Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Global says "No Alice my devotion is for the truth. And as You know there is always two sides of the story. And yes, I spent a career in the oil business and have become a bit sensitive to the disinformation and hate."
WOW how revealing! Global has sucked off the teat of Big Oil and claims to be devoted to The Truth! And now Global feels persecuted. Awww... you're breakin' mah bleedin' liberal heart. - Alice I.W.
I concur.
David J. says "America's 'progressive' Democrats who voted for Obama, again, now pretend to not want what they voted for... that all the world got when 'progressive' Democrats got what they voted for."
And what makes you an authority on what's in my head, or anyone else's? These kinds of statements are divisive and outrageously unfair. I voted for Obama, and I've had my regrets. But I owe you no apologies.
Elections in this country have gotten to be such a joke. Our choices have been narrowed down to the "lesser of two evils" or to candidates so marginalized by our corporate media, they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. And I still believe that Empty Suit and his pip squeak running mate were far worse. I did the best I could with what was available to me. Sorry if you don't like it. I've had my fill of comments like this from fellow progressives who seem to take some sort of perverse pleasure in dumping on the rest of us who voted for Obama. So your shit doesn't stink... Hooray for you! Would you like your butt kissed; would that make your day? - Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland, I think Mathboy would have a different perspective if the drone was from China and his neighbor was the target.
Mark, your comment reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw at an occupy event....it went something like this....Why do we kill people to show people who kill people that killing people is wrong?...illogical indeed!
Mathboy says "Drone warfare is safer for us, and probably a little safer for the people near the targets, because pilots don't have to make the call alone anymore, the drone operators are in a room where they can take advantage of others' expertise and judgement."
Drone warfare is a cowardly act of terrorism. Safer for the people near the targets?! Gimmie a break. Thousands of innocents have been killed by these murderous hacks, at the touch of a button. Sorry Mathboy, but you don't know what you are talking about. Try watching Democracy Now; hardly a week goes by without another report about innocent people dying by drone attack. How would you like living in one of these little villages that gets targeted on a regular basis?! The people aren't even safe in their own homes. We've created PTSD epidemics among entire populations. Their suffering is unimaginable, to anyone who hasn't been through it. If this isn't a crime against humanity, I don't know what is. The greatest terrorist organization in the world is the U.S. government. - Aliceinwonderland
The impoverished Pakistani mother feels the same pain and heartbreak for her dead child as the Sandy Hook mothers suffer for theirs. The only difference is that the Sandy Hook mothers know it was a mentally ill young man that killed their children..... the Pakistani mother must think it was a mentally ill nation that killed her child. I agree, it is about our relationship with the rest of the world.
It's also about the continuing accretion of executive power. In some ways, we are electing a dictator.
Pjhamilton says "...these US persons have proven to be a hideous threat to the US, whether by deeds or words. If we could arrest them and put them in front of a judge and jury, that would be ideal. But their seditious and murderous orations go beyond First Amendment rights, and jump squarely into that realm of shouting Fire in a movie theater. Is it so beyond comprehension that the drone strikes might actually be the proper response?"
Absolutely beyond comprehension, and reason. As Louise Hartmann pointed out yesterday, there needn't be any evidence these targeted individuals pose an eminent threat to us. One U.S. citizen recently murdered abroad by drone attack was a sixteen year old kid, massacred just two weeks after his father met the same fate. It is amoral and disgusting beyond comprehension. Gives me serious doubts about this country and what it really stands for.
I agree with Palindromedary's assertion that the war mongers are deliberately creating enemies for us, to keep us scared and submissive to the Military Industrial Complex and to justify perpetual war. Let's not forget that war is BIG BUSINESS! People are getting rich off it, at our expense. And if more of us don't wake up, it will continue getting more out of control until no one is safe, here or elsewhere. Doesn't get any more hideous than that. - Aliceinwonderland
Oh Global, you are beyond "shame"...Shame requires a conscienence...some humility and a soul. You're self righteous...
Sure I will do what I can for my son...Always have, but you are so blind and outta touch you think that if anyone doesn't make it, that it is by a lack of their own efforts. Well let me lay this on you...My wife and I had a daughter (Krissy)...She would have turned 19 this June...She died of Cancer when she was 8 years old. Both my wife and I felt so guilty - still do - because we could not afford the treatments she needed. We did what we could, just like any parent would do, but it wasn't enough...she's dead, my first born, my little girl is dead because we couldn't afford the special Medical treatment needed. Had we had insurance Krissy would have had all the medical treatment she needed...Krissy would be alive today if we had had medical insurance, but we could not afford it.
So go ahead, you self righteous bastard, strut around pitching your elitist brand of neoconservative politics...dem's da breakes right!?
When a law enforcement officer in this country responds to a threat, they are sometimes required to immediately transition to deadly force. They could try to make an arrest and get the detainee into the criminal justice system, but it is grossly incorrect and profoundly naive to think it must be tried first. There are situations that arise every single day that prove too dangerous for a cop to make an arrest - the Alabama abduction and FBI response being the most recent.
Why would it be any different for foreign operations? The US persons targeted in these drone strikes are only so targeted because of two reasons: first, we have no law enforcement authority in foreign lands typically, so an arrest would be legally prevented. Second, by definition, the strike is the selected response because any attempt to make an arrest, even if legal, is just too damn dangerous for those who would be taking the direct action.
Most significantly, these US persons have proven to be a hideous threat to the US, whether by deeds or words. If we could arrest them and put them in front of a judge and jury, that would be ideal. But their seditious and murderous orations go beyond First Amendment rights, and jump squarely into that realm of shouting Fire in a movie theater. Is it so beyond comprehension that the drone strikes might actually be the proper response?
Here's an article that you might enjoy.
“Rise in Mercenary Activities Warrants Urgent Attention, Says UN Expert Group,” UN News Centre, UN News Service, Nov. 1, 2011, www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40270&Cr=mercenar&Cr1<. The U.N. working group on mercenaries says contractors are helping governments subvert peaceful protest.
Another important article:
Gomez del Prado, Jose L. , “Why Private Military and Security Companies Should Be Regulated,” September 2010, http://198.170.85.29/Gomez-del-Prado-article-on-regulation-of-private-and-military-firms-3-Sep-2010.pdf. A member of the United Nations working group on mercenaries argues for strong oversight of security companies.
Liptak, Adam , “State Secrets Block Resolution of Contractor's Suit, Justices Say,” The New York Times, May 24, 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24secret.html. The Supreme Court ruled it could not resolve a multibillion-dollar dispute between the government and military contractors.
The problem with the drone program is the same problem we have with private military contractors: there is inadequate regulatory structure.
Cockayne, James, and Emily Speers Mears , “Private Military and Security Companies: A Framework for Regulation,” International Peace Institute, March 2009, www.ipacademy.org/publication/policy-papers/detail/81-private-military-and-security-companies-a-framework-for-regulation.html. Current national and international regulation of security companies is flawed.
http://www.ipacademy.org/media/pdf/publications/pmsc_epub.pdf
There is also a problem with a "revolving door" which is in effect creating a shadow govenment that is not accountable to the American people or the Supreme Court or Congress (because Congress will not investigate them.)
Bender, Brian , “From the Pentagon to the Private Sector,” Boston Globe, Dec. 26, 2010, www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals. As more military officers join private security companies after retiring, questions arise about whether the prospect of lucrative employment sways Pentagon decision-making.
Here's a report by the Congressional Research Service about military contractors. In particular, go to page 20, "Efforts to Improve Contractor Management and Oversight." Everyone needs to read this and ask themselves if it might not be possible to cut "spending" from this wasteful practice.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf
the cops may already be using drones as "law enforcement" enhancements. think of it, instead of an arrest or search warrant, a drone flight to take care of you. Due Process? (sic), Justice? (sic), not in post constitutional America. And the President being a constitutional scholar. Methinks he may have been napping in class, those he was teaching.
Mark Saulys: Sounds logical to me except for the box cutters...that doesn't sound logical at all.
Yes, it is always so blatantly obvious to some of us. But the sheeple always fall for the propaganda and so we keep sending in our sons and daughters as canon fodder to keep the wheels of imperial militarism and hegemonic exploitation well oiled.
I tuned into C Span this afternoon and Sen Weyden of OR, I think that's the one, was questioning him on them and it's coming up in another meeting next week.
also the targeting of US citizens without due process.
Furthermore, terrorism is not appropriately a military issue but a security issue. The 9/11 hijackers attacked us not with artillery, not with squadrons of bombers, not with a ground invasion but with box cutters. The military response to an attack by a small group of men with small knives and the making of terrorism into a military rather than a security issue was primarily because the defense contractors opportunized upon it and soon they were producing costly nuclear submarines, and such, ostentsibly to combat people with box cutters.
The War on Terror is the "war without end" because it can have no end. It is not a war against any organized entity of people but against a method of fighting. Since it will always be possible to kill innocent civillians for political purposes the war can never be conclusively won. To say we can have no constitutional rights because someone will always be able to kill innocent civillians, whether for a political or other purpose, is, naturally, illogical.
This is from the other night but it fits here amd nobody saw the other one so I repeat it. Denial of due processs because the crime the accused is suspected of is just "too terrible" misses the purpose of due process. It is not a hollow ritual without substantive purpose.
What people forget is that the reason for constitutional rights to due proccess of law is to protect the INNOCENT from wrongful conviction and wrongful punishment. They are not to shield people who are guilty of terrorism and other crimes from the consequences of their actions.
For this reason it doesn't matter if someone is a citizen or not; the entitlement to those rights is inalienable from anyone anywhere the U.S. government has jurisdiction. It is not less important that foreigners or non citizens not be wrongly convicted or punished than that U.S.citizens are not.
The recent differentiation in this entitlement to these basic human rights introduced into our lexicon - and subsequently our law - by the Right is a successful attempt to induce the American public to adopt an imperialist, colonial mentality, a racism and nationalistic chauvinism that demarcates different relative values of human beings and their lives contingent upon their citizenship of the United States.
This mentality is necessary for the public to accept imperial militarism for which the war on terror is a pretext - just as the cold war - on communism - was and the war on drugs was - when we wanted to invade Panama and dispense with constitutional rights as we did in the McCarthy Era and as we are now - so we can be outraged about human rights abuses of foreign dictators as long as they are atop of large oil reserves.
America's "progressive" Democrats who voted for Obama, again, now pretend to not want what they voted for... that all the world got when "progressive" Democrats got what they voted for.
historic fascism:
the point in history when the great leader of the most militarized nation that has ever existed assumed personal power to routinely casually order flying robots to murder any person, anytime, anywhere upon the planet, whenever that great leader decides any someone somewhere should be murdered because that person might possibly say or do something that the historic great leader doesn't want said or done
The APT: American Political Terms:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
Artannex: Like Lee Harvey Oswald was set up and so was Osama bin Laden both CIA operatives that got used as patsies.
That's for sure! But, of course, it wasn't about winning hearts and minds to begin with...it was about creating new enemies that Americans are supposed to be very afraid of so that the MIC parasites can continue to oppress us and steal the rest of the money we have to survive on.
I also think there will be many more people who flip out like Dorner did. You should read his manifesto.
Dorner's censored manifesto: (for some reason someone saw fit to remove the names of those in the LAPD but it was quite alright to post all those other names).
http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php
If you want to know some of the names that were blanked out (like who was "Chupacabra lady" and a little background:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In%20CACO%20201110030...
Sorry Nachos, when I see attacks and misinformation I got to call BS. I am not ashamed of my career in the oil business, look around, where would you be without it. Doing you a favor on here so you don't get all your facts in the echo chamber. I know if you want your boy to go to college and he wants to go you will find a way to make it happen.
Mark Saulys - I'm not sure if you'll be revisiting this thread now that the new one is out but I'll write this anyway, just in case.
In your first paragraph you wrote: "What people forget is that the reason for constitutional rights to due proccess of law is to protect the INNOCENT from wrongful conviction and wrongful punishment." What you've overlooked though is the fundamental principle that "a person is innocent until proven guilty" and that a person is entitled to "due process" to establish that proof. I believe the entire question here revolves around whether a person is extended rights to the full extent guaranteed by the Constitution via due process. To brand a person a "terrorist" thereby short circuiting those constitutional rights is tantamount to presuming guilt. It's a huge leap.
As to the question of whether "due process" extends to all people anywhere, all people within our borders regardless of citizenship, all US citizens anywhere or just all US citizens within our borders, I can only state my opinion, which is that the Preamble to the Constitution starts "We the People of the United States....". I guess my take is that, literally, the constitution was intended to cover US citizens, and I would argue "anywhere" since no geographic stipulation is made. If not, then our history is certainly littered with examples of egregious constitutional violations to non-US Citizens all over the world.