Is anyone actually excited that Hilary will be next president?

[fskimospy]

Exactly the same. Sure, kids make smaller targets, but they can also take less damage. Ergo they too should avoid traveling to a foreign country and hanging out with people who have openly declared war on the country who control the drones. Sure, children don't usually get a voice in that decision, but that's why they have parents. If those parents make stupid decisions, then their kids suffer, as they always have and always will.

Know who else has children? Americans watching the Boston Marathon, working in the Twin Towers or on military bases or in recruiting offices or in synagogues. Iraqis shopping in open air markets. Israelis drinking coffee in cafes. Turks trying to get to work. French citizens trying to enjoy a national holiday. One side is trying to protect all these children while at least trying to avoid killing the children of and around the terrorists. The other side is trying to think up strategies to kill more children while using their own as shields whenever possible.

Not sure how this is relevant to my point, which was simply that MongGrel's argument that those people hanging out near possible drone targets deserved their fate due to their own bad choices was flawed. There are plenty of people who never got to make that choice.

President Obama has certainly put the drone Americans policy into overdrive, but in a way that list is also due process. A fair number of people have input into whether or not that person is a legitimate target, and if so, what level of likely civilian casualties is acceptable to kill that target. Sure, it's an imperfect and potentially dangerous system. All systems involving the taking of life are inherently imperfect and potentially dangerous systems. Doing nothing, or allowing terrorists to use civilians and/or children as absolute shields, is also inherently imperfect and potentially dangerous. This is the world that we and the Muslims have built.

That list is not due process by any commonly understood meaning of the term. For one thing, due process requires an impartial adjudicator which obviously does not exist in this case. As always the problem is the same: you guys are endorsing a system where the president is the judge, jury, and executioner for anyone he deems to be a terrorist. That's not an exaggeration either. I also never said that having children nearby conferred some sort of immunity.

I feel like the whole kid discussion has gotten totally away from the actual issue, which is that the president can kill any US citizen he chooses without trial so long as they are not on US soil simply by saying they were a terrorist and he couldn't get them otherwise.

 

[Jhhnn]

So exactly what "oversight" do you think would have prevented the crash? I'll even humor your ideas for what you think the primary and contributing causes of it were. Coming from someone as ridiculously partisan as you and so seemingly bereft of critical thinking skills I'm sure that your response will be comedic gold.

We've ben over this about 1000 times but none of it can stick in your head because you're ideologically opposed to understanding the facts of the matter.

The Bush Admin was complicit in the greatest looting spree in the history of finance. Regulators didn't regulate- they cheered it on all the way up, then acted surprised when it all fell down. They were cutting red tape so than millions of families could buy the home of their dreams on a no down no doc teaser rate 80/20 ARM. They let institutions lend more than any sort of prudent fractional reserve policy would allow with investment banks levering up to 30:1 & even 40:1 using il-liquid MBS at face value as their reserves.

I mean, what could go wrong?

Remember this?

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/03/cutting-through-red-tape-with-chainsaw.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

I should have created a file of all the pertinent articles we've discussed over the years just so I wouldn't have to search. It would cover several pages.

 

[First]

So exactly what "oversight" do you think would have prevented the crash? I'll even humor your ideas for what you think the primary and contributing causes of it were. Coming from someone as ridiculously partisan as you and so seemingly bereft of critical thinking skills I'm sure that your response will be comedic gold.

Nah, what's comedy gold is a statement like this coming from a guy that constantly thread craps and runs when challenged to cite evidence for his broken belief system. I suppose you must know you're out of your league in almost any discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

Kills lists for Americans is an Obama admin creation. He had the DoJ formulate a legal framework to justify it. The WP article that salon article is talking about claims this is an extension of a Bush policy. Yet we know of nothing about targeted Americans from Bush nor the legal framework with which Bush would had to create to justify it. Glenn Greenwald discusses it pretty well as usual.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Bush contribution to this scar on our history is his DoJ created a legal framework for torture. What a wonderful series of administrations we have had since the turn of the century.

Wrong.

Rizzo is a slight man with bright blue eyes, fluffy white hair, and polished fingernails. He had already served in the agency longer than most of his colleagues when he started reviewing the nominations shortly after 9/11. He approached the job with the detachment expected of a competent attorney, although, in private, he sometimes wondered what his Irish Catholic parents would think of killings like these and his role in them. Although he led these real death-panel reviews, he had a surprisingly hard time keeping the names of people on the list straight, which he blamed on his sense that “all those names sound alike,” as he would say to colleagues.

Still, it was a responsibility that weighed on him. “This was risky business,” he told me. “I would be second-guessed if the wrong person got hit.

“The thought never left my mind that I was giving legal approval for killings and I had never done that before. I just had to stay focused and detached. I had no problem with the morality of it because of the continued threat al-Qaeda posed. . . . In moments of reflection, it was daunting to be in that position.”

The duty to approve or reject putting an individual on the kill list was granted to this small group at the CIA by President Bush, and the responsibility was extended by President Obama. The agency’s approval process was orderly, vetted by legions of lawyers in the White House, the National Security Council, and the CIA, and then affirmed without much discussion or controversy by eight members of Congress, known as the Gang of Eight. They included the House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. The CIA did not seek Congress’s approval for the program or to kill a particular individual on the list. But once the covert drone program began, the agency kept Congress informed of those who had been killed.
Intelligence officials involved in the CIA selection process say there were never more than two or three dozen individuals on the list at one time. To nominate a person for “lethal action” (the term used in the original 2001 Presidential Finding that made such killings legal, in the U.S. government’s view), CTC analysts would summarize the intelligence reporting they had on an individual using as much specific incriminating evidence as possible. The boilerplate request at the bottom of the case file was always the same: Based on the above, we believe (Mr. X) poses a current and ongoing threat to the United States and therefore meets the legal criteria for lethal action pursuant to the Presidential Finding.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inside-the-cias-kill-list/

 

[glenn1]

We've ben over this about 1000 times but none of it can stick in your head because you're ideologically opposed to understanding the facts of the matter.

The Bush Admin was complicit in the greatest looting spree in the history of finance. Regulators didn't regulate- they cheered it on all the way up, then acted surprised when it all fell down. They were cutting red tape so than millions of families could buy the home of their dreams on a no down no doc teaser rate 80/20 ARM. They let institutions lend more than any sort of prudent fractional reserve policy would allow with investment banks levering up to 30:1 & even 40:1 using il-liquid MBS at face value as their reserves.

I mean, what could go wrong?

Remember this?

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/03/cutting-through-red-tape-with-chainsaw.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

I should have created a file of all the pertinent articles we've discussed over the years just so I wouldn't have to search. It would cover several pages.

So you object to (A) Republicans making it easier for the poor to buy houses, (B) the fractional reserves policy set by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which is independent of political control (apart from nominating its members), and (C) using a mark-to-market policy for how to value investments and calculate reserve requirements. I'm sure you'll gladly articulate the reasons why Democrats should oppose (A), somehow would have influenced (B) given the constraints of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and (C) suggest your own superior alternative to mark-to-market.

 

[glenn1]

Nah, what's comedy gold is a statement like this coming from a guy that constantly thread craps and runs when challenged to cite evidence for his broken belief system. I suppose you must know you're out of your league in almost any discussion.

LOL, sure thing kid. You sure that you aren't confusing me with someone else?

 

[First]

LOL, sure thing kid. You sure that you aren't confusing me with someone else?

Nah son, it's you. You've wimped out in plenty of threads. Hell, see your own lame reply to Jhnnn above.

 

[glenn1]

Nah son, it's you. You've wimped out in plenty of threads. Hell, see your own lame reply to Jhnnn above.

Come back to the thread when you have something of value to say.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you object to (A) Republicans making it easier for the poor to buy houses, (B) the fractional reserves policy set by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which is independent of political control (apart from nominating its members), and (C) using a mark-to-market policy for how to value investments and calculate reserve requirements. I'm sure you'll gladly articulate the reasons why Democrats should oppose (A), somehow would have influenced (B) given the constraints of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and (C) suggest your own superior alternative to mark-to-market.

Yawn. The FRB didn't have much to do with investment banks prior to the crash. their regulator was the SEC-

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/

Mark to market? The banks were buying each others' shit at FMV. Stuff that investors wouldn't touch with a pole. It's remarkable how that orked out, how the rules had to be changed so that the FRB could disappear it onto their balance sheet in exchange for cash thru QE.

Easier for poor people to buy houses? Bullshit. The lax oversight by the Bushistas just made it easier to fuck 'em over buying property they couldn't afford, particularly not when employment plunged in response to the market crash.

 

[1prophet]

We've ben over this about 1000 times but none of it can stick in your head because you're ideologically opposed to understanding the facts of the matter.

The Bush Admin was complicit in the greatest looting spree in the history of finance. Regulators didn't regulate- they cheered it on all the way up, then acted surprised when it all fell down. They were cutting red tape so than millions of families could buy the home of their dreams on a no down no doc teaser rate 80/20 ARM. They let institutions lend more than any sort of prudent fractional reserve policy would allow with investment banks levering up to 30:1 & even 40:1 using il-liquid MBS at face value as their reserves.

I mean, what could go wrong?

Remember this?

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/03/cutting-through-red-tape-with-chainsaw.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

I should have created a file of all the pertinent articles we've discussed over the years just so I wouldn't have to search. It would cover several pages.

Good, so when is the Obama administration going to put these crooks in jail, or do they even care?

Or maybe they're waiting for Hillary to bring down the hammer or more like a light slap on the hand in return for her six digit corporate speeches,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

This article appears in the March 3, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive February 18.

The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

 

[ivwshane]

Good, so when is the Obama administration going to put these crooks in jail, or do they even care?

Or maybe they're waiting for Hillary to bring down the hammer or more like a light slap on the hand in return for her six digit corporate speeches,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

What law did they break? Be specific.

 

[MrSquished]

Good, so when is the Obama administration going to put these crooks in jail, or do they even care?

Or maybe they're waiting for Hillary to bring down the hammer or more like a light slap on the hand in return for her six digit corporate speeches,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

The whole situation is a travesty. The only one that would have tried to go after them was Bernie, not sure if he could have gotten there but he would have tried.

 

[Genx87]

Please. al-Awlaki fled American jurisdiction to engage in civil war in Yemen & to plot terrorist attacks against us. No terrorist abroad enjoys the protections of our legal system, citizen or not. I too object to the whole drone program but it's ridiculous to grant American citizen terrorists abroad some kind of pass because of their citizenship.

According to his executioner. If the evidence is so solid. Why wasnt he brought up on charges? Even Bin Laden was charged in our court system.

 

[MongGrel]

I feel like the whole kid discussion has gotten totally away from the actual issue, which is that the president can kill any US citizen he chooses without trial so long as they are not on US soil simply by saying they were a terrorist and he couldn't get them otherwise.

Utter BS to begin with, there are not Hellfire missiles raining down on London, Paris, Berlin etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Utter BS to begin with, there are not Hellfire missiles raining down on London, Paris, Berlin etc.

So? I keep asking the same question and nobody seems willing to answer. Are you okay with the president having the ability to execute US citizens at will so long as they are outside the country? Because that's what this power is. No exaggeration.

It seems like everyone's response is some variation of 'oh well he wouldn't do that' or 'he had a good reason'. Maybe Obama wouldn't and maybe Obama did, but will the next president or the one after that? Do you want someone as unstable as President Trump with that sort of power?

 

[cubby1223]

So? I keep asking the same question and nobody seems willing to answer. Are you okay with the president having the ability to execute US citizens at will so long as they are outside the country?

Yes.

Now that someone has answered your ever-so-important question, has your ego been satisfied?

 

[cubby1223]

The whole situation is a travesty. The only one that would have tried to go after them was Bernie, not sure if he could have gotten there but he would have tried.

Except Bernie doesn't understand shit about what's going on other than "I'm going to act angry to prove my great principles!" And people like you lap it up like the drone you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes.

Now that someone has answered your ever-so-important question, has your ego been satisfied?

The only thing that would make it perfect is if you followed up your stupid answer with yet another treatise on the Standards and Responsibilities of Elite Members.

Lol.

 

[ivwshane]

So? I keep asking the same question and nobody seems willing to answer. Are you okay with the president having the ability to execute US citizens at will so long as they are outside the country? Because that's what this power is. No exaggeration.

It seems like everyone's response is some variation of 'oh well he wouldn't do that' or 'he had a good reason'. Maybe Obama wouldn't and maybe Obama did, but will the next president or the one after that? Do you want someone as unstable as President Trump with that sort of power?

I'm ok with a lot of things government does, provided there is plenty of oversight, transparency, and accountability when people screw up. Does Obama's drone program or kill list have that? It doesn't seem like it.

 

[Jhhnn]

So? I keep asking the same question and nobody seems willing to answer. Are you okay with the president having the ability to execute US citizens at will so long as they are outside the country? Because that's what this power is. No exaggeration.

It seems like everyone's response is some variation of 'oh well he wouldn't do that' or 'he had a good reason'. Maybe Obama wouldn't and maybe Obama did, but will the next president or the one after that? Do you want someone as unstable as President Trump with that sort of power?

You do go on in the most obtuse fashion. Al-Alwaki's citizenship is immaterial. In context, he was just another al Qaeda terrorist in a poor & primitive part of the world trying to overthrow a govt we support. If it's OK to drone any of them then it's OK to drone him too.

 

[rockyct]

Bill wasn't perfect. He laid the groundwork for some problems that would happen down the line (some financial regs and the lack of competition stemming from the Telecommunications Act). However, it's always funny how Republicans in the modern era paint Democrat presidencies as national nightmares... even though they're frequently the periods of greatest prosperity, recovery and social progress. Not that the Dems are uniformly responsible for it, but they're at least decent stewards.

And regarding the original question, who's excited for Hillary? Probably every American woman who has ever dreamed of taking political office... well, except for people like Sarah Palin.

She's Leslie Knope's hero that's for sure.

I was going through my grandparents stuff when they downsized into an assisted living home. They had a book written in about '93 because it was about how the LA Riots were the start of a new race war thanks to Clinton and how the 90's were going to be a dark decade for America. Some things just never change.

Anyway, I'll be pretty excited to have a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

 

[fskimospy]

You do go on in the most obtuse fashion. Al-Alwaki's citizenship is immaterial. In context, he was just another al Qaeda terrorist in a poor & primitive part of the world trying to overthrow a govt we support. If it's OK to drone any of them then it's OK to drone him too.

By all means explain to me how a US citizen's citizenship is immaterial as to whether or not the US government can execute him without trial.

If you went on vacation overseas next week what legal impediment would there be that would prevent the president from declaring you a terrorist and executing you? Don't say 'he wouldn't do that', say what would stop him if he wanted to.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm ok with a lot of things government does, provided there is plenty of oversight, transparency, and accountability when people screw up. Does Obama's drone program or kill list have that? It doesn't seem like it.

Exactly. I'm not against blowing up people overseas, even US citizens, if the situation demands it. I am very much against someone having the power to make that decision without any checks on them. (Immediate danger aside)

 

[werepossum]

Not sure how this is relevant to my point, which was simply that MongGrel's argument that those people hanging out near possible drone targets deserved their fate due to their own bad choices was flawed. There are plenty of people who never got to make that choice.

That list is not due process by any commonly understood meaning of the term. For one thing, due process requires an impartial adjudicator which obviously does not exist in this case. As always the problem is the same: you guys are endorsing a system where the president is the judge, jury, and executioner for anyone he deems to be a terrorist. That's not an exaggeration either. I also never said that having children nearby conferred some sort of immunity.

I feel like the whole kid discussion has gotten totally away from the actual issue, which is that the president can kill any US citizen he chooses without trial so long as they are not on US soil simply by saying they were a terrorist and he couldn't get them otherwise.

Not at all. The process requires that the American citizen be in a nation where we cannot present evidence and get an extradition. There are nations which are by no means allies, but which do honor extradition treaties. Obama is only doing drone strikes in nations which implicitly condone and support Islamic terrorism. Personally I do not believe that the CIA and military advisers would allow the President to kill any US citizen without good evidence of terroristic activity, but I'll concede that is largely faith in the system on my part.

EDIT: I should also add that I do not believe that Obama would attempt to kill any US citizen without good evidence of terroristic activity, nor Hillary nor W nor Bernie nor Trump. More faith.

Nah, what's comedy gold is a statement like this coming from a guy that constantly thread craps and runs when challenged to cite evidence for his broken belief system. I suppose you must know you're out of your league in almost any discussion.

You're simultaneously insulting Glenn and defending Jhhnn?

I'll do you a favor and assume you were either drunk or had recently suffered a significant head injury when you posted that. Either way, please seek medical assistance - that level of cognitive dissidence has to be dangerous.

Good, so when is the Obama administration going to put these crooks in jail, or do they even care?

Or maybe they're waiting for Hillary to bring down the hammer or more like a light slap on the hand in return for her six digit corporate speeches,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

Hillary already has that figured out. She's fining them millions a few hundred grand at a time, and rather than being sentenced to some plush country club prison where they'll play tennis and get massages, they have to sit through Hillary speeches. That's almost inhumane treatment.

 

[thrilling]

I don't mind Hillary being president. Hopefully she can get enough Republicans across the aisle to reach agreements with her, to get stuff done.