Dear Irony

[broncofan]

###


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.

Usually when you quote someone they actually said what you put in the quotations. If not, then at least you capture the gist of what they said. I said the opposite. I said drone attacks are wrong and even contrary to norms of international law.

Another case (in addition to the one you cite) decided under this section of the Patriot Act is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project which was decided on declaratory judgment. Roberts said you cannot provide expert advice or assistance to groups designated as terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State. The Court actually said it is a content based restriction on speech and so they applied strict scrutiny. The organization in question wanted to provide legal advice to the PKK. But the Court did not rule out that this provision could be unconstitutional as applied in other cases.

However, the bottom line is that even in the case you cite, the President is being sued on the basis of a law that has been on the books since 2001. You are talking about individuals who are suing him and trying to get injunctions from the court based on what might be done pursuant to enforcing this law. He is neither the author of the law, nor did he sign it into law, and he is not responsible for someone suing to get the courts to determine whether they could be held or prosecuted under it.

Since you also misrepresented what I said in a pretty unreasonable way I think I've invested enough time discussing this with you.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Here BroncoFan, let me quote you precisely:

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.

###

So please do tell how your statement above is any other inference than "wrong place, wrong time."

An American teenager who has been convicted of no crime, who the government has brought no evidence before, nor has even convened a grand jury, was murdered and yet you act as Imperial-apologist, which by any stretch, is repugnant.


Furthermore, the Permanent Injunction issued by the federal judge specifically deals with the implementation of Section 1021 0f the NDAA 2012, not 2001.

Thus by all means spin the story how you wish, whether for your own head-in-the-sand benefit or because you believe in the Neo-Conservative philosophy of permanent preemptive war, but spare me your platitudes of being taken out of context.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

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

###
Yes because we need some more laws against fraud as apparently the existing law against fraud is what allowed the market to run rampant.

What about ENRON, brought down by existing state of Texas law against Fraud...

...but wait we need more regulation like SARBANES-OXLEY....

...but wait it failed to prevent the collapse of 2008...we need more regulation!

Let's pass DODD-FRANK, that'll do it, yeah Blue Team!

Guess what, that will not prevent the currency collapse headed our way now that Uncle Ben and his Crony banker friends of the FED have decreed they will print money endlessly vis-a-vis QE3.

YOu can argue for all the regulation in the world, but until you figure out that everyone of the regulatory agencies is stocked full of Wall Street criminals from the very firms they are to oversee (which is by design) you will always be chasing a ghost.

Nevertheless, you are far from the first pro-state crier who has bemoaned that "we just need better bureaucrats/laws", and I am sure you will not be the last.

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.

###
Yes its a trick, unfortunately you and any one else who believes their is a substantive difference between the Party are the marks.

So by all means please keep cheering for Yankees -v- Red Sox, Coke -v- Pepsi or however it is you convince yourself that one party gives two shakes about you while the other is out to destroy you. Go TEAM!

You know it takes all of about five-minutes to look up exactly where the money comes from on "both" sides, and oh my gosh guess who are the biggest donors to "both" sides, surprise its the Criminal Bankers on Wall Street and the at the Federal Reserve.

Nevertheless, you most likely make your federal plantation slave master proud with your passionate defense of their hold on power.

[Prospero]

What is your constructive alternative then Scarecrow?

[broncofan]

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.

I shouldn't have to explain why this statement is the opposite of the wrong place wrong time justification. You should have both the burden of showing how it is, but I will do so anyway because I think it aptly demonstrates either how bad your reading comprehension is or how cynical a manipulator of the truth you are.

I say I am against drone attacks. This first sentence means I think they are wrong whenever used. Then I say "killing opposing foces is an incident of international conflict". This clause is used to set up a rebuttal to this same clause and is an accepted principle of the law of armed conflict. Then I say how this maxim does not apply. When making an argument it is important to anticipate your adversary's stock position and so if you state it you can then rebut it which I do. Then I say "but", which is used to indicate the alternative position I am supporting. Subsequent to that I say, "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."

That last clause is the rebuttal to that first part of the sentence. Here I say that by using unmanned drones the Unites States is not even attempting to identify who their enemy is. They are "willfully killing civilians" and "violating norms of international conflict". Usually people who support something don't say it willfully kills civilians or violates norms of international conflict. In fact, I doubt there's precedent for anyone supporting a measure by bragging about these features of it.

Conclusion- If you really are smart enough to interpret a paragraph someone wrote and believe others on this forum are not, then you vastly underestimate their intelligence. If, on the other hand, you really read that short paragraph several times and believe it means what you claim then you really need to work on your comprehension skills. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you cynically underestimate the intelligence of those on this forum. If that's the case, you are clearly wrong as there are a lot of bright people here. Afterall, look at the people who gave you negative ratings. They probably have nothing against you, are not neo-conservative dupes, but think you have willfully misrepresented a clear paragraph.

[broncofan]

Thus by all means spin the story how you wish, whether for your own head-in-the-sand benefit or because you believe in the Neo-Conservative philosophy of permanent preemptive war, but spare me your platitudes of being taken out of context.

I never said I was taken out of context. In fact I think the paragraph you quote provides enough context. You accuse people of being beholden to slave masters and of being neo-conservatives on this site who are far left of center and strong supporters of civil rights. You don't even attempt to fairly justify your statements.

I think you assume you're talking to the Roman mob that listened to Brutus and wanted Antony's blood and then listened to Antony and thought Brutus was not an honorable man. I tell ya these folks are as constant as the Northern Star of whose true fixed and resting quality there is no scarecrow in the firmament. They won't go for that sort of demonization, particularly of Prospero. He is an honorable man.

[Prospero]

Bronco comes over all Julius Seizure... thanks buddy.

[broncofan]

Bronco comes over all Julius Seizure... thanks buddy.

Yes, but I'm afraid I compared you to Brutus. You couldn't pass through that metal detector these days.

[trish]

...you and any one else who believes their is a substantive difference between the Party...

Do think Gore would've gone to war against Iraq? There's a substantive difference. Do you think McCain would've ended the war in Iraq? There's a substantive difference. Do you the Dems would put idiots who promulgate against the big bang, evolution and climatology on the Science Committee? There's a significant difference. Do you think the Dems will push for measures that will make contraception difficult to obtain if not illegal? There's a significant difference.

Yes, there are Wall Street types lobbying both the houses, playing golf with the Chief Justices and writing legislation. But there's a significant difference between sitting on your hands giving it all away to Wall Street interests, and voting in an effective way for your own rational interests.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Do think Gore would've gone to war against Iraq? There's a substantive difference.

###

Using the historical record, whereby the last century clearly demonstrates the "Democrats" played the role of the aggressive WAR party, coupled along with President Clinton's endless Iraq bombing campaign throughout the 1990's as well as General Wesley Clark's and Gary Hart's statements on the record following the attacks of September 11, yes in all likelihood Al Gore would have invaded the same as 'W.'

Further, that the Nobel Peace-Prize winning Gangster, Obama has expanded wars in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen, should make it crystal clear that regardless of the Letter on their jacket, the political and banker classes love war for a variety of reasons.

Do you think McCain would've ended the war in Iraq? There's a substantive difference.

###

Unfortunately, you assume Obama actually ended the War in Iraq, as opposed to reality, Iraq's government demanded that we leave and refused to allow President Obama's desire to station 50,000 troops indefinitely, let alone all the special "Contractors" i.e Blackwater mercenaries still remaining under contract from DoD.

But, perhaps Imperial-Senator McCain would have committed more troops instead of pretending to end the war.

Obama tells lawmakers that troops will leave Iraq
by Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional officials say President Barack Obama has told lawmakers he plans to pull troops out of Iraq by August 2010.

His plan would leave behind 35,000 to 40,000 troops — possibly as many as 50,000 — to advise Iraqi troops and protect U.S. interests.

The officials disclosed Obama's plans after a meeting at the White House. Obama is expected to announce the new strategy on Friday.

Do you the Dems would put idiots who promulgate against the big bang, evolution and climatology on the Science Committee? There's a significant difference.

###

A. Why is it beneficial to allow the biggest polluters, i.e. the Federal Government, who also pass out liability limits to their Corporatist friends like BP, to continue to be in charge of the Environment?

B. The EPA was formed via an REO issued by Richard Nixon (R) in 1970.

C. Putting the Government in charge of what is and what is not Science makes about as much sense as letting government decided upon the approved STATE religion.

The greatest scientific discoveries have come from Private individuals laboring away to benefit humanity...

Like the Glass-Blower turned scientist Alexander Fleming who discovered antiseptics and penicillin, or...

the gifts from Nikola Tesla or the Private company that invested $40 million to sequence the Human Genome...or

Hughes Medical Institute set up by Howard Hughes upon his death and which boasts a $16.1 billion endowment and whose research in diabetes, stem cells and Parkinson's has led to some of the best treatment options currently available.

But by all means, patronize FDA approved government subsidized big-pharma, they appreciate your business.

Do you think the Dems will push for measures that will make contraception difficult to obtain if not illegal? There's a significant difference.

###
Not sure why it is preferable (nor is it in the Constitution) to have the federal government dealing with contraception at all, it is the responsibility of the consenting parties involved, not the criminals in DC.

Further documenting that Party is immaterial, Judge Augustus Noble Hand whose decision overturned the Federal Obscenity/Anti-Contraception policy known as the Comstock Act, was himself and was appointed by a Republican, President Coolidge.

The object of "The Party" is to pander to voting-blocs who are willing to sacrifice their dignity, humanity, and liberty in exchange for a special favor to their label, ergo gay, Christian, Woman, Latino.

Such bargaining is the mark of a slave, not a freeman.