Never Taking Yes for an Answer
From: Dissident Voice
No policy of the Obama administration better illustrates its fundamental mendacity than its policy of bullying Iran. In this the administration is Bush/Cheney Regime, Part II. The Post-9/11 Geopolitical Power Grab, Continued. The March of Folly: the sequel.
“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon…is unacceptable.” That assumes that Iran is trying to get one. This rootless assumption was relentlessly promoted by the disinformation specialists nested in the Office of the Vice President throughout the Bush administration. The same ones who insisted that al-Qaeda had an intimate relationship with Saddam Hussein, that Iraq was procuring uranium from Niger, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, etc. (Outrageous lies Obama has never wanted to investigate, urging us all to just “move on” and thus forgive the prevaricators and ignore all the blood on their hands.)
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand
Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand
Yeah, haven't we heard that before? As a candidate, he was talking all about the importance of diplomacy. Now, its all about the importance of military. We are fighting two pre-emptive and unnecessary wars, both STILL being funded through "emergency" spending measures. These are wars that have stretched on for nine years in one case and seven years in the other.
From the above article (emphasis mine):
"...Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."
The two current wars are in complete violation of "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding". Closing Guantanamo, but using Baghram Air Base instead, is in complete violation of those universal rights too.
When you say one thing, but you are doing the exact opposite, you really have lost all credibility.
And if the article doesn't frighten the life out of you then you are probably not paying attention.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Yeah, haven't we heard that before? As a candidate, he was talking all about the importance of diplomacy. Now, its all about the importance of military. We are fighting two pre-emptive and unnecessary wars, both STILL being funded through "emergency" spending measures. These are wars that have stretched on for nine years in one case and seven years in the other.
From the above article (emphasis mine):
"...Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."
The two current wars are in complete violation of "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding". Closing Guantanamo, but using Baghram Air Base instead, is in complete violation of those universal rights too.
When you say one thing, but you are doing the exact opposite, you really have lost all credibility.
And if the article doesn't frighten the life out of you then you are probably not paying attention.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Friday, May 21, 2010
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Astounding, though depressing, hypocricy from Obama
From salon.com:
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
...
...a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From salon.com:
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
...
...a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region
Sounds like the standard playbook again from United States
From Zerohedge:
US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region
As if uncontrollable economic contagion was not enough for the administration, Obama is now willing to add geopolitical risk to the current extremely precarious economic and financial situation.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From Zerohedge:
US Begins Massive Military Build Up Around Iran, Sending Up To 4 New Carrier Groups In Region
As if uncontrollable economic contagion was not enough for the administration, Obama is now willing to add geopolitical risk to the current extremely precarious economic and financial situation.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
POLL: 31% SAY AMERICA NEEDS 3RD PARTY
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: 31% of Americans believe political system is seriously broken and U.S. needs third party.
POLL: 31% SAY AMERICA NEEDS 3RD PARTY
From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's the first set of numbers we're releasing from our new NBC/WSJ poll, which comes out in full beginning at 6:30 pm ET:
According to the poll, more than 80% see problems with America's two-party system -- with 31% believing it's seriously broken and that America needs a third party, and with another 52% saying that it has real problems but that it can still work with some improvements.
Only 15% of Americans believe the two-party system works fairly well.
The poll was taken May 6-10, and these numbers have a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
POLL: 31% SAY AMERICA NEEDS 3RD PARTY
From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's the first set of numbers we're releasing from our new NBC/WSJ poll, which comes out in full beginning at 6:30 pm ET:
According to the poll, more than 80% see problems with America's two-party system -- with 31% believing it's seriously broken and that America needs a third party, and with another 52% saying that it has real problems but that it can still work with some improvements.
Only 15% of Americans believe the two-party system works fairly well.
The poll was taken May 6-10, and these numbers have a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
