Showing posts with label bush doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush doctrine. Show all posts
May 20, 2012
December 9, 2010
Is it time to use Killing And Eating The Rich as a bargaining chip?
Much thanks to Davis Fleetwood and No Cure For That Productions for adding fuel to the fire.
We're building a movement here folks.
CLICK HERE AND GET SOME
Send in your photos of you in your shirt to PunkPatriot411 {at} Gmail [dot] com.
What's that? You don't HAVE one yet? You gotta change that.
September 1, 2010
Obama Whitewashes Bush
by Anthony Gonzalez
We already knew President Obama has a counterproductive and outrightly insane obsession with bipartisanship, but he sank to a new low last night by rewriting history in favor of his Republican predecessor, the worst commander-in-chief the United States ever had. In his address to the nation from the Oval Office about the end of our combat operations in Iraq, Obama stated that "no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security."
This was an outrageous lie. Anyone who monitored the previous administration knows that throughout it, George W. Bush demonstrated neglect of our troops, contempt for our Constitution, and carelessness about our national security. He allowed the attack of 9/11 to occur, violated the Bill of Rights via policies that Obama is continuing, slashed counterterrorism funding, allowed for dozens of our English-Arabic translators to be fired for being gay, illegally sent our troops into needless battle without adequate gear and equipment, worked to cut the salary of our troops and the benefits for them and our veterans, encouraged insurgents to attack our troops, etc.
It's bad enough that Obama is a corporatist and a militarist. But by now, no one can doubt that he's also a liar. And he doesn't only lie for his own political gain as he did in the campaign. He lies to cover up for the criminals whom he refuses to prosecute and of whom he is, therefore, an accessory.
Partners in crime
Also in last night's address, the current president claimed, "The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences..."
Wrong again. The greatness of our (indirect) democracy is grounded in our freedom to express and act on our differences. One of the differences Americans had with each other concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq was whether it would make our country safer or less safe. Based on the unanimous conclusion of our intelligence agencies, the facts vindicate those of us who said it would make us less safe. However, on Friday, Obama said the invasion and occupation of Iraq "has made America safer."
Finally, aside from what Obama did say lately, what he did not say also stood out. Neither in his speech last night, nor in any other statement from him that I have read or heard, did Obama make any mention of the casualties among the Iraqi people that resulted from our military action in their country. Over 1,200,000 Iraqis were killed because of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I have not heard of anyone even trying to estimate the number of injuries inflicted because of it. What will continue to take a toll in that land is the psychological damage inflicted on Iraqis by the horrors we perpetrated there for the sake of higher corporate profits. And remember, Obama is leaving 50,000 of our troops in Iraq for another year. The flag-draped caskets have not stopped arriving on our shores.
We already knew President Obama has a counterproductive and outrightly insane obsession with bipartisanship, but he sank to a new low last night by rewriting history in favor of his Republican predecessor, the worst commander-in-chief the United States ever had. In his address to the nation from the Oval Office about the end of our combat operations in Iraq, Obama stated that "no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security."
This was an outrageous lie. Anyone who monitored the previous administration knows that throughout it, George W. Bush demonstrated neglect of our troops, contempt for our Constitution, and carelessness about our national security. He allowed the attack of 9/11 to occur, violated the Bill of Rights via policies that Obama is continuing, slashed counterterrorism funding, allowed for dozens of our English-Arabic translators to be fired for being gay, illegally sent our troops into needless battle without adequate gear and equipment, worked to cut the salary of our troops and the benefits for them and our veterans, encouraged insurgents to attack our troops, etc.
It's bad enough that Obama is a corporatist and a militarist. But by now, no one can doubt that he's also a liar. And he doesn't only lie for his own political gain as he did in the campaign. He lies to cover up for the criminals whom he refuses to prosecute and of whom he is, therefore, an accessory.
Partners in crime
Also in last night's address, the current president claimed, "The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences..."
Wrong again. The greatness of our (indirect) democracy is grounded in our freedom to express and act on our differences. One of the differences Americans had with each other concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq was whether it would make our country safer or less safe. Based on the unanimous conclusion of our intelligence agencies, the facts vindicate those of us who said it would make us less safe. However, on Friday, Obama said the invasion and occupation of Iraq "has made America safer."
Finally, aside from what Obama did say lately, what he did not say also stood out. Neither in his speech last night, nor in any other statement from him that I have read or heard, did Obama make any mention of the casualties among the Iraqi people that resulted from our military action in their country. Over 1,200,000 Iraqis were killed because of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I have not heard of anyone even trying to estimate the number of injuries inflicted because of it. What will continue to take a toll in that land is the psychological damage inflicted on Iraqis by the horrors we perpetrated there for the sake of higher corporate profits. And remember, Obama is leaving 50,000 of our troops in Iraq for another year. The flag-draped caskets have not stopped arriving on our shores.
October 29, 2009
Scholars Reject Obama's Warrantless Wiretaps as illegal
From Wired.com
The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say.
"Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance)," the scholars wrote late Friday.
The scholars are Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University.
Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply.
Most Americans have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan, so the outcome could have wide-ranging privacy ramifications. Smartphones, like the iPhone, use cell-tower information to power geo-location applications like Google Maps.
In a case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government maintains it can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant.
While judges have differed on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution. The case on appeal concerns a Pennsylvania judge who rejected the government’s position in a drug prosecution that the new administration inherited.
Mobile-phone providers keep cell-site information for up to 18 months. Historical cell-site location information includes the tower connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call. The government does not claim a warrantless right to cell-site information for future calls, only for calls already dialed.
[more after the jump]
The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say."Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance)," the scholars wrote late Friday.
The scholars are Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University.
Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply.
Most Americans have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan, so the outcome could have wide-ranging privacy ramifications. Smartphones, like the iPhone, use cell-tower information to power geo-location applications like Google Maps.
In a case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government maintains it can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant.
While judges have differed on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution. The case on appeal concerns a Pennsylvania judge who rejected the government’s position in a drug prosecution that the new administration inherited.
Mobile-phone providers keep cell-site information for up to 18 months. Historical cell-site location information includes the tower connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call. The government does not claim a warrantless right to cell-site information for future calls, only for calls already dialed.
[more after the jump]
July 14, 2009
February 2, 2009
Obama to continue with Bush's illegal kidnapping aka "Extreme Rendition"
The Chicago Tribune has the full article.
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.
"Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official
[...]
"One provision in one of Obama's orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Obama's decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups. Leaders of such organizations said that reflects a sense, even among advocates, that the United States and other nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture" or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.
Well, it would seem the more things change, the more they stay the same...
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.
"Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official
[...]
"One provision in one of Obama's orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Obama's decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups. Leaders of such organizations said that reflects a sense, even among advocates, that the United States and other nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture" or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.
Well, it would seem the more things change, the more they stay the same...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I like your ideas, can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Posts
All Comments