"Vote for me because I'm a murderer who mistakes revenge for justice!"

So says the woman who thinks the US is horrible because we have laws against incest. Are you pro-pedophile too Dorothea? Necrophilia?

The truth is that killing Bin Laden was not as you say a revenge killing. It was justice. Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent lives and... since he would not be taken alive, they did give him that chance, he was taken out by body bag like any other mass murderer who refuses to take responsibility for his crimes.

The fact that you, Dorothea, are willing to make excuses for a mass murdering terrorist only shows us the poverty of your morals and of your political beliefs. If you cannot be honest even in this case how can anyone believe you are honest in others?

Just like the extreme Right, extreme Leftists like Dorothea believe that politics is a zero sum game. That the way you win at this game is by manipulating the truth and the facts in your favor and that this is ok as long as you don't get caught. Because for both extremes, the Fascist Right and the Totalitarian Left, it is their ideology which trumps reality.

This is of course a LIE. Politics isn't about elevating some fantasized ideal over and above human needs. It is about addressing those very needs. Real politics is messy, clumsy, pragmatic, and involves compromise because the intent is not to fellate Leon Trotsky or Leo Strauss, it is to help people in whatever way we can. Even if Karl Marx would not approve.

The only people that Leftists like Dorothea hate more than the Right are Liberals like me because I will not sacrifice other human beings on the alter of her ideology. I will cut deals, compromise, seek pragmatic solutions, give a little to get a little, and there is nothing, NOTHING extremists hate more than a true liberal or anyone else who occupies the middle ground.

Oh, it's you again!

So says the woman who thinks the US is horrible because we have laws against incest. Are you pro-pedophile too Dorothea? Necrophilia?

Sigh. We've already had this discussion TWICE. You seem to suffer from amnesia. Okay, let me reiterate my point of view: People have a right to sexual self-determination. Therefore, consensual sex (e.g. incest, prostitution) must be legal, and non-consensual sex (e.g. paedophilia, necrophilia, rape) must be illegal.

The truth is that killing Bin Laden was not as you say a revenge killing. It was justice.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge is not justice. Human rights are granted to ALL people without exception, not just to law-abiding people. If you think that the killing of people is wrong, then you must not endorse the killing of Bin Laden either. Otherwise, you would totally contradict yourself: "The killing of people is wrong. Now, let's kill the killer." Also, the expression "war on terror" is a contradiction in terms, because war IS terror.

Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent lives

Well, US troops killed more than 100,000 innocent people in Iraq. According to your "sense of justice", these US troops should all be murdered in return! Obama ordered drone strikes that killed a lot of innocent people. According to your "sense of justice", he should be murdered in return! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Interesting. The USA bases its legal penalties (e.g. capital punishment, Bin Laden murder) on the Bible while declaring Muslim countries inferior for having Sharia law.

The fact that you, Dorothea, are willing to make excuses for a mass murdering terrorist only shows us the poverty of your morals and of your political beliefs.

Listen. Just because I respect the human rights of criminals doesn't mean that I approve of or excuse their crimes. These are two completely separate issues. Apparently, that's already too complex for you to comprehend.

Bin Laden would have deserved a fair trial and life without parole.

That the way you win at this game is by manipulating the truth and the facts in your favor and that this is ok as long as you don't get caught.

Huh? What did I say that isn't true?

The only people that Leftists like Dorothea hate more than the Right are Liberals like me ...

I am a fan of neither right-wingers nor so-called liberals (i.e. right-leaning centrists). However, at least right-wingers are consistent in their hatred. I can admire their consistency while disapproving of their hatred. Let me give you an example:

Right-wingers are hardcore Zionists. -> They disregard the human/civil rights of ALL Palestinians without exception. That's why right-wingers are consistent in their hatred.

Liberals are so-called "liberal Zionists". -> They support the human/civil rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. However, they DO NOT mind the lack of human/civil rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Liberals delude themselves into believing that the terms "liberal" and "Zionist" DO NOT contradict each other.

Left-wingers are anti-Zionists. -> They support the human/civil rights of ALL Palestinians (and Israeli Jews). That's why left-wingers are consistent in their non-hatred.

... because I will not sacrifice other human beings on the alter of her ideology

WTF are you talking about? You are the one who approves of and defends murder, not me.

there is nothing, NOTHING extremists hate more than a true liberal or anyone else who occupies the middle ground

There IS NO middle ground when it comes to equal rights. Either you support them or you are against them.

there is nothing, NOTHING extremists hate more than a true liberal or anyone else who occupies the middle ground.

You flatter yourself that you are in the center. That comfy "center" that you have curled up in is an illusion- one defined for "moderates" by the extreme right. This "center" represents liquified mashed potatoes which can be made to flow wherever the right wants simply by taking contrarian extremist positions to get the mass to flow to a new "moderate" center equidistant between them and their political opposition.

I will go further. This is in part willful self deception because such faux liberals really want to flatter themselves that they have done their bit. By accepting the right's definition of what opposition to them means, these sonambulist "liberals" can comfort themselves that they are on the true cutting edge of social justice issues. In reality, the right has transformed them into willful co conspirators in systems of social injustice, such as extra judicial murder unregulated domestic spying, mass deportations, and refusal to prosecute past administration officials for criminal acts.

Concretely, you convinced yourself that there was no solution better than Obama's continuation of Bush's policy of extreme resistance of any congressional oversight or check on the power of the presidency to conduct covert operations.

In reality, the right has transformed [liberals] into willful co conspirators in systems of social injustice, such as extra judicial murder unregulated domestic spying, mass deportations, and refusal to prosecute past administration officials for criminal acts. Concretely, you convinced yourself that there was no solution better than Obama's continuation of Bush's policy of extreme resistance of any congressional oversight or check on the power of the presidency to conduct covert operations.

Spot-on!

Great reply Dorothea.
Also John.
Might I just add since I'm at it: If you look to history, you never really want to be the "centrist". That would mean you're a racist, woman hater, homophobe, war-mongerer ... you name it. All centrist positions at some point.

Dorothea from the Glorious People's Republic of Germany said:

"Oh, it's you again!"

Hello Dorothea.

"People have a right to sexual self-determination. Therefore, consensual sex (e.g. incest, prostitution) must be legal, and non-consensual sex (e.g. paedophilia, necrophilia, rape) must be illegal."

Well that is your opinion. Mine is that the fact that the US doesn't agree and thinks incest and prostitution are not social goods does not make the US inferior to whatever model you are promoting. Are you a moral absolutist? Do you believe that some cultures are innately superior to others? If you are then your position makes some sense. If not, if you agree with me that cultural values are relative and not absolute then you have no moral ground in criticizing the US for it's failure to live up to *your* values.

"Two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge is not justice. Human rights are granted to ALL people without exception, not just to law-abiding people."

(1) The state Killing a terrorist who is violently resisting arrest is not "wrong". (2) Bringing a terrorist to account for his crimes is not revenge. (3) Violent criminals have no right to expect their right to life will be respected when authorities attempt to bring them to justice. If they resist, and Bin Laden did resist, the authorities have the right to use deadly force to apprehend them.

"Well, US troops killed more than 100,000 innocent people in Iraq."

Your argument is fallacious. The fact that the US went to war with Iraq does not expunge Bin Laden's crimes. Terrorism is a crime. War is not. Wars can be just or unjust, I think the Iraqi war was unjust, but it does not follow that therefore Bin Laden is innocent.

"The USA bases its legal penalties (e.g. capital punishment, Bin Laden murder) on the Bible"

FALSE. The US legal code is based on common law derived from the Roman Empire.

"Just because I respect the human rights of criminals doesn't mean that I approve of or excuse their crimes."

No one violated Bin Laden's human rights. He violently resisted apprehension and suffered the consequences of his actions.

"I am a fan of neither right-wingers nor so-called liberals (i.e. right-leaning centrists). However, at least right-wingers are consistent in their hatred."

Thank you for validating my point. You admire right wing extremists for their "consistency". Which, again, only serves to demonstrate the poverty of your political beliefs.

"Liberals are so-called "liberal Zionists""

I don't really involve myself in the Israeli/Palistinian issue.

"There IS NO middle ground when it comes to equal rights."

As the above discussion shows you have not really thought about your beliefs in this matter. Your position, such as it is, is glib, superficial knee jerk Leftist kant.

John said:
"You flatter yourself that you are in the center."

Fallacy of the false dilemma. I am not restricted to a choice between either the extreme Left or Right and a muddled centrism. I am a liberal, not a centrist nor a moderate. My political beliefs flow directly from my liberal principles. Hence your accusation that I occupy the mushy middle ground is false.

That is why I deliberately chose the phrase "middle ground" rather than "center". I am not in the political center. I'm left of center but occupy a general middle area in contrast to either political extremes.

"such faux liberals really want to flatter themselves that they have done their bit."

You don't actually know my inner thoughts and have no right to presume you do. I am not a faux liberal, I believe my liberal principles are arrived at honestly. I suggest you educate yourself on what liberalism actually is and how it differs from Leftist thought before you embarrass yourself further.

The rest of your statement consists in strawmen, ad hominem and ad hoc assertions devoid of any evidence or argument.

"Concretely, you convinced yourself that there was no solution better than Obama's continuation of Bush's policy of extreme resistance of any congressional oversight or check on the power of the presidency to conduct covert operations."

No, I have not really addressed this issue. What I have said is that I think the United States can execute a US citizen without due process who has declared war against the US and joined with a terrorist organization with the express purpose of bringing down the government of the US.

I have even given *reasons* why I hold this belief: That technological advances have made it possible for non-state actors to pose a grave threat to the security of nations and that they have the right to defend themselves from such terrorists.

Neither you nor anyone else have given ANY reason at all for your beliefs. You have merely made accusations and engaged in personal attacks. Which, remarkably, I find highly unconvincing.

What you and others need to do is to show how the US or any other nation can protect itself from technologically advanced non-state actors *AND* observe due process in the current geopolitical environment. I don't see how. I asked you to give me an example of how it could be. You have not done so but have resorted to personal attacks and unsupported assertions. This, to me, indicates you have no argument or you'd have made one.

If your ideas flow directly from your liberalism, then logically speaking, use of a term such as "middle" which is relative to other positions is ill considered. If you choose to use the term "middle ground", then my point about vulnerability to the Overton Window is correct.

Show me where I have erred.

@ TheOnCommingStorm:

People's Republic of Germany

It's the Federal Republic of Germany.

Are you a moral absolutist? Do you believe that some cultures are innately superior to others? If you are then your position makes some sense. If not, if you agree with me that cultural values are relative and not absolute then you have no moral ground in criticizing the US for it's failure to live up to *your* values.

We were talking about legislation, not about moral values. These are two entirely different issues. Don't mix them up. Legislation must not be based on subjective things like moral values, but on objective factors such as consent. You are free to believe that things like incest, prostitution, or gay sex are immoral and refrain from engaging in them. However, you have no right to impose your personal morals on the rest of the nation through legislation and thereby deny your compatriots their right to engage in these consensual activities. As I said, people have a right to sexual self-determination. They are not obliged to adapt THEIR own lifestyle to YOUR moral values. Any consensual sex must be legal.

The state Killing a terrorist who is violently resisting arrest is not "wrong".

Of course, it's wrong. It's a human rights violation. Besides, how can you really be sure that someone is a terrorist when he wasn't even officially convicted of terrorism? Ever heard of the expression "due process"? You'll find it in your country's constitution.

Bringing a terrorist to account for his crimes is not revenge.

Right. Arresting him, trying him and locking him away is not revenge. Killing him, however, is revenge.

Violent criminals have no right to expect their right to life will be respected when authorities attempt to bring them to justice.

As I said, human rights are granted to EVERY person, not just to law-abiding people.

If they resist, and Bin Laden did resist, the authorities have the right to use deadly force to apprehend them.

Bin Laden did NOT resist. And all those people who were killed by drones strikes did not resist arrest either.

The fact that the US went to war with Iraq does not expunge Bin Laden's crimes. Terrorism is a crime. War is not. Wars can be just or unjust, I think the Iraqi war was unjust, but it does not follow that therefore Bin Laden is innocent.

Huh? I've never claimed that Bin Laden is innocent. Are you incapable of reading? I said that if you think that murderers of innocent people must be murdered in return, then US troops and Obama deserve to be murdered, too.

No one violated Bin Laden's human rights.

Killing someone is a violation of this person's human right to life.

You admire right wing extremists for their "consistency". Which, again, only serves to demonstrate the poverty of your political beliefs.

Huh? You completely ignore or distort what I wrote. I said that "I can admire their consistency while disapproving of their hatred." I explicitly distanced myself from their political views. One can appreciate a certain quality in a person while disliking other traits, views, or actions of that person.

Your position, such as it is, is glib, superficial knee jerk Leftist kant.

Well, then tell me what IS the middle ground in terms of equal rights?

"Legislation must not be based on subjective things like moral values, but on objective factors such as consent."

Children are not capable of giving consent. Adult incestuous relations cause harm to society by the nature of incest itself. Women engaged in prostitution are sexual slaves of their pimps and slavery is immoral.

ALL laws are moral documents.

"Of course, it's wrong. It's a human rights violation. Besides, how can you really be sure that someone is a terrorist when he wasn't even officially convicted of terrorism? Ever heard of the expression "due process"? You'll find it in your country's constitution."

As you will recall Osama Bin Laden confessed to his crimes in a public video. Also, there was a legal process of finding that provided the justification for allowing the US to pursue him to bring him to account. It is NOT the case that the president of the US, Bush or Obama, simply said "Git 'em". A moral and legal basis for acting was established first.

Lastly, our constitution applies only to US citizens. Foreign non-state criminals have no miranda rights. We have the right to protect ourselves from them and to bring them to justice. If the people in Bin Laden's compound had not resisted they would have been taken peacefully.

One of the major flaws in your arguments is you seem to place all responsibility on everyone except the criminal. That isn't how rights work. A criminal trying to escape justice has a moral and legal obligation to turn him or herself in and to do so without resorting to violence. Simply by fleeing a criminal assumes responsibility for what follows. Rights do not flow one way. That state also has rights and criminals also have duties and obligations.

"Bin Laden did NOT resist. And all those people who were killed by drones strikes did not resist arrest either."

WRONG in the first part. It is NOT a defense to say "What? Who me? *I* didn't shoot any guns. All my buddies did but not me." Any criminal holed up with his confederates has a moral obligation to give himself up peacefully. If his criminal associates resist violently, then he is also guilty of violent resistance.

People killed by drone strikes are actively involved in terrorist operations and are plotting mass murder against the citizens of the US, or Germany. We know for a fact they are seeking to acquire nuclear material for a dirty bomb or bioweapons. *ALL* governments have a moral duty to protect their people.

"I said that if you think that murderers of innocent people must be murdered in return, then US troops and Obama deserve to be murdered, too."

When murderers are killed in the process of attempting to apprehend them it is not itself murder. Killing in the process of conducting a war is also not murder. Although murders can take place during a war, not all killings during a war are murder. The fact that you are unable to distinguish between legally sanctioned killing and murder only illustrates your intellectual poverty of thought.

"Killing someone is a violation of this person's human right to life."

People give up their right to life when they commit murder or take up arms against a nation.

"Well, then tell me what IS the middle ground in terms of equal rights?"

Your question is incoherent. Human rights are not the same as equality before the law. I have a human right to life but I do not have a right to equality before the laws of a country where I am not a citizen. Are you saying that you want the laws of the US to be applied globally? Really? So yes, you are indeed glib, superficial and naive.

@ TheOnCommingStorm:

Children are not capable of giving consent.

Right. I have never claimed otherwise.

Adult incestuous relations cause harm to society by the nature of incest itself.

No, they don't. The term "incest" merely means sexual intercourse between family members and close relatives. (source: Wikipedia) The term does NOT refer to procreation between family members and close relatives. And over 99% of the times, people do NOT have sex for the purpose of procreation.

Women engaged in prostitution are sexual slaves of their pimps and slavery is immoral.

Oh, please. The term "prostitution" refers to consensual prostitution only. There are a whole lot of service occupations. People offer many different kinds of services for money all the time. Why exclude sexual services? That doesn't make any sense, esp. because people have a right to sexual self-determination. Prostitutes are often self-employed and rent a room in a brothel. This rent usually includes things like security service, cleaning service, condoms. Besides, there are a lot of slutty women out there, who even have sex with strangers for free. At least, prostitutes are smart enough to demand money for this activity instead of offering their bodies for free, because that would REALLY be cheap. Also you have to consider that men objectify women anyway. So, why not allow women to take advantage of this situation and make money with it?

Let me add that "forced prostitution" (i.e. rape, forced labour) is something entirely different and rightly illegal.

Whether slavery is immoral or not doesn't matter. The reason why slavery is illegal is the LACK of consent.

ALL laws are moral documents.

Nope. The legality of adultery proves you wrong. Adultery is clearly immoral. However, it's still legal, because the sex between the cheater and the lover happens consensually.

As you will recall Osama Bin Laden confessed to his crimes in a public video.

A video tape is not a trial. It could have been used as piece of evidence at a trial.

Also, there was a legal process of finding that provided the justification for allowing the US to pursue him to bring him to account.

Really? Do you have a link to substantiate this? However, even if this were true, it's still not a proper trial and nothing justifies death penalty.

Lastly, our constitution applies only to US citizens. Foreign non-state criminals have no miranda rights.

From Wikipedia:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...."

The US constitution refers to "person", not to "citizen". This means that any person (regardless of citizenship) who is prosecuted by US authorities has a right to due process.

If the people in Bin Laden's compound had not resisted they would have been taken peacefully.

First of all, these US troops didn't even have the right to enter into Pakistan. Second, when they arrived at the compound, they didn't introduce themselves and didn't state the reason for their "visit". So, of course, the residents there were scared and had no idea what these intruders wanted. Would you allow such people to enter your home without resistance?

A criminal trying to escape justice has a moral and legal obligation to turn him or herself in and to do so without resorting to violence. Simply by fleeing a criminal assumes responsibility for what follows. Rights do not flow one way. That state also has rights and criminals also have duties and obligations.

What part of "Human rights are granted to ALL people." don't you understand?

Any criminal holed up with his confederates has a moral obligation to give himself up peacefully. If his criminal associates resist violently, then he is also guilty of violent resistance.

Huh? First of all, moral responsibility is totally irrelevant. Second, guilt by association doesn't exist.

People killed by drone strikes are actively involved in terrorist operations and are plotting mass murder against the citizens of the US, or Germany.

Oh, please. How do you know that? Have they been tried and convicted? No. Did they try to resist arrest? No.

The Obama administration's policy for drone strikes deems all adult male victims as militants, unless exculpatory evidence emerges after their deaths.

So, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

We know for a fact they are seeking to acquire nuclear material for a dirty bomb or bioweapons.

Well, the USA owns more than 1,500 nuclear weapons. So, we'd better quickly eliminate this nuclear threat by extinguishing the USA. Right?

*ALL* governments have a moral duty to protect their people.

Governments have the LEGAL duty to respect human rights. A government is not a person. Therefore, it cannot have moral values or moral duties.

The fact that you are unable to distinguish between legally sanctioned killing and murder only illustrates your intellectual poverty of thought.

Well, then I guess that all the people at Amnesty International and all Western nations, except for the USA, suffer from intellectual poverty of thought, too. Yeah, right. All the others are stupid, not you.

Your question is incoherent.

No, it's not. You claim that you occupy the middle ground. I wanted to know what your position on equal rights is. Let's take, for example, marriage equality. Righties oppose it, lefties support it. What about the liberal middle-grounders? Where do they stand? With the righties or the lefties?

I have a human right to life but I do not have a right to equality before the laws of a country where I am not a citizen.

Bullsh*t.

From Wikipedia:

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

Equality before the law, also known as legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process). All are equal before the law.

Are you saying that you want the laws of the US to be applied globally?

No, of course not. The world must be protected from your largely crappy laws.

What I am saying is that the USA must respect its own constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The term "incest" merely means sexual intercourse between family members and close relatives. (source: Wikipedia) The term does NOT refer to procreation between family members and close relatives. And over 99% of the times, people do NOT have sex for the purpose of procreation.

Yes, I know what the word means. Incest is one of the few universal cultural taboos. Every human culture through all of human history has deemed incest to be immoral regardless of whether or not it is for procreation.

Your claim was that the United States was immoral for prohibiting incest. That claim is refuted by the fact that incest is universally condemned by all cultures in all of human history.

"The term "prostitution" refers to consensual prostitution only."

FALSE. As a simple matter of fact that anyone can verify for themselves in any dictionary prostitution refers to the exchange of sexual favors for money. Consent may or may not be present. The reason that prostitution is immoral is because (1) Prostitutes rarely choose their lifestyle willingly. They are almost always coerced into it somehow. (2) The very act of prostitution debases the person as a human being. Unlike manual labor one's sexuality is part of one's core identity. Human beings should not be treated or treat themselves as a thing or a mere commodity to be bought and sold.

Whether or not you agree with the above it is a perfectly rational and defensible moral and ethical position that one can have. Your claim was again that the US was somehow wrong or inferior for prohibiting prostitution. That claim is absurd.

I am looking forward to your vigorous and studied defense of bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

--

ALL laws are moral documents.

"Nope. The legality of adultery proves you wrong. Adultery is clearly immoral. However, it's still legal"

I can see that you have great difficulty thinking clearly and logically. The statement that all laws are moral documents is not refuted by the fact that adultery is both immoral and not illegal for the same reason that the statement that "All X's are Y's" is not refuted by the claim that "Some Y's are not X's"

--

As you will recall Osama Bin Laden confessed to his crimes in a public video.

A video tape is not a trial. It could have been used as piece of evidence at a trial.

Bin Laden was tried in absentia. Didn't you know that? A judge determined that there sufficient evidence that the US was justified in trying to bring him to justice.

"Huh? First of all, moral responsibility is totally irrelevant. Second, guilt by association doesn't exist."

No, it is very relevant. If you commit a crime or become aware that a crime has been committed you are morally obligated report that crime or turn yourself in. Why? Because a crime has been committed.

Let's say you are driving the getaway car for a group of bank robbers. If one of them kills someone while robbing the bank YOU ARE GUILTY OF MURDER (as an accessory to murder). The same principle applies to the raid on Bin Laden.

--

*ALL* governments have a moral duty to protect their people.

"Governments have the LEGAL duty to respect human rights. A government is not a person. Therefore, it cannot have moral values or moral duties."

The duty of the state to protect the lives of it's people supersedes the right to life of those who wage war against it. That is the moral justification for war and terrorism is an act of war against a state by non-state actors.

"I guess that all the people at Amnesty International and all Western nations, except for the USA, suffer from intellectual poverty of thought, too."

When Amnesty International replies to this thread I will address their arguments. Until then I think you should concentrate on your own.

"Let's take, for example, marriage equality. Righties oppose it, lefties support it. What about the liberal middle-grounders?"

Virtually all liberals that I know support marriage equality as do I.

Every human culture through all of human history has deemed incest to be immoral regardless of whether or not it is for procreation.

As I said, moral values are irrelevant to legislation. Besides, incest is legal in several Western European countries, e.g. France and Spain.

Your claim was that the United States was immoral for prohibiting incest.

No, I didn't claim that. Don't put words in my mouth. However, your claim was that adult incestuous relations cause harm to society by the nature of incest itself. Now, tell me how exactly do they cause harm?

As a simple matter of fact that anyone can verify for themselves in any dictionary prostitution refers to the exchange of sexual favors for money. Consent may or may not be present.

You distinguish between "prostitution" and "forced prostitution" in the same way you differentiate between "marriage" and "forced marriage" or between "labour" and "forced labour". When you tell people that you have got married or had sex, then the standard assumption is that you did it voluntarily. The same applies to prostitution.

The reason that prostitution is immoral ...

You are free to consider prostitution immoral. However, that's irrelevant to legislation.

Human beings should not be treated or treat themselves as a thing or a mere commodity to be bought and sold.

Again. People have a right to sexual self-determination. So, if a person wants to offer sex for money or use such a service, then s/he must be allowed to do that. What other people do consensually is none of your business. They don't need your approval.

Whether or not you agree with the above it is a perfectly rational and defensible moral and ethical position that one can have.

You can have whatever moral values you want. Just don't impose them on the rest of the nation through legislation.

Your claim was again that the US was somehow wrong or inferior for prohibiting prostitution.

No. I just said that your laws are largely crappy.

I am looking forward to your vigorous and studied defense of bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

Sigh. You really don't listen to me. Animals, children and dead people can't give consent. Therefore, the above-mentioned things are rightly illegal.

The statement that all laws are moral documents is not refuted by the fact that adultery is both immoral and not illegal for the same reason that the statement that "All X's are Y's" is not refuted by the claim that "Some Y's are not X's"

Huh? Clearly, you are the one who is incapable of logical thinking. However, this comes as no surprise, because being a centrist requires inconsistency.

If all laws are moral documents and adultery is immoral, then how can it be legal?

Bin Laden was tried in absentia. Didn't you know that? A judge determined that there sufficient evidence that the US was justified in trying to bring him to justice.

Trials in absentia aren't proper trials, because the accused is not given a chance to defend himself. First, you need to arrest the suspect. Only then you can try him. Not vice versa.

Besides, Bin Laden was not put on trial for 9/11, only for some minor stuff that happened beforehand.

All in all, there was no due process. And even if there had been due process, murder in revenge is not justified in any case.

There's a great article by Noam Chomsky:

guernicamag.com/blog/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."

If you commit a crime or become aware that a crime has been committed you are morally obligated report that crime or turn yourself in.

You keep conflating morality and legality.

Let's say you are driving the getaway car for a group of bank robbers. If one of them kills someone while robbing the bank YOU ARE GUILTY OF MURDER (as an accessory to murder). The same principle applies to the raid on Bin Laden.

No, it's not the same at all. The car driver knew about the bank robbery. He was involved in the planning of the crime. That makes him guilty.

The other residents at Bin Laden's compound were probably innocent family members, not criminals. Also, they didn't see the raid coming. It's a completely different situation.

Besides, I don't think that the car driver would be considered guilty of murder according to German law.

The duty of the state to protect the lives of it's people supersedes the right to life of those who wage war against it. That is the moral justification for war and terrorism is an act of war against a state by non-state actors.

No. Human rights are universal and trump states' rights. There is absolutely no moral justification for war.

Your opinion:

state wages war = justice

person wages war = terrorism

My opinion:

state wages war = terrorism

person wages war = terrorism

Virtually all liberals that I know support marriage equality as do I.

Oh, so you've adopted a left-wing extremist position. That's interesting. I thought you reject extremism.

By the way, this was my last post on this thread. A further discussion is pointless, because we will never agree.

31 bills is nothing. There were at least 372 house bills that were waiting for Senate action in 2010.

FACTS: thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

Stop whining.

Oh so it's 372 bills the democrats will not read...

Over 1100 days of no budget.

Over $$$16 trillion in debt.

Over 8% unemployement

Over 40 million people on food stamps

If you would spend a little time learning about how things actually work, you will quickly find out that Republicans in the Senate have abused the filibuster, and thus have effectively prevented the government from functioning. The GOP is the Party of Gridlock and Obstruction.

Every time the democrats do not get the way they all cry like baby's.

Can you explan the 3 branchs of government? and how they work?

Hurry now.

Says the person who started this thread by complaining that 31 Republican bills were not passed by the Senate.

You can learn about the 3 branches of government by reading the Constitution. Asking other people to explain things for you that you can learn for yourself is just lazy.

One should never ask questions they do not know the answers to.

I post facts, I post web sites.

You post nothing but rhetoric, and hate for the GOP.

Executive, legislative, judaical, those are the 3 branches of government.

Where is the concern about the top one percent getting a huge tax break (that they certainly do not need) if the republicans win?

The bush tax cuts effect everyone not just the 1%.

Why do you think obama wants to cap the cuts at $250,000.

When Reagan cut the tax rates, the IRS collected more revenue.

Taxing the rich was tried back in the 90's, they called it the Luxury tax, it failed and was repealed .

16% of the population pays 48% of the tax.

Then there are people that pay no tax at all.

Until you learn some MATH your suggestions will continue to be useless. Wealth has concentrated to the top 1%. The reason poor people don't pay taxes is because they don't have any money. You can try to raise taxes on the poor, but there is no difference between 10% of 0, 20% of 0, or 30% of 0. No matter how high you raise taxes on people who have no money, they will continue to pay no taxes.

By the way, the marginal tax rate under Republican president Dwight Eisenhower was 91%. Mitt Romney has shown that he paid only about 13%, yet you still have these rich people whining about how they have to give back to the country that protects them and makes their wealth possible in the first place.

www.irs.gov

Go there and read for yourself.

Didn't you get the memo?

It is safe to call it "citizenship". "Communitarianism" can be made to sound like you know what- take a look and the ideological backgrounds of the sociologists who relish applying the "communitarian" label. They are right wingers who know that molding the terrain prior to the battle is an essential characteristic of great victories. This is no less true of the linguistic terrain. It was a small phrase of Obama's campaign, but it demonstrates mastery of this literature.

"Given that there are people out there plotting to harm us, what is a better solution?"

There isn't one. Governments have a right to protect themselves from those who would harm or otherwise destroy them. Since we now have the ability to surgically take out those who plot against us it is our right and our duty to deny them their ability to wage war against us. Our right to self preservation trumps any other right. And if a nation refuses to bring terrorists in their borders to justice then we have the right to act unilaterally on our behalf.

""Communitarianism" can be made to sound like you know what-"

Because that is exactly what it is. Unless you are talking about just a general inclination towards a community then philosophical communitarianism really does equal Communist because communism is the end goal of any thorough going political ideology based in communitarian principles. Just like fascism is the end goal of any authoritarian ideology.

I don't even think these are necessarily good or bad things. The world is and always will be composed of people with authoritarian and communitarian inclinations or temperaments. The beauty of our liberal, free and democratic republic is that neither side is allowed to dominate the other. That is how it should be.

Right now things are, I think, too far to the right. In the future perhaps things will be too far to the left. And that.... also... is how it should be.

1) There isn't a better solution.

WTF.

There isn't a better solution to drone killing with no oversight or accountability? You both can do better than this.

2) Communitarianism = Communism. The Individualist vs. Collectivist opposition is an old one, and can mean many things to many people. It is self evident that there are times when maximizing self interest is essential and other times maximizing group interest is. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in a sense you could say that the US was thinking in a groupish, hive mentality. Those who behave selfishly in situations where the entire group is at threat are derided as traitors. Groupishness is at the heart of Group think as at My Lai. But it is also at the heart of what Obama referred to as citizenship- that freedom carries with it responsibilities to the whole who safeguard those freedoms.... the idea that we owe something back to the body politic.

So it is more than community, and much less specific the characteristics of the political/economic bogeyman of the cold war.

3) I can't imagine what too far to the left would mean. People are mostly interested in not being preyed upon by those who have some odd sense of entitlement to take maximal advantage of others. If sociopaths who strive to be in the 1% would simply moderate their craven impulses, then the rest of us would not feel much interest in using state power to crack down on their excesses.

"WTF"

Ok, what is it? What is your solution? First of all we don't even know the real situation. We don't know what the president knows. We do know that Al Quaeda is plotting to set off a dirty bomb. We know for a fact that they want to and US citizens have joined up with them. We have intel that they are meeting together. Would you do nothing and risk thousands, possibly millions of lives? I would not. I think that if I knew everything that Obama knows I would make the same or similar decision.

Advances in technology are what make this situation so difficult. A few men can now do what no army could have done in all of human history. What if they get their hands on Marfan's disease? You've heard of it. Or they get some plutonium from the security mess that is Russia today.

And.... it's your call. You are responsible for the lives of millions. Just you, no one else. What do you do?

(2) - You've said nothing I'd disagree with. However I do strongly disagree with philosophical communitarianism. I'm a liberal, which is *very* different.

"I can't imagine what too far to the left would mean."

I can. Socialism, real socialism (state ownership of the means of production) is much too far to the Left for me. I would not like communism either. These are two different things. Socialism is an economic theory, communism is one way to structure society.

--

When a US citizen flees the US and joins up with terrorists he or she has effectively renounced their citizenship. Add to it that a small group can bring down entire governments, something that is utterly new in human history, and I can imagine myself giving the go ahead for a drone strike.

The root of the problem is that technology is advancing faster than we can adapt to it. Missionaries and explorers who visited primitive tribes effectively destroyed them simply by handing out steel knives. Before the missionaries arrived there was a balance of power maintained by traditional means. By handing out steel knives they gave those with grudges or without power a way to even the score. Which destroyed their tribal structure.

Aliens visiting the US could easily do the same. Let me hand out phasers on every street corner and every major city will be a smoldering ruin before the morning.

We're still just a bunch of monkeys you know.

1) Are you saying that spying/ covert actions cannot be conducted in accordance with US laws and cannot function if they are not free of the power of congress to block activities the congressional leadership objects to? Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief of the National Security Council wrote a book about this, and his opinion is that the congressional system of oversight is a sham. In 2010, Pelosi pushed Panetta for much stronger oversight controls, but Obama stood by Panetta and Pelosi walked away with only a few concessions.

It seems to me that the intelligence committees need to be fully informed as Pelosi advocated, and further, that Congress insist in future Intellgence Bills that it have a mechanism for blocking any of these actions.

That's just for starters. Have any problems with that?

2) I am interested in behavioral inclinations towards groupishness versus selfishness. The Ayn Randians see a communist everywhere, but they will have a hard time convincing Americans that citizenship and socialism are inextricably tied notions. That is the dance that the President was dancing in his acceptance speech.

(1) No, I'm saying that you can't fight terrorism if you have to read them their rights first. The issue here is that under the old rules if a US citizen joined with terrorists it made it impossible for us to pursue them effectively because we would have to read him his miranda rights before doing anything.

1) You claimed their wasn't a better solution, but you admit the solution that Pelosi advocated regarding oversight and real check on imperial power of the security apparatus of the US is possible. The right wing has shaped the battlefield of thought whereby you have convinced yourself that all better solutions are too "leftist" / naive. There is a word for allowing yourself to be poppeycocked, and it does not have "poppeycock" as it's root.

2) This goes to the second point. I invited a pretty wide front of attack to you when I said I could not imagine what too far to the left would mean. What you brought up in response are Right wing bogemen who are exist philosophically, but are not represented concretely in the political world of the US today. What person either holding office or with a credible chance of winning office is too far left? We can name dozens on the national stage today that hold extremist views on the right.

But where are those on the left?

You think Bernie Sanders is too far left? Who specifically do you mean? Really, citizens have no real choice. I would put Pelosi somewhere at the center, the wackos about culture issues, corporate power and extreme individualism out on the right. Do we have any real political players that are too far left?

Cue sound of crickets.

"I invited a pretty wide front of attack to you"

I see no attacks. Not to you and not to Dorothea above. I respond logically and precisely to the best of my ability. There is no animus. Well, I get frustrated from time to time.

I do my best to make simple, direct and emotionally flat claims that exist in a logically valid structure. People interpret this as personal attack sometimes because they are unprepared for rational debate and because they tend to panic when their cherished beliefs are systematically dismantled before their eyes.

Dorothea is a True Believer. Like all True Believers she reacts in rage to having her beliefs challenged by someone other than the strawman opposition she imagines she is doing Holy Battle for the Children of Light against.

And... I have run out of time and must go....

back...

"What you brought up in response are Right wing bogemen who are exist philosophically, but are not represented concretely in the political world of the US today. What person either holding office or with a credible chance of winning office is too far left? We can name dozens on the national stage today that hold extremist views on the right."

You did not ask me which public representatives serving in the US today are too far to the Left. That may have been the thought in your mind but you didn't say so and I am unable to read minds. I can only respond to what you actually say. Not to your private thoughts.

So yeah, as a liberal there are many on my Left I would not want to have much power. You bring up Bernie Sanders, well, I don't know how far he would go if he held power but if he really is a true socialist then yes, I would oppose him. On the other hand I think the Senate and the congress should be politically diverse so I dont have a problem with him holding office. I also don't have a problem with Rand Paul for the same reasons.

You see.... I really am a liberal and I really truly believe in diversity. That means that I tolerate people who are not like me. I might disagree, strenuously, even violently, but I think society ought to be composed of a large diverse community of people. All the way from fascists to anarchists and everything in between but that no single group should ever hold power too long over the others.

You claimed their wasn't a better solution. I pointed out the need for better oversight and the power to block presidential action would be better.

Do you know admit you were mistaken?

If not, then please respond to the points about Clarke and Pelosi's initiative. What was flawed about her proposal?

Those are different questions. The *only* question I was responding to was what is the moral justification for using drones against terrorists even if a US citizen is present. I said I think we are justified in using them because the threat is sufficient that requiring us to walk up, politely knock on their door and read them their rights would prevent the US in fulfilling it's duty to protect the people of the US.

People in the military really do think of this every single day. EVERY DAY there are serious attempts at causing a great deal of harm to the people and property of the US. The reason I can walk outside of my door and not be jumped by gangs of criminals is *because* the state is willing to use force to ensure compliance with the law.

Where do you live John? Do you live in a city with a shipping yard? How safe do you feel knowing that one of those shipping containers could contain a nuclear bomb? How appreciative are you that there are people working day and night so that you don't have to worry about that?

How about the air you breathe? Do you feel thankful that it is free of weaponized anthrax being dispersed upwind from you?

Anwar al-Aulaqi wanted to do that to you. He wanted to use nuclear or biological material to KILL YOU because you are an unbeliever. Your government killed him before he could kill you. You should be at least a little thankful for that. Why don't you go to his wikipedia page and see what this man was really all about and why the government of the US was justified in taking his life.

I am grateful they did. I am not even a little bit bothered that they didn't run up to whatever @!$%# hole he was living in and read him his rights before killing him. And I feel it is completely in line with my liberal values because this man gave up his rights long ago. Read his bio. Read about all the people who's murders he is responsible for and for the mass murderers he had under his wing.

I am glad this piece of @!$%# is no longer breathing the same air that good and decent people breathe.

I asked, "There isn't a better solution to drone killing with no oversight or accountability?"

You challenged me to show what that better solution would be, and I stated it, one with oversight and the power of Congress to check presidential power.

It seems to me that I answered your challenge. Do you or do you not agree that better oversight and check on the power of the president in accordance with the War Powers Act would represent a better policy on drone use?

If not, why not.

You claimed the higher ground of logic.

Technically the error of logic that you have made concerns distributional rules of replacement in propositions.

That is, the policy represents a union of members. For example:

1. Use of violence against violent opponents of the US
2. Administering the policy with no real oversight
3. Administering the policy with no check on War Powers of the President
4. .... and so on.

Asserting that the policy is flawed is not an assertion that all constituent propositions in that policy are flawed. That is the distribution error you made. I pointed out that 2 and 3 are flawed. That was the basis on which I asserted there was a better solution.

You are correct that logic is necessary for proper argumentation.

Use it next time to advance your "logical" "liberal" positions. Regarding your stance that there is no better policy on drones, you have provided no reason for a reader to believe that your position is either.

Ever notice that people like ho-lee-cow never mention that it was the policies of the people they voted for that broke the economy, caused high unemployment, forced people onto food stamps, and drove small businesses to failure?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall sign by Clinton.

The sub-prime loans started in the state of CA.

2003 GWB wanted to put Fannie & Freddie under control of the Fed.

But barnny frank said "I want to roll the dice" and blocked it.

Notice the Fed is now in control of Fannie & Freddie.

But keep blaming the GOP for the democrats failed policies.

Please learn about the American system of government before making such stupid remarks. You can start by reading the Constitution. Barney Frank is not nor has he ever been in a position to "block" anything George W. Bush (the President) was trying to do.

The Republican party controlled the 108th Congress, 2003-2005:

House: 229 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 Independent
Senate: 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 "Other Party"

FACT: wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_party_controlled_the_US_congress_in_2003#ixzz25z3msgww

It is 2012 not 2005.

In 2003, while the ranking minority member on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms ofaffordable housing."^[47] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll":^[48] "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."^[49] In July 2008, Frank said in an CNBC interview, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward."^[50]

So in 2003, when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they just couldn't get their proposals through Congress. And we are supposed to believe Barney Frank was secretly in control of everything?

Again, I say to you, "Learn a little about the American system of government before embarrassing yourself with such ridiculous remarks."

What? do you know who Nacny Pelosi is? the formmer speaker of the house.

110th & 111th congress. 2007-2011.

Barnny Frank made a bad choice with fannie & freddie.

Dont fight the facts now.

you can not explain how the USA government works can you?

Please tell us all just how the 3 branches of government work, if you can.

So you claim that in 2003 George W Bush wanted to "put Fannie & Freddie under control of the Fed", but Nancy Pelosi stopped him by becoming Speaker of the House in 2007.

You need to learn about more than government structure. Apparently I have to be the one to explain to you that TIME TRAVEL IS NOT REAL.

No that is not what I have posted.

I posted that barnny frank in 2003 stopped fannie & freddie from being put under the control of the fed.

And he said "I want to roll the dice".

And it failed.

I know you hate anything and everthing American, but don't let the facts get in your way of all your hate and lies.

Yes, you have claimed several times that Barney Frank did something he CLEARLY could not have done. In 2003, when you claim Barney Frank was in control of the government, the Republicans had control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House. What you claim is impossible. When I pointed out that it was impossible with FACTS, you responded with a deranged time-travelling conspiracy theory.

It is precisely because you Republicans have to resort to lies and fantasies to support your claims that you have lost the goodwill of most Americans.

Arguably the Texas executions are the result of Due Process of Law.

Why are these people hanging out in the middle east and in a war zone anyway?

Hayes is the atypical NYC liberal elitist.

His whole world is a 5 mile radus around his home.

This comment makes me wonder if you know what the word "atypical" means.

So what have you given the GOP?

Obummer spent his 1st 2 years in office getting what he wanted.

And the economy has suffered.

Sadly when there are not any substantive issues to discuss, some people resort to personal digs, name calling and other forms of bigotry. If you believe in your issues then take a stand on them but the personal, nasty name calling and attempts to discredit people you do not know cheapens the discussion. This is one of the drawbacks of this type of media. Don't bother to reply with any first amendment blather. I usually ignore personal nasty digs but since you commented under my statement which was about the show, I thought it necessary to address your reply to my post. I am interested in substantive discussions. If you drew any other conclusions; I want to set the record straight.

Nothing wrong with the medium. My screen is free of whatever personal digs you are referrng to.

Simply click on the name of whichever user(s) making comments you regard as thread crap, and in the upper right hand corner of their user page click "ignore this author".

Certainly, they are free to ignore your and my notes, which probably concerns you as much as it concerns me.

HEY MSNBC! A nice to have feature would be to set a default ignore threshold. For example, if a user had received a high number of ignores, then their notes would be collapsed by default. Users could un-ignore of course, but infrequent visitors would see a much higher level quality of discussion.

Yes, we get it, you don't like Chris Hayes. Now go take a valium.

Hayes has never been right about anything what so ever.

When he is proved to be wrong, he just laughs and roll his eyes.

He is a egotistical liberal that thinks he was born with a better pot to piss in then the rest of us.

Like all NYC liberals, he thinks the world raises and sets in NYC.

He thinks anything west of the Hudson is still Indian territory.

I doubt very much that Hayes thinks the World raises and sets.

Listen to him talk, he thinks the whole world is NYC.

His whole world is the 5 mile radius around his apartment.

Stick him in a place like Butte MT and see how fast he crumbles.

Not a good strategy for you to ask anyone over the age of 12 to demonstrate their knowledge of government. Your body of work in this area speaks for itself; like a stammering, prepubescent 11 year old presenting his shadowbox project: How a Bill Becomes a Law by Ho-lee Cow.

My guess is that the odds of becoming the first black president in a historically and still substantially racist nation goes a long way to proving that Barack Obama would do just fine in Butte, MT or anywhere else. And despite the peevish backlash, he'll be president of Butte, MT and everywhere else for 4 more years. Romney would have a difficult time presiding over a deserted island because he's yet to win his ongoing debate with himself. If you should've learned one thing from the GOP's convention rhetoric, it is this: The GOP resents Obama's narrative because it's more persuasively American than theirs. Obama beat the odds and made the American dream incarnate and therefore believable. Romney's ilk made the odds and he still can't beat them in order to realize his ambition.Why do you think Obama's citizenship is divisively questioned? Because they ask, "how could a black man go farther than us in a country we spared no effort to stack against him?" I watched the convention wondering, which GOP speaker will be the first to waffle on his own race? "I was born a poor black child..."

Funny to think about this, Ho-lee: The emotional social issues that Fox News spoon feeds you... these are bought and paid for by Wall St., NYC. You, your vote are bought and paid for by NYC. So, while Chris Hayes might represent the cerebral elite of of the city, you too have your place there; but don't think of yourself as the cerebral elite, think of yourself as the honorary amygdala.

Still eagerly awaiting your 13-year old encore: How this Pimple Became my Brain by Ho-lee Hayseed.

Oops did not mean to put Michelle Obama's foreign policy and drone attacks. You know what I mean.

Really appreciate Scahill bringing up the fact that Kerry and Biden voted for the Iraq war and the fact that Biden shut down the debate about the potential invasion. Absurd that Biden was so specific about the numbers of Americans who have died and been injured in that war based on a "pack of lies" Way to go Jeremy. Thank you

To be fair,there are those in the Dem party and the MSM with some backbone on the issue. EG:

To:
President Barack Obama
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Sen. Ron Wyden

August 14, 2012

The use of drones is murder, and we will not do well with this way of fighting wars. You must come out and condemn the use of drones.

Portland , OR (source)

Actually Maddow brings up the drone strikes occasionally. Something Scahill didn't bring up but Maddow did last Friday was Holder shutting down all further investigation of the murder and torture of detainees in US custody in Iraq. She made the point in an intellectual Poli-Sci way though, instead unleashing with a moral broadside. I accept Goldberg's point of view on what the poltical practicalities are during the final two months of a crucial campaign.

This is not new. Morally, this failure to bring severe consequences for perpetrators the same as what happened with the genocide in Vietnam conducted by US troops (of which My Lai was the only publicly acknowledged case). Recall that despite all the media, despite the irrefutable photographic evidence, My Lai "investigation" produced only one conviction which resulted in house arrest for 2 years. 500 children, women and old men died. 2 years.

What does that tell any official contemplating extremely illegal activities? No matter how morally reprehensible your activities, the president will have your back- regardless which party is in power. If you are in the intelligence services, you are above the law.

So this is the shining light on the hill?

I watched with rapt attention the Iran Contra hearings, knowing that it meant the downfall of the Reagan presidency, just as the Watergate hearings were. The truth would come out. The criminals would do jail time.

They didn't. They were all pardoned and Oliver North is a multimillionaire who can still rake in handsome speaking fees.

Presidents of both parties tend to treat foreign affairs with imperial disdain for transparency or adherence to the law. While secrecy and deception may be necessary tools to fight threats a country may face, it is intolerable that the President block congressional oversight over its drone war, or exhibit such disdain for the law. This is Nixonian. Is habeus corpus for US citizens suspended by executive order? How are we going to feel about that when the GOP is in the White House and it is US activists from US NGO's being killed by GOP drone strikes in South America? The- no habeus corpus in a war zone argument simply does not wash when you are talking about a 16 year old citizen who is the prime target of a drone strike at a barbeque in a country we are not at war against and who was not engaged in plots against the US.

This is well worth a major block of time on UP, and having Oregon senator Ron Wyden, or Merkeley on to discuss oversight and how Obama must establish a strong regime of such reporting to Congress. It is absolutely essential this happen before the GOP takes the presidency and runs amuck with the drones.

.

Because you know they will.

You can count on it. ITT did in in Chile. Drones make everything so much more simple. Should CEOs of multinational companies understand that they have the power to call in air strikes on tribal leaders standing in his way? How do you stop this dystopia from occuring?

By taking action when your party is in power to derail it, rather than establishing a strong precedent for it.

Good to have your contributions back from sabbatical. As a matter of citizenship, we should probably all read the Torture Report online. It's a depressing slog, and I haven't read every section, but the info's readily available for anyone interested. I believe the ACLU contracted the investigation/report.

Our history in the Philippines would be another example of why we can only repudiate torture/mass murder with a wink and a nod. I suppose it's never too late to stake the moral high-ground, but wow, is our credibility an open, oozing wound of gangrenous hypocrisy. And when I think of terrorism as a 20th-century tactic, I always think first of the KKK's homegrown brand of Halloween hate campaigns. Coates reminds us that the July 4th was often selected as a special day to prosecute their terror campaigns. I would suggest that perfecting terror is even more telling than inventing it. But now I sound like I'm ripping off Don DeLillo, so I'll quit.

Some of the far left puntificators are not what they project themselves to be. Corporate America is infinetely devious and dishonest. Far lefties bash the President from the left as far righties bash Obama from the right, and corporate America sings it's victory song. The far left pundit crew is full of traitors to the Democratic party. In 2010, Maddow and Joan Walsh and Jane Hamscher, and Michael Moore, for instance, put on their renegade clothes and Dems. got shellacked. Corporate connivance and contrivance is the fabric of America. Don't trust American corporate political media. Corporate media works for Wall Street and corporate America, and is always fully stocked with far left Benedict Arnold clones. .

Scahill excels in Obama bashing and presenting 1/2 the available information, and he works for "The Nation" along with Chris Hayes.

Thats the great trick of the fake American democracy. Put two nearly identical guys up for a vote. So anyone who is for one guy dares not to disagree on any issue.
And any free discourse can be dismissed as off-center.

How practical.

Bill my god man, if the rich is that evil, take care of it yourself. This crap blaming Bush is nothing but a farce, not meaning you made the remark, but vast majority do on Brain Wash MSNBC. The Libs cried about the Small jobs Act. I wouldn't pass it either. It would have put another $500 billion to the deficit, the bill would of shoar up state and local government. Extend unemployment, very little inner structure, instead of $16 trillion we would have $16.5. when does it stop.

Her is the bottom line. Print more money, Where in the hell are you going to raise the money. You First have to get our House in order. Saying it in simple terms. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY RUNNING. Now we have to set a Budget. This is exactly why Obama is a Lunatic, and Biden drinks too many Cocktails. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR TRUE EXPENSES ARE. IF THEY DID, THEN WHY HASN'T HE TOLD US. They say 3.8 trillion and our take in is 2.9 trillion, this is not good.
Our top 25 tax paying Corporation are at $133 billion per year. Oil companies paying the highest at 45% before expensive. Their net is about 5.7%, that's running on very short margins. That would scare the hell out of me being a business owner myself.
Raising the taxes on $250,000 income level which is about 4 million individuals 7% from 35 up to 42% would bring in an estimate of if average out $800,000 per individual including Capital gains would bring in an additional $230 billion. And I can assure you as a business owner I don't make that. On top of that Obama want to increase Corporate Taxes toward the same level covering the spread for Obama Care and that's not including what the additional taxes he'll hit the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Companies, and I haven't brought in the inflation factor.. You wonder why commodities, like gold, oil, land and certain currencies are going up. People are moving out of stocks for the fear of the big BANG. Stocks are up now, you watch within the next 3 weeks.
If you get rid of the Child Care Tax $1,000 and College deduction of $1500 per student you'll raise an additional $100 billion. But again I'm a SOB if we dare bring up that deduction. You Liberal will take but are you willing to sacrifice beside me and help get the house in order. My 16 employees, there health insurance which is PPO is paid by the company. And talking with our health provider when this Obama care goes into full swing my rates will go up next year 13%, including the Corp. tax increase. I do 3 things,. a) I'll let them go on Government Health care which I'll save money . b.) let them pay the 13% c) start laying off. Obama gives me some pretty good choices. I might just shut my doors down and let Obama take care of them. I can go on and on and on about this, and I know you'll say Bush did it, or some type of bull crap that just doesn't make since. Something going to give or will all stand in bread lines. Obama is out of his league on this. The problem is much deeper

Indubitably! Gobama!

Correction ..Goldberg, not Greenburg.

Typical LIBERAL statement, It's all about what you can give me. Let's get rid of the $1,000 Child tax deduction so, you'll have a little spine. AND SAY YOU DID SOMETHING FOR YOUR COUNTRY. I raised my 4 children without it, even thru hard times. It will put $ 72 billion toward medicare.