PunkPatriot.com: terrorism

Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts

August 5, 2012

Should Obama and Congress be arrested under NDAA for supporting Al Quida?

Welcome to the beautiful and surreal reality of life under American corporatism, under a Congress that churns out thousands and thousands of pages of (often contradictory) legislation a year.

If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law? Should Obama (or at least the Justice Department) not be using “all necessary and appropriate force” including “the power to indefinitely detain” to prevent Obama and Congress from assisting al-Qaeda? Did anyone in Congress or the Obama administration even bother to read the law that they were signing?

Do Federal laws no longer apply to lawmakers?

May 20, 2012

Obama is a War Criminal

Yes this is old news. Perhaps you weren't ready to hear it in 2009 though:

part 2 December 15, 2011

Is Obama Incompetent, Cowardly, or Malevolent?

an great sample of logical thinking by Lucien Maverick

"I previously had written a post where I had asked the question of if Obama was malevolent, or merely incompetent. I posed the idea that there are three liberal narratives that currently go around about Obama. The first is that he wants to do things, but the Republicans block him at every turn. I immediately discarded this option, because there was too much evidence against it. The second is that he never wanted to do any of what he said, and that he wanted to continue the Bush Doctrine. The third is that he did want to make good on his promises to the American people, but was simply too cowardly to stand his ground. Recent events have proven that neither the first nor the third narrative are correct. The second is the correct one. Obama is a malevolent force working against the American people.

The first major indication that Obama was playing dumb and really working to continue the Bush Doctrine was the acceptance speech that he gave when he received his Nobel Peace Prize. He basically said that it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks, America can do whatever the hell it wants, without consequences. That was the first major hint.

The next was when he failed to live up to his mandate of closing Guantanamo, instead, he pretty much franchised it. That was the next big hint that something was very off about his character. Next up came the Bush Tax Cuts. Obama could very easily have stood his ground, and said that he would veto anything that they put on his desk. He could have told them that there would be no fly with this. Instead, he gave the Republicans more than even Bush II had given them. Bush hadn’t been so generous, so that gives kind of a statement of where Obama stands.

The next big clue was the Debt Ceiling debate. This was another instance where Obama could have stood his ground, because everybody who is politically aware knew that the Republicans were bluffing. There was no way that they were going to not raise the debt ceiling. With the AARP breathing down their necks and the old people saying “You damn well better get me my Social Security!”, we all knew that it was a bluff. Again, he gave them everything that they want and more. He barely even hid it."

[...]

"With the 2012 elections just around the corner, the big question becomes – what should we do? The liberals like me really have nobody to turn to. All of the Republican candidates are jokes. Newt Gingrich is an idiot. Michele Bachmann is insane. Rick Perry is a bigot. Rick Santorum is a dumbass and a bigot. Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Obama (except he’s open about his malevolence, whereas Obama is trying to mask his as 'change')."

There is more in over at the original post, but this excellent set of paragraphs above is what really struck a chord with me. Laying out the history of betrayal of the base, it really seems to me that the Democratic Loyal has a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

I'd also like to point out that Liberals and Progressives DO have a place to go, where they can vote for somebody who is neither evil, nor insane.

Dr. Jill Stien is running for President with the Green party.

She's working to get ballot access in all 50 states, and thanks to increasingly exclusive and arcane ballot access laws put in place by both the GOP and DNC to keep third party candidates from challenging their duopoly, we are going to need to work extra hard to make sure that she is an option that we can vote for in 2012.

So that means we need to start working on it NOW.

November 21, 2010

If Bush were to go to Europe, he'd be Arrested for War Crimes

It's not hyperbole to call him a war criminal. It's a fact.

Boris Johnson, Tory (Conservative) Mayor of London:

" It is not yet clear whether George W Bush is planning to cross the Atlantic to flog us his memoirs, but if I were his PR people I would urge caution. As book tours go, this one would be an absolute corker. It is not just that every European capital would be brought to a standstill, as book-signings turned into anti-war riots. The real trouble — from the Bush point of view — is that he might never see Texas again.

One moment he might be holding forth to a great perspiring tent at Hay-on-Wye. The next moment, click, some embarrassed member of the Welsh constabulary could walk on stage, place some handcuffs on the former leader of the Free World, and take him away to be charged. Of course, we are told this scenario is unlikely. Dubya is the former leader of a friendly power, with whom this country is determined to have good relations. But that is what torture-authorising Augusto Pinochet thought. And unlike Pinochet, Mr Bush is making no bones about what he has done. ‘

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.

August 3, 2010

The New Normal

The ACLU recently warned that the Obama Administration was in danger of establishing a "New Normal" by continuing with the WORST policies of the Bush administration.

This includes monitoring our internet use, the recent legalization of what was previously illegal wiretapping, and yet another extension of the police-state loving USAPATRIOT act. Guantanamo bay is still open in blatant violation of international law, 9 years after September 11th.

But now, Obama has exceeded Bush in terms of police-state douchebaggery.

The Bush administration never claimed to have the authority to assassinate US citizens.
The Obama administration, however, has.

And the left has largely been quiet about this. Well hopefully, the left will finally wipe the post-election confetti out of their eyes and wake up to what's really going on in their country. With their president.

The ACLU along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) recently filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration challenging this very claim to authority, on the behalf of the father of an assassination target- and U.S. Citizen.

Or they would have, that is, except for this legal manuver by the US government. From Glenn Greenwald:

...regulations promulgated several years ago by the Treasury Department prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with individuals labeled by the Government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and those regulations specifically bar lawyers from providing legal services to such individuals without a special "license" from the Treasury Department specifically allowing such representation."

So it turns out that the Treasury Dept stepped in two weeks after the suit was filed to label Anwar al-Awalaki a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" which one can only assume was specifically done by the Obama administration to block the suit against them, and retain the authority to assassinate US Citizens.

Well, in response to that, the ACLU has filed a suit agains the US Treasury and Timothy Geithner, saying, that the entire thing is insanely unconstitutional-- that the US Treasury has no constitutional authority to designate people as terrorists, that the US Government has no right to deny US Citizens access to a lawyer.

If the ACLU and CCR lose this case, we're going to be living in a nation where the government can legally pick out "problem citizens" and kill them on sight. Which is actually the country we're living in right now.

If this doesn't bother you, if this doesn't send up a red flag in the pit of your soul that says, "this is incredibly fucked" then maybe it's because you've already adjusted your psyche to accept the New Normal.