters.”

The breeding ground for fascism is political chaos, the kind of counter productive chaos Cyr promotes. If you should disagree with my contention I’ll suggest that you take your diseased sponge like brain to the library and study the rise of the Third Reich in Germany and the establishment of fascism in all its manifestations. The Right has very cleverly and dishonestly set us on the course to political chaos and Cyr and his ilk are promoting that chaos as being a virtue

A demagoguery of gibberish.

“The sustainability of America’s highly evolved fascism has been most dependent upon the liberal use of mental chains that have proven to be far more effective than metal ones.”

Those who aspire to political acuity must learn to make the best choices to avoid burgeoning fascism and not present their limbs, bodies, and minds to be chained by those most likely to lead us into fascism.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 1, 2011 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

which law was possibly broken?  was it illegal to meet with King Hussein in 1980?


was talking about Khomeini illegal in 1980?

Report this

By prosefights, December 1, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Where do journalists come from? They are manufactured in America’s universities in a liberal arts curriculum.

Mark Mathis

Before Internet liberal arts ‘educated’ MSM shaped the news and largely controlled free speech.  No longer!

We post at the LA Times and Facebook.

Liberal arts ‘educated’ Max Boot writes on December 1, 2011

To deal with Iran’s menace, the West has relied in part on covert actions (such as — allegedly — the Stuxnet computer virus) but mainly on sanctions.

We post

In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski of the United States met Jordan’s King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam’s closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning.

If above paragraph is true, then Brzezinski may have broken the law.

Criminal complaint affidavit against Brzezinski properly stamped FILED by cllerk of court in Santa Fe in 97 cv 266 but federal judges are in complaince with their Oath of Office. This is the subject of our stolen $22,036.

http://www.prosefights.org/deaton/deaton.htm#boot

Report this

By REDHORSE, November 30, 2011 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

Let us not lose sight that all this generated fear, chaos and assault on American freedoms is to enable a handful of corrupt individuals to loot taxpayer dollars and feed freely off the lives, labor and future of “We the people—-”. The old biblical question “What profit a man—-” is turned upside down because our new reality is loss of “Soul” and “World”.

  Let us also remember that information is avaialable, just not through the MSM (unless you’ve taught yourself to see through the sideshow). There are good journalists writing good books full of fact checked information. Support them. I continue to believe that the fates of B.Manning and J.Assange is our own.

    “Gangsters” is the word. Accept it and be free of the illusion. Remember, they can torture, kill and eat you, but that’s the worst they can do. If that’s the only choice presented remember:you have choices of your own.

    As always THANKS to Mr. St.Cyr for reminding us of the American shadow.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 29, 2011 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

glider~~~~The end point of this trend is a self policed
mass slavery.~~~~~

the end point is excessive conformity…..stop
cheapening the meaning of the word “slavery”

Report this
examinator's avatar

By examinator, November 29, 2011 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

Jim yell,
Apart from PC being lumped in here your comment valid.
PC is more about HOW you say something not what.
This case is about WHAT he said i.e. he was critical of government policy.
Personally, I fail to see the justification providing he
a. didn’t identify himself as a spokesperson for the government
b. didn’t identify himself as an employee which could infer(a).
c. didn’t criticise the policies of the library of congress in general or his division in specific.

It seems to me that this is one of those ‘in’ things. Frankly I’d have applied the reasonable man test i.e. if he was identified as an individual would any reasonable Joe Citizen even know who he was and the actual harm was?

On the surface this case strikes me as potentially evil as it comes.

Report this

By glider, November 29, 2011 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

The Orwellian policies whereby individual thought deviating from aims of the power structure is filtered from the system using management defined excuses such as “poor judgement” or “not a team player”, is a scary ever escalating phenomena.  As dissent is squelched, both employees and management become more compliant monolithic drones, and do the bidding of dark force behind it ever more thoroughly.  The end point of this trend is a self policed mass slavery.

Report this

By heterochromatic, November 29, 2011 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

~~~~~As the occupiers of Zuccotti Park, like those pepper-sprayed at UC Davis or
the Marine veteran shot in Oakland, recently found out, the government’s ability to
limit free speech, to stopper the First Amendment, to undercut the right to
peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances~~~~ more bullshit
misinterpretation of the First Amendment….

but, the link to Davis V Billington is worth wading through it…...interesting case.
... and Davis is a good man.

Report this

By gerard, November 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

It’s a bad thing when a person can be persecuted and/or prosecuted by Mr. Government for words he/she speaks or writes. 
  It’s even worse when Mr. Government is so insecure, tense and scared as to persecute and/or prosecute citizens for words they speak or write.
Feelings of insecurity,tension and fright indicate weakness, not strength. Mr. Government, like everything else, is an organization—a collection of functioning organs. Like all organizations, Mr. Government responds to stimuli.  Being a complicated collection of organs functioning based on laws, ideals, automatic reactions, trial and error responses, more or less poorly remembered past experiences, and random impulses, Mr. Government is subject to inappropriate over-reactions. and a flee-bite can bring him to his knees.
  The moment Mr. Government confronts his weakness, he is in danger of collapse, and likely to overdose as he gives himself a quick shot in the arm.
  Such attacks against individual citizens are examples of Mr. Government’s over-reaction stemming from fear of losing viability. 
  Governments are like people—mostly male people. Forget that at your peril. Deal with it, and they’re nice to have around the house. Yes.  But ... never give up your rights because, when angry, Mr. Government can be a dangerous beast. Be smart.
                  —“Feminista Universal”.

Report this
sallysense's avatar

By sallysense, November 29, 2011 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

wonder what justice holmes would say…
regarding creative danger’s foul carnage… 
or how much of a difference lies between…
shouting “fire” among a theatre’s patronage…
and declaring “weapons of mass destruction”...
amid government’s congressional assemblage?...

Report this

By faith, November 29, 2011 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Chilling article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/ns/us_news-security/t/fbi-apologizes-
lawyer-held-madrid-bombings/#.TtUayBwyxZc

Report this

By faith, November 29, 2011 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

A very chilling article.  I am reminded of the Brandon Mayfield incident in Portland,
Oregon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/ns/us_news-security/t/fbi-apologizes-
lawyer-held-madrid-bombings/#.TtUayBwyxZc

Report this

By Jim Yell, November 29, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Freedom of speech is taking great hit from many sources. Political Correctness is one, but the most aggressive and most likely to damage the country the most is outright dismantaling of Freedom of Speech by our own government and the Right Wing.

The loss of the idea that charging people and holding them for crimes required actual evidence and public discussion before a person could lose their freedom, their life, their money their standing in the community.

Now with the government covering their sorry asses with the disguise of “it is just too dangerous to talk about the crime we say was committed therefore we will hold a person citizen or not for as long as we wish.” We will hold them even when we know they are innocent in order not to embarress ourselves for the gangsters we are.

While I give the laurels to the Right Wing for nearly comlete loss of their minds, I can not ignore the amount of damage done by jumping the gun on accusing people and trying them in court, which has become a common response from reformers, added to the blatant actions of the right wing we will be lucky to have any legal protections or rights left by the end of the decade.

Sad and un-necessary loss just to protect the guilty from their crimes. Plain ass silly.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, November 29, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

David J. Cyr - Give it a rest would ya????

The whole point of the article was simple: we are no longer a “free” and “exceptional” country.

Going on endlessly about Obama, or liberals or whomever doesn’t really illuminate us.

Ultimately, WE have allowed this to happen. The citizenry has opted to be mere consumers of products and services and, through apathy, sloth and stupidity allowed our republic to be coopted by a select few.

If Americans thought of themselves as citizens rather than consumers, perhaps we would be in a different place now….but as I keep saying, consumership takes no effort….citizenship is hard work. Liberal/conservative whomever…........Americans simply won’t do the hard work of protecting their own rights…..

Report this

By balkas, November 29, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

one could have any constitution, free speech, laws [or ‘laws’], schooling, media one
would want or develop over time, the physical power, appears, nevertheless sole
decider.

it solely decides when there shall be peace, war[s], healthy
food/jobs/education/healthcare-etc., for all. [on the planet and not just in u.s] 

the question now arises, Have the people who have written u.s ‘laws’ and constitution
known that? i suggest they did and know now.
so, they know that it would be the police [or ?all its echelons], army commanders,
fbi/cia agents whose will wld prevail.

history appears clear about this lesson. and one needs to study only what happened
in u.s to be convinced that that is so.

police and army had not protected indigenes or slaves. freed blacks until sixties
actually went thru even a worse hell than slavery. and now? americans know this
better than i!

lynching, segregation was stopped by THE POWERS SOLELY BECAUSE the action
strengthened it.
everything that ever happens in u.s or wld happen, strengthens the power. that
includes ?all the protests. any action that wld merely seem to lessen it wld be
squelched and bloodily—if necessary, in the eyes of people who control the powers;
i.e., tanks, wmd, warships, soldiers, aircraft, money, etc. tnx

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 29, 2011 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters Without Borders:

“Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States.  While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.”
__________________

Yes, the same Obama whose liberal led “Justice” Department aggressively sought to send Tim DeChristopher to federal prison for 10 hard years, for having harmlessly temporarily impeded a small portion of an ongoing “environmental” regulatory permitted massive environmental atrocity.

Yes, the same Obama who has increased military dependency upon private contractors (mercenaries), and exponentially increased dependency upon remote-controlled unmanned drones — a most immoral and exceptionally cowardly form of weaponry.

Yes, the same Obama who during his POTUS campaign made it clear that Democrats wouldn’t allow sane and sensible Single-Payer healthcare here, because there were “too many legacy systems” for the corporate party’s Democrats to protect.

Yes, the same Obama who removed the limitations upon torture that the Cheney/Bush regime had imposed, so that now torture is done without any limitations — liberal sensibilities pleasingly done out-of-sight-out-of-liberal-minds, in undisclosed “Black site” locations that “suspects” are now discretely disappeared to.

Near 70 million voters afflicted with Ovis Spongiform Encephalopathy were fear-filled flocked to the polls by MoveOn in 2008, to ensure that the corporate party’s Democrats would have a popular vote mandate to preserve and protect the putrid policies of the corporate state… to merely paint over the rot to allow the rot to remain and get more rotten.

In a POTUS positions debate, in October of 2008,  the local leader of the corporate party’s Democrats (representing the “progressive” corporate candidate) repeatedly insisted that troops should be redeployed from Iraq to the “real” and “necessary” war in Afghanistan and on into Pakistan. In my closing statement in that debate, I predicted that — just as JFK did — the affable Obama would make fascism fashionable again. He did, with the eager assistance of near 70 million corporate party Democrat voters.

The sustainability of America’s highly evolved fascism has been most dependent upon the liberal use of mental chains that have proven to be far more effective than metal ones.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, November 29, 2011 at 4:54 am Link to this comment

Somebody still believes we live in a democracy? What could give anybody that deluded notion? American history with all its violations of human rights? Its imperialist aggression on countries that have never attacked it ...????
Just curious

Report this

By do over, November 29, 2011 at 4:13 am Link to this comment

In America “Free Speech” is not free.  I paid the price twice.  I lost a good government job for writing the truth.  I lost a teaching career for speaking truth.  The economic costs of free speech are very high and never recoverable. They are long lasting and one’s family suffers long term hardship as a result.  In modern America free speech is economic suicide.  Anyone who exercises free speech walks alone.  There are no support groups, not even respect for what one does.  Isolation becomes your everyday companion. It’s much like being sent to
Siberia, it’s harsh and takes a heavy toll on one’s health. Each day one is confronted with the happiness and success of everyday Americans, their hollowness rings like a bell.  The well traveled path of cowardice and fakery wears poorly upon them as they march along in bravado. They are the freedom merchants, quietly selling their freedom’s for dollars.  Today there is precious little freedom remaining.  What will they sell now?

Report this

By ardee, November 29, 2011 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

An article that explains the obvious. The trending towards excessive secrecy, the stifling of opposition and the curtailing of our freedoms has been increasingly blatant.

Despite the hollow words of the campaigning Barack Obama that his administration would not follow the Bush lead in increasing secrecy, and in demanding one voice, it has proven to be even more rigid than that of his predecessor.

It will be “interesting” to see how the Court rules on this apparent violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, November 29, 2011 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

not surprising, considering some of the unbelievably sanitized history authored by
government agencies one finds in the LOC online archives - stuff most academic
libraries will not accept - it’s telling how desperately the empire shills its so-
called freedoms and liberties

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.