• Ron Paul 2012
  • Committees of Safety
  • Recent Posts

  • Retake Congress!
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • RSS LewRockwell.com

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Ron Paul 2012
  • Pages

  • November 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Meta

Rand Paul: A new war without ANY Congressional debate or vote

“He [Obama] seems to have had a lot of time to talk to people. He talked to the Arab League, they had time to get together and vote on it. He talked to the UN, they had time to get together and vote on it. But he had utter disregard and contempt for the most important body in the United States that represents the people, US Congress. Utter contempt, he’s gone to NATO, he’s gone to our allies, he’s gone to the Arab League, but he has not had one single minute of debate in Congress.

— Rand Paul

Advertisements

Paul & Kucinich on Libya, empire and auditing the fed

As if it wasn’t bad and illegal enough to sneak the US into an unconstitutional, undeclared war, Dennis Kucinich explains that the way Obama forced the US into the Libyan war and the way he has executed the US action in the war “….exceeds even the wars powers act…it exceeds the UN mandate.” Kucinich states that “…we have a presidency right now that is dangerously close to being an imperial presidency because what the white house is doing essentially is nullifying the role that Congress has.”

Amy Goodman on Obama, Gaza attack, BP oil spill, & corporate-controlled media

Given her track record, Goodman is definitely someone who is motivated by principle and not by corporate sponsorship. Here she gives her views on Obama—  specificially saying that he is an “enormous disappointment” on the issue of expanded wars, bank bailouts, unemployment, torture, and his handling of the BP oil spill.

“I think the media has to be independent, it’s brought to us by corporations in the United States… when media is covering war they’re brought to you by weapons manufacturers, when they’re covering the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico they’re brought to you by the oil companies, when were covering the massy coal explosion in West Virginia they’re brought to you by the coal industry, they’re brought to you by the gas industry…”

Ron Paul Not Afraid To Criticize Obama’s Wars

The always consistent Ron Paul vs. the always inconsistent Michael Moore.

Paul: ‘This is allowing the fox to protect the henhouse’

Rachel Maddow Calls out Obama on Indefinite Detention

In a recent speech Obama stood on the shoulders of the Bush/Cheney Aministration’s past Constitutional/human rights violations and outlined an “appropriate legal regime” built around pre-crime, unconvicted indefinite detentions that are “consistent with our values and our Constitution.” Which Constitution is he referring to to? I must hand it to him, Obama is a master of double-speak.

As Maddow states, “this was a beautiful speech from President Obama today with patriotic, moving, even poetic language about the rule of law and the Constitution, and one of the most radical approaches for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”

Also recommended is Glenn Greenwald’s article on Friday exposing the Facts and myths about Obama’s preventive detention proposal. Greenwald writes:

It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they “expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden” or “otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans”). That’s what “preventive” means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be “combatants.”

Once known, the details of the proposal could — and likely will — make this even more extreme by extending the “preventive detention” power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a “combatant.” After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.

…For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet been given any trial and who Obama can’t possibly release, how do you know they are “dangerous” if they haven’t been tried? Is the Government’s accusation enough for you to assume it’s true?

…As former Prime Minister John Major put it in opposing the expansion to 42 days:

It is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

By rather stark and extreme contrast, Obama is seeking preventive detention powers that are indefinite — meaning without any end, potentially permanent. There’s no time limit on the “preventive detention.” Compare that power to the proposal that caused such a political storm in Britain and what these other governments are empowered to do. The suggestion that indefinite preventive detention without charges is some sort of common or traditional scheme is clearly false.

…Traditional “POWs” are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting. The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a “combatant” was thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the “war on terror” of being “combatants” aren’t anywhere near a “battlefield,” aren’t part of any army, aren’t wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets. In most cases, then, we thus have little more than the say-so of the U.S. Government that they are guilty, which is why actual judicial proceedings before imprisoning them is so much more vital than in the standard POW situation.

…Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you’ll get convictions is not due process. Those are called “show trials.” In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).

Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped “system of justice” is hard to imagine.

…Digby said it best:

…The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the “war” will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

The sheep better wake up.

Jesse Ventura on Larry King, May 11, 2009

Ventura notes, “I was waterboarded…it IS torture.” Seems like all the military people who have been waterboarded have this same view of it. It’s all of the “chickenhawks” (as Ventura would call them) who have never experienced waterboarding who seem to think it’s ok.

See also:

Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It’s Torture “It is way worse than I thought it would be”
Jesse Ventura: Cheney should be waterboarded, but couldn’t survive it
Christians for Torture
Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus
Torture in the Church
Redefining Torture
“Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal,” say Retired JAGs in letter to Leahy