http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml More biased BS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_combatants_in_the_Iran–Iraq_War Yeah, there are still fanatics who kill people over religion, still FAR fewer Iraqi civilians die each year than anytime during the last decade of Saddam's rule. Are you a teenager?
inept and utterly ludicrous comparison. what was going on during the last decade of his rule? IEstimates by experts at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and by an air power survey headed by Johns Hopkins University Prof. Eliot Cohen put the number of Iraqi soldiers killed at 20,000 to 25,000, and the number of civilian deaths at 1,000 to 3,000. The Iraqi government claims 2,278 civilians were killed during the war. ---- Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell says hundreds of Iraqi civilians could have been killed and a hospital destroyed during Operation Desert Fox. Mr Dalyell, speaking at a peace vigil in Glasgow, said reliable sources in Baghdad had told him some cruise missiles had landed in residential areas.
We may as well/poorly assert that the Iraq war was a modern-day low-level Nagasaki: If we didn't kill the savages for their salvation, they would be killing each other and us in greater numbers in the future. What's a few murders now, if authority has it that it will avert a holocaust in the future? Let's all just herd our thoughts, round 'em up pard into one cloud with shape and intelligence of a mushroom.
See Wikileaks outcry, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange witch hunt and hysterical condemnation of the role of journalism and press for summation of said violent authoritarian conspiracy. Noted and understood. Um. I believe my point and the bias evident as laid out in article is quite clear. I need to point out that you leapt in the same way, but in the opposite direction. As was/is Netenyahu, Bush, Obama, Hussein, etc. Of course. (note to self: Hmm... ICC prosecutor who does not prosecute self confessed torturers) I am pointing out that there are two sides to the story. Not just the Western Media`s Viagra fueled rape hysteria et al. Perhaps. That is a pertinent point. I suppose after 23248 sorties everything is still as good as new. Of course. In a nutshell Resolution 1973 specifically excludes regime change. Beyond that creative legal hypothesizing is all the rage. Sadly it means "arbitrary". You believe thousands upon thousands of sorties, shells and bullets do no damage? Etc. The crux of the matter is legitimate or not, it is not NATO`s business to facilitate regime change. The Libyan people would have, in the fullness of time, and as they were enjoying amongst the highest standards of living in the world, effected political and thus regime change. Then, and only then would the legitimate will of the people have prevailed, and not been faced with the now only option, the TNC. Time will tell if free and fair democratic elections will come to pass. Which was occurring anyway, before NATO intervened and fanned the flames - and backed their winner. Yes, of course. But I have established clearly, that both parties are guilty of human rights abuses - including the execution of the previous head of State. Does that not immediately render the TNC as illegitimate as Gaddafi? Hypothetically, if we agree re the basic morality of the two groups, you are correct, but the legitimacy of the TNC is yet to be established.
Except - again - those are all things you got from (drumroll please) Western media. So clearly there must be more going on, than some simple conspiracy. The primary resistance to this putative conspiracy, indeed, is exactly Western media. No, in fact, you do not. I have already admitted that I was too hasty, and apologized for such. You have examples of self-confessed torture taking place under ICC jurisdiction? And the other side you come up with, is also from Western Media. Which pretty clearly implies that the attribution to "Western Media" is erroneous. Both sides of said story (and many other sides) are playing out within Western media. So you should start identifying the actual, relevant components (authoritarian toadies, military-industrial complex, progressive left, etc.) rather than persisting in the whole misplaced, broad-brush inanity. And the Viagra-fueld systematic rape accusation remains an open investigation. So you're just going to go ahead and assume that Libya's standard of living is necessary worse than it ever was under Qaddafi, based on... ? The number of sorties? And then attribute all damage to NATO, despite Qaddafi commanding a belligerent army? The pertinent question is how the intervention compared to the likely alternative, not whether there were costs associated with the intervention at all. No it doesn't. It doesn't saying anything about that. Have you read it? It specifically excludes "foreign occupation forces." It says nothing to prejudice the fate of the Qaddafi regime, and it certainly doesn't come out endorse Qaddafi and delegitimize the rebels by excluding regime change. Are you really unable to read, or do you just prefer to troll me instead of responding substantively? Why not? That was an illegitimate regime, using military force to crush opposition. No? You seem to forget that this whole thing started with Libyans expressing peaceful desires for political changes, and being met with violent resistance from Qaddafi. The Libyan people did not seem content to sit on their hands and wait another decade or two or four for change. Hence the uprising. I'm unclear on why you are so upset that outsiders responded to their requests for help in doing so. It seems to be only because said outsiders were "Western." Meanwhile, what we got was exactly "the Libyan people effect[ing] political and thus regime change." I guess you have some fantasy that such would have come for free, without any violence, under some other scenario? So it would have been better to stand aside, watch Qaddafi use military force to violently crush the opposition, and then go back to buying oil from the dictator? This is the morally preferable alternative? If you have some substantial argument that the intervention did more damage than the likely alternative, this would be the time to produce it. Short of that, your complaint seems to be little more than that the West got involved at all. But you haven't established that the one side's abuses are equivalent to the other side's. Indeed, they hardly could be - Qaddafi had decades to rack up his list of crimes and abuses. Nor have you addressed the question of the legitimacy of the ends advanced by those costs. No. In the first place, legitimacy is primarily a matter of the relation between the state and the governed. If the governed give free consent to the state, then it's legitimate, regardless of what you think about its human rights record. In the second place, it was a war. All sides commit abuses in every war. The real differentiator will be whether the new regime is abusive in peacetime (as Qaddafi was), or if that stuff was a product of a chaotic, uncontrolled environment. Moreover, legitimacy is not a binary thing wherein any polity associated with any abuses, ever, is thereby rendered as illegitimate as the worst of dictators. Under that absurd metric, all governments that have ever existed "are as illegitimate as Qaddafi" and the only principled response is anarchy. But, yes, if the TNC fails to respect the people's rights and will, allow for true democracy, establish safety and security, etc., they will lose legitimacy quickly enough. To you, maybe. Doesn't seem to be in much doubt to anyone whose opinion on that question matters.
So back to S1867 Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law Apparently, "everyone saying it excludes citizens and legal residents is only reading sections 1 and 2. Section 4 specifically says the Secretary of Defense along with the Director of National Intelligence can agree that someone is a threat to the nation and waive that protection, as long as they submit a form to Congress that they're going to do so. The language now says the president has to be in on this decision, not that there's anything wrong with waiving the protections of citizens if they can now vaguely define them as a threat to the nation" Rachel Maddow's show interview with ACLU rep: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/45677673#45677673
When did we declare war? I don't remember congress declaring any war or laying out any objectives. How will the public know it is over?
I guess it's all a matter of perspective really Arthur. You can cherry pick the little parts that have to do with an illusory "war on terror" that never existed, as an excuse to strip away the liberties most of us view as our birth right. What you see as individual safety from a police state, I see as the final nail in the coffin of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807. We are now living under a federal dictatorship. The states which were to have sovereign power are now seemingly toothless. The OWS protests can now be rounded up whole sale by the Military if the governors request it, and if they change their mind? TOO DAMN BAD. The FED is in control now. 13 SEC. 515. AUTHORITY TO ORDER ARMY RESERVE, NAVY RE 14 SERVE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE, AND AIR 15 FORCE RESERVE TO ACTIVE DUTY TO PRO 16 VIDE ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO A MAJOR 17 DISASTER OR EMERGENCY. 18 (a) AUTHORITY.— 19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1209 of title 10, 20 United States Code, as amended by section 21 511(a)(1), is further amended by inserting after sec 22 tion 12304a the following new section: 136 † S 1867 ES 1 ‘‘§ 12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine 2 Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve: 3 order to active duty to provide assistance 4 in response to a major disaster or emer 5 gency 6 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—When a Governor requests Fed 7 eral assistance in responding to a major disaster or emer 8 gency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 9 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist 10 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), the Secretary of Defense 11 may, without the consent of the member affected, order 12 any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit orga 13 nized to serve as a unit, of the Army Reserve, Navy Re 14 serve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to 15 active duty for a continuous period of not more than 120 16 days to respond to the Governor’s request. 17 ‘‘(b) EXCLUSION FROM STRENGTH LIMITATIONS.— 18 Members ordered to active duty under this section shall 19 not be counted in computing authorized strength of mem 20 bers on active duty or members in grade under this title 21 or any other law. 22 ‘‘(c) TERMINATION OF DUTY.—Whenever any unit or 23 member of the reserve components is ordered to active 24 duty under this section, the service of all units or members 25 so ordered to active duty may be terminated by order of 26 the Secretary of Defense or law.’’. 137 † S 1867 ES 1 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec 2 tions at the beginning of such chapter, as amended 3 by section 511(a)(2), is further amended by insert 4 ing after the item relating to section 12304a the fol 5 lowing new item: ‘‘12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency.’’. 6 (b) TREATMENT OF OPERATIONS AS CONTINGENCY 7 OPERATIONS.—Section 101(a)(13)(B) of such title is 8 amended by inserting ‘‘12304b,’’ after ‘‘12304,’’. 9 (c) USUAL AND CUSTOMARY ARRANGEMENT.— 10 (1) DUAL-STATUS COMMANDER.—When the 11 Armed Forces and the National Guard are employed 12 simultaneously in support of civil authorities in the 13 United States, appointment of a commissioned offi 14 cer as a dual-status commander serving on active 15 duty and duty in, or with, the National Guard of a 16 State under sections 315 or 325 of title 32, United 17 States Code, as commander of Federal forces by 18 Federal authorities and as commander of State Na 19 tional Guard forces by State authorities, should be 20 the usual and customary command and control ar 21 rangement, including for missions involving a major 22 disaster or emergency as those terms are defined in 23 section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 24 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). 138 † S 1867 ES 1 The chain of command for the Armed Forces shall 2 remain in accordance with sections 162(b) and 3 164(c) of title 10, United States Code. 4 (2) STATE AUTHORITIES SUPPORTED.—When a 5 major disaster or emergency occurs in any area sub 6 ject to the laws of any State, Territory, or the Dis 7 trict of Columbia, the Governor of the State affected 8 normally should be the principal civil authority sup 9 ported by the primary Federal agency and its sup 10 porting Federal entities, and the Adjutant General 11 of the State or his or her subordinate designee nor 12 mally should be the principal military authority sup 13 ported by the dual-status commander when acting in 14 his or her State capacity. 15 (3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 16 paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be construed to preclude 17 or limit, in any way, the authorities of the President, 18 the Secretary of Defense, or the Governor of any 19 State to direct, control, and prescribe command and 20 control arrangements for forces under their com 21 mand. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf
Actually if you paid attention, this is based on a GOVERNOR'S request based on an Emergency, to use our RESERVE forces to help in said emergency or Major Disaster Such as KATRINA Those terms are defined: Rounding up OWS protesters would NOT come under this clause.
When Al Qaeda publicly renounces violence in support of it's aims and then goes a reasonable period of time without resorting to violence.
NOPE SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. 2 and 3 omitted for clarity (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. What Paragraph 4 says is that they can keep an enemy combatant who wasn't involved with Al Qaeda. It doesn't negate the Covered Person's section which makes it clear that this doesn't apply to US Citizens. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
No no, I saw that, and pointed that out. Yet I didn't see where the terms were defined. Could you please refer me to the section and line number please? Specifically I'd like to know where Major Disaster and Emergency are both defined? Also, you really must have learned at some point and understand how the nation is governed. The nation is governed not by what is passed in congress, but by administrative fiat and judicial decree. You see, congress makes laws, but the administrative bureaucracy constructs codes to implement those laws, and the courts rule in favor of who ever pays them the most handsomely. Like S.A.M. just pointed out. What is written into law is never the outcome or the intention of the legislation. Quit being so disingenuous. You see what is going on. Stop it. Do you practice being so obtuse, or were you born this way?
Again, this is specifically for EMERGENCY aid for DISASTERS that exceed the manpower a state has available. Because this WASN'T in place we couldn't use these Reserve forces to help in Katrina. (it is only our Reserves, this doesn't apply to regular military forces) Now we can. Governors have more than enough of their own forces to round up OWS protesters if that was their desire (they have the local police force, the state police force and the National Guard at their disposal). Why are you trying to make it into something it is not?
A Dangerous Woman – Swallowed Whole by Patriot Act Indefinite Detention at Carswell Air Force Base Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Osama bin Laden the Al Queda Boogeyman - Created by Who? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!• Since the military alone decides who enters the base, the Sentry would have the power to reject visits by Family or Journalists, if they so choose. • In straight violation of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, accused civilians would be denied the right to petition for bail. • Military prisoners might have limited rights to send letters or make phone calls to family or attorneys, at the discretion of the Commanding Officer. The military would have the right to keep a defendant totally incommunicado from the world. • An accused person would have no automatic rights to recreation outside of the cell. Prisoners could be locked in a 10 X 12 room 24-7, and denied the rights to exercise for one hour in a prison yard. That would be “indefinite,” too. • Like Bradley Manning, they could be forced to sleep almost naked with the lights on, under 24 hour surveillance, even in the absence of suicide threats. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/11/a-dangerous-woman-indefinite-detention-at-carswell/ It's already happened, this isn't speculation we're talking about here.
What a load of dung. Sure we could have. If that state had asked. . . oh wait, the Feds weren't organized and FEMA was asleep at the switch. It didn't have a damn thing to do with the law, and everything to do with inept, incompetent governance. (And personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was an element of willful neglect thrown in to boot, I think Spike Lee is right on the money on this one. You'd have to be a little thick to research what happened at the Super Dome and not understand the viciousness of it all.) But I digress. . . So what? Did you make up those definitions yourself? I want to see if you got those definitions from this bill or in related relevant co-joining sub-articles or legislation. . . I don't want to call you deceptive Arthur. . . please be compliant. Where did you get that definition? Subsection and line please. Please, don't YOU make this something it isn't. Legislation is often toted as something other than it is. It is purposefully left vague, so that when it is codified at the administrative level, or adjudicated at the judicial level, the ruling elites can achieve their final goal. You may have some fuzzy idea of what is going on in the world of finance. . . but when it comes to how our government works. . . your understanding is about lucid as a senior in high school or a freshman in college IMO.
Nope. It wasn't allowed. Which is why ONLY National Guard and Coast Guard were able to help. FEMA is a relatively small bunch of pencil pushers, they only coordinate other agencies and control the purse strings once the president declares an area a disaster area, they have little actual manpower to physically help in much of anything.
