Dear Irony

[broncofan]

Darkskyscarecrow,
The President has not authorized the detention or assassination of ANY American as you say. Detention of some Americans? Yes, but that's nothing new. He has based his authorization to detain enemy combatants on the Authorization Use of Military Force (AUMF), legislation passed by Congress allowing the U.S military to detain those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Various decisions have defined the Habeas type proceedings required to review the detention. While the detention policy may be controversial at least Obama has based his right to do so on an act of Congress and not the inherent powers of the executive. There are indeed problems with indefinite detention in an indefinite war, but Obama has not exacerbated them. And I don't know what happened to your reply; perhaps Goldman Sachs erased it.

Ericka, good for you. I hope that you did not vote that way because you felt pressured but that you see some logic in voting for Obama. Best wishes.

[buttslinger]

Don't smoke too much, Erika, you might write in Snoop Dogg.......

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Obama - a gangster... lol.... and you believe that voting for Romney would be better on the legalise dope front?

A party political statement from the latest Tea Party member of Hung Angels - or perhaps an advocate of armed militias hiding the forests

###

Prospero - your reliance upon Logical Fallacy [read: Jump to Conclusions] as a primary means to your Counterpoint, does you no favors as in both instances you are factually incorrect.

Obama being a Gangster does not equal support for Romney. - Strike 1.

Nor does advocating the peaceful withdrawal of consent = Tea Party member, as the Tea Party still advocates Violence actions of Government both Domestically and via an Imperial foreign policy. - Strike 2.

So people like our new scarecrow advocate what exactly? Armed insurrection? No Government? A Communist society? Anarchy? What exactly? .

###

People such as myself merely advocate the abolition of Violent Coercion from within society as a proper or just governmental structure. Further, the only legitimate function of Government is the Protection of the Liberty, Property, and Natural Rights of the People.

Moreover, there is no need for Armed Insurrection, for a person needs only to withdraw their consent from the system to the degree in which they feel most comfortable.

When enough of us stop consenting to a system that wages endless war, enriches its banker friends by stealing from the People, that system will collapse under its own hegemony.

One example is to ask yourself is the benefit to flying so wonderful that you are willing to be treated like a criminal, frisked, scanned, and molested merely to board a plane? For me and many others, the answer is a resounding 'NO'.

The historical fact is that People, not government are what push the human race forward. Whether it be by Nullifying the "Fugitive Slave Law", inventing the light bulb, uncovering the mysteries of flight, etc, it was People not Central Planners that elevated us to prosperity.

Such is the case for Marijuana, whereby the People of several states have told the federal government to butt out of their internal affairs regarding a matter in which the federal government has no enumerated power over in the first place.

Yet despite this clear delineation Washington still claims to know best how to handle a weed, and routinely dispatches its armed enforcers at the DEA/ATF to raid, incarcerate, confiscate, and destroy the property of Peaceful People working at dispensaries or farming the land.

It is sad that people despite all the evidence will still try to rationalize the violence of government as some sort of Christ like benevolent savior, when the reality is, all government does is destroy as violence or the threat thereof, is its only weapon.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Darkskyscarecrow,
The President has not authorized the detention or assassination of ANY American as you say.

How I do wish you were correct, but unfortunately you are unaware of the facts of the matter.

Obama Administration Lawyers appealed and won stopping a federal judge from imposing a Permanent Injunction prohibiting implementation of the section of the NDAA, which allows the Executive Branch to detain any American for any reason, for an Indefinite period of time and without trial.

SOURCES: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1885204.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/ob...s-that-blockin

####

And while I know it is hard to comprehend we live under a regime that would execute a teenager without trial, this unfortunately is the case.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/excu...ation_secrecy/


Pentagon, CIA Sued for Lethal Drone Attacks on U.S. Citizens

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...tacks-lawsuit/

[broncofan]

SOURCES: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1885204.html

/

"person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, including U.S. citizens".

This is the relevant statutory information I plucked out of this article, not the conclusion you argue for. Technically any individual might substantially support Al-Qaeda, but the government could not hold them without them being able to file Habeas petitions. This is one of those issues that is only going to be unconstitutional as applied under 5th amendment due process concerns. What I mean is if they try to detain someone for support that is more nebulous than training with Al Qaeda or providing personnel support it will probably fail on void for vagueness concerns in that circumstance.

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

"person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, including U.S. citizens".

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.

###

Unfortunately, the act also delineates anyone who supports an "Associated Force" as a candidate for Indefinite Detention based on previous legal redefinition of what constitutes a "Terrorist" as passed and codified under the PATRIOT Act.

In addition, there mere implication of the law has already inflicted Material damage as its mere passage gives rise to a chilling effect on all forms of political speech, to wit the federal trial court judge agreed and issued her Permanent Injunction.


http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/s...special&id=223

However, you make my stomach turn with your casual "oh well the teenager was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was confusing for the Militarists" rationalization of an American President murdering an American teenager via an unmanned drone.

Such action is contrary to any semblance of Rights or Common LAW as far back as 1215.

Welcome to Feudalism 2.0

[Prospero]

The feudalism you inveigh against Scarecrow will come if the free market triumphs - and is not held back or in check by regulation.

That is the clever trick currently being perpetrated against the American people by the new radical right - persuading them so-called radical left wing Government or simply Government at all is the issue when the real issue is the market and uncontrolled capitalism.

[giovanni_hotel]

Keep pushing, Erika.

Too many people don't vote when the system is actually weighted to the collective power of the masses at the ballot box. That's why we don't have national holidays for Presidential elections, or a day off to vote for our U.S. Senators.

The powers that be really don't want that many people making their preferences known at the ballot.

[trish]

Nothing wrong with Government, if it's of, by and for the people. The GOP is not against big government. They need the military-corporate-information complex to stabilize and grow their personal wealth. They're against your governance. They don't want the interests of ordinary people interfering with their planet devouring, wealth accreting machinations. For sure the DEMS are susceptible to lobbying by powerful private interests, but it's not part and parcel of their platform and philosophy. The DEMs do, when they can manage the 60% majority give us necessary regulation to protect our economy and our resources. They do pass legislation that helps students further their education, protects women in the market place and grants them province over their own bodies. They have given millions of uninsured secure healthcare. There is a difference. So vote.

[Prospero]

spot on trish