7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

Buzzfeed: Obama’s national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left

"[E]ven as Obama said that “a decade of war is now ending” in his inauguration speech, a drone strike killed three suspected Al Qaeda members in Yemen. […]

If George W. Bush were doing this sort of thing, we’d be marching in the streets about it. Why does Obama get a free pass? (And on Bradley Manning? And on Guantanamo?) Anyone in the press want to ask the President about the legality & moral stickiness of drone strikes at his next press conference?"

kottke.org: Obama’s overlooked war and lethal Presidency  (via hipsterlibertarian)

(via hipsterlibertarian)

"No politician is exempt from the rules of ethics, decency, and honesty. Obama can’t palm this off on the disastrous legacy of George W. Bush, either. This is a crow he has to eat, and he has to live with it. It’s appalling to think of anyone giving him a pass for sanctioned murder just because they voted for him."

Ex Lege Libertas (via eltigrechico)

(via bitchbetterhavemyhunny)

SCHOOL OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS ATTEND HAS 11 ARMED GUARDS

good-gollymissmolly11:

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak

If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have armed guards — they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point. 

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC’s David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren’t used (and weren’t even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.  

(Source: goodgolly-missmolly11)

Biden: "Obama to Use Executive Order to Ban Gun Ownership"

disobey:

Biden has gaffed in front of the press before, but this latest statement references meetings currently taking place between Obama and Eric Holder at the White House to determine extent of executive action that may be taken against gun ownership.

Follow the link for video of the press conference.

Fuck no.

"

When Bill Clinton was president, he hosted a White House conference on improving public high schools. In a press conference, he said “our children” (they’re always the State’s and not the parents’) must learn to settle their disputes without fighting. Violence, he said, is not the way. During the press conference, he was dropping planeloads of bombs on the Serbians.

In his press conference the other day, Obama said that “we” (the State) must oppose “a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.” Damn right. Call the Pentagon and the CIA and order them to stop murdering Muslims. How many millions of innocents has the US killed in its career of aggressive wars? We were even told by Madeline Albright that starving and sickening to death 500,000 Iraqi school children was “worth it.” Obama did not mean his sort of violence, of course, nor the hundreds of guns that surround him and the royal family 24/7. Nor did he mean his funders in the movie and TV business. He meant the peaceful, self-reliant people who do not trust him or any part of government, from local police to federal death squads.

"

Lew Rockwell (via eltigrechico)

(via warshing)

hipsterlibertarian:

This is such a cop-out.
I mean, even putting aside political differences, this is such a cop-out. (It goes without saying that if we don’t put politics aside, the choice is even more appalling.)
It’s not, however, a surprising cop-out: Of the 85 years Time has picked a Person of the Year to date, 22 years have featured a U.S. President (many get picked more than once). Another 28 have profiled other world leaders (either heads of government or heads of state). Of the remaining 35 years, quite a few honorees — think Ben Bernanke or Henry Kissinger — were extremely high-ranking government officials.
The Atlantic puts it well:

It’s impossible to think of a less interesting, more predictable choice than Barack Obama, who also won the award four years ago. Perhaps there’s someone who wasn’t aware that Obama’s reelection was the big story of the year, and perhaps he will pick up this issue during a routine dentist’s office visit in a few weeks and raise his eyebrows. But I doubt it. What’s more, the Person of the Year has been the winning presidential candidate in five of the last six election years, Conor Sen notes .
Obama’s selection isn’t just boring. It’s a big missed opportunity. Just look at the other finalists —especially Malala Yousafzai , the Pakistani teen blogger shot in the head by the Taliban for her advocacy for women’s rights. As manufactured as the hoopla is, it could at least have been directed toward a worthy cause, one that faded far too quickly from the headlines after her October attack, overwhelmed by (yep) the presidential election and other news. 

Clearly, Time suffers from a remarkable difficulty in looking anywhere other than government for noteworthy people and actions, despite the fact that this is obviously the very worst place to look.
This addiction to the state is bizarre, and I, for one, will not mourn when Time goes the way of Newsweek.

hipsterlibertarian:

This is such a cop-out.

I mean, even putting aside political differences, this is such a cop-out. (It goes without saying that if we don’t put politics aside, the choice is even more appalling.)

It’s not, however, a surprising cop-out: Of the 85 years Time has picked a Person of the Year to date, 22 years have featured a U.S. President (many get picked more than once). Another 28 have profiled other world leaders (either heads of government or heads of state). Of the remaining 35 years, quite a few honorees — think Ben Bernanke or Henry Kissinger — were extremely high-ranking government officials.

The Atlantic puts it well:

It’s impossible to think of a less interesting, more predictable choice than Barack Obama, who also won the award four years ago. Perhaps there’s someone who wasn’t aware that Obama’s reelection was the big story of the year, and perhaps he will pick up this issue during a routine dentist’s office visit in a few weeks and raise his eyebrows. But I doubt it. What’s more, the Person of the Year has been the winning presidential candidate in five of the last six election years, Conor Sen notes .

Obama’s selection isn’t just boring. It’s a big missed opportunity. Just look at the other finalists —especially Malala Yousafzai , the Pakistani teen blogger shot in the head by the Taliban for her advocacy for women’s rights. As manufactured as the hoopla is, it could at least have been directed toward a worthy cause, one that faded far too quickly from the headlines after her October attack, overwhelmed by (yep) the presidential election and other news. 

Clearly, Time suffers from a remarkable difficulty in looking anywhere other than government for noteworthy people and actions, despite the fact that this is obviously the very worst place to look.

This addiction to the state is bizarre, and I, for one, will not mourn when Time goes the way of Newsweek.

(via benevolentoverlord)

dont-kill-my-vibe:

This needs to be seen. One of the reasons I vehemently disagree with Obama. Yes, I agree, Obama may be better for Americans domestically, but his foreign policy is destroying Pakistani citizens. When it comes to Israel, he says it has the right to defend itself, but when it comes to drone attacks in Pakistan, clearly this policy doesn’t apply. This makes me sick.

dont-kill-my-vibe:

This needs to be seen. One of the reasons I vehemently disagree with Obama. Yes, I agree, Obama may be better for Americans domestically, but his foreign policy is destroying Pakistani citizens. When it comes to Israel, he says it has the right to defend itself, but when it comes to drone attacks in Pakistan, clearly this policy doesn’t apply. This makes me sick.

(via redmeansstop-deactivated2013012)

Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, both about to leave Congress, are teaming up to try to force the office of the President to release its legal justification for drone use, which so far has been entirely free of scrutiny, transparency, and accountability.

(Source: hipsterlibertarian, via the-altar)

Neil Shirley: Medical device tax will impact jobs and costs

"The federal government spends $10.5 billion per day. CBO says Obama’s tax hike plan will raise $42 billion in 2013. Will fund government for 4 days."

Julie Borowski (via voluntaryexchange)

I’m sorry if I don’t buy it when our president “openly weeps” over the shooting of American children in Connecticut while simultaneously working with the military and CIA to target children in the Middle East and considering any males between the ages of 15 and 35 as militants.

It's Official: The U.S. Army is Targeting and Assassinating Children

thefreelioness:

Via Washington’s Blog:

Obama and the American military label all young men – between the ages of say 15 and 35 - who happen to be in battle zones as suspected insurgents who they can target and kill.

Under the Bush administration, children were tortured.

Now, the U.S. military is starting to target children for assassination in battle zones. As the Nation reports:

In a despicable article in Military Times, the US military says that children are legitimate targets in the war in Afghanistan because sometimes the Taliban and other insurgents use kids.

In the original incident, which I cited in October, The New York Times reported it this way:

The…case of three children allegedly killed in a coalition strike was reported by local officials in Helmand Province’s Nawa district. The officials said that the children were killed in a NATO strike on Sunday afternoon as they were gathering dung to burn as fuel, a common practice in the desert reaches of southern Afghanistan where there are few trees.

***

The Marja governor said that NATO forces watched as improvised explosive devices were being planted, and targeted the insurgents planting them. “As a result two I.E.D. planters were killed and the shrapnel killed the three children who were wandering nearby,” he said. Other reports said that three insurgents had been killed.

A spokesman for the international forces, Maj. Adam Wojack, said that the coalition forces were aware of the allegations and that the episode was being investigated. “I.S.A.F. did conduct a precision airstrike on three insurgents in Nawa district, and the strike killed all three insurgents,” he said.

“None of our reporting shows any civilian casualties or any children.”

But on December 3 Gannett, which owns Military Times, ran an article headlined: “Some Afghan Kids Aren’t Bystanders.” It said:

When Marines in Helmand province sized up shadowy figures that appeared to be emplacing an improvised explosive device, it looked like a straightforward mission. They got clearance for an airstrike, a Marine official said, and took out the targets.

It wasn’t that simple, however. Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have “accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians.”

But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were “innocent.” Before calling for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System mission in mid-October, Marines observed the children digging a hole in a dirt road in Nawa district, the official said, and the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission.

Shockingly, the article quotes a senior officer saying that the military isn’t just out to bomb “military age males,” anymore, but kids, too:

It kind of opens our aperture,” said Army Lt. Col. Marion “Ced” Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”

War crimes? It would appear so.

11 Secret Documents Americans Deserve to See | AllGov

thefreelioness:

1. Obama Memo Allowing the Assassination of U.S. Citizens    

After he took over the presidency, Barack Obama did away with such traditional legal niceties and decided to just kill some Americans who would previously have been accused of treason or terrorism. His victims have included three American citizens killed in Yemen in 2011 by missiles fired from drones: U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist from North Carolina, and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

Obama justified his breach of U.S. and international law with a 50-page memorandum prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.  Attorney General Eric Holder argued that the killing of Awlaki was legal because he was a wartime enemy and he could not be captured, but the legal justification for this argument is impossible to confirm because the Obama administration has refused to release the memo.

2. The Obama Interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act

The Obama administration has created a secret interpretation of Section 215 that goes beyond the direct wording of the law to include other information that can be collected. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was briefed about this secret interpretation, urged the president to make it public. “I want to deliver a warning this afternoon,” he said. “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”

Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, also a Democrat, have implied that the Obama administration has expanded the use of Section 215 to activities other than espionage and terrorism. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Wyden and Udall wrote that “there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”

3. 30-page Summary of 9/11 Commission Interview with Bush and Cheney

You would have thought that, in the interests of the nation, the Bush administration would have demanded a thorough investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the deadliest assault ever on U.S. soil. Instead, they fought tooth and nail against an independent investigation. Public pressure finally forced President George W. Bush to appoint a bipartisan commission that came to be known as the 9/11 Commission.  It was eventually given a budget of $15 million…compared to the $39 million spent on the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton investigation. When the commission completed its work in August 2004, the commissioners turned over all their records to the National Archives with the stipulation that the material was to be released to the public starting on January 2, 2009. However, most of the material remains classified. Among the more tantalizing still-secret documents are daily briefings given to President Bush that reportedly described increasingly worried warnings of a possible attack by operatives of Osama bin Laden.

Another secret document that the American people deserve to see is the 30-page summary of the interview of President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney conducted by all ten commissioners on April 29, 2004.  Bush and Cheney refused to be interviewed unless they were together. They would not testify under oath and they refused to allow the interview to be recorded or transcribed.  Instead the commission was allowed to bring with them a note taker. It is the summary based on this person’s notes that remains sealed.

4. Memos from President George W. Bush to the CIA Authorizing Waterboarding and other Torture Techniques

Four days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a “memorandum of notification” (still secret) that authorized the CIA to do what it needed to fight al-Qaeda.  However the memo did not address what interrogation and torture techniques could be used on captured suspects. By June 2003, Director George Tenet and others at the CIA were becoming worried that if their seemingly illegal tactics became known to the public, the White House would deny responsibility and hang the CIA out to dry.  After much discussion, Bush’s executive office handed over two memos, one in 2003 and another in 2004, confirming White House approval of the CIA interrogation methods, thus giving the CIA “top cover.” It is not known if President Bush himself signed the memos.

5. 1,171 CIA Documents Related to the Assassination of President Kennedy

It’s been 49 years since President John F. Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas, yet the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) insists that more than one thousand documents relating to the case should not be released to the public until NARA is legally required to do so in 2017…unless the president at that time decides to extend the ban.  It would appear that some of the blocked material deals with the late CIA agent David Phillips, who is thought to have dealt with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City six weeks before the assassination.

6. Volume 5 of the CIA’s History of the Bay of Pigs Fiasco

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, CIA historian Dr. Jack B. Pfeiffer compiled a multi-volume history of the failed US attempt to invade Cuba in April 1961.  In August 2005, the National Security Archive at George Washington University, citing the Freedom of Information Act, requested access to this history.  The CIA finally released the information almost six years later, in July 2011. However it refused to release Volume V, which is titled “CIA’s Internal Investigation of the Bay of Pigs Operations.”  Although more than 50 years have passed since the invasion, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Volume V is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act because it “is covered by the deliberative process privilege” which “covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”

7. National Security Decision Directives with Classified Titles

The day before he left the White House on January 20, 1993, President George H. W. Bush issued National Security Directive (NSD) #79, a document so secret that even its title remains classified almost 20 years later. The same goes for National Security Directive #77, issued a few days earlier, as well as four others issued in 1989 (#11, 13a, 19a and 25a). If the “a”s are any indication of the subjects, it is worth noting that NSD 13 dealt with countering cocaine trafficking in Peru; NSD 19 dealt with Libya and NSD 25 with an election in Nicaragua.

President Ronald Reagan also issued six NSDs with classified titles, and President Bill Clinton issued 29.  President George W. Bush issued two such NSDs, presumably shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. President Barack Obama has issued at least seven Presidential Policy Directives with classified titles.

8. Major General Douglas Stone’s 700-Page Report on Prisoners Held in Afghanistan

Marine Corps General Douglas Stone earned positive reviews for his revamping of detention operations in Iraq, where he determined that most of the prisoners held by the United States were not actually militants and could be taught trades and rehabilitated. Based on his success in Iraq, Stone was given the task of making an evaluation of detainee facilities in Afghanistan. His findings, conclusions and recommendations were included in a 700-page report that he submitted to the U.S. Central Command in August 2009. According to some accounts of the report, Stone determined that two-thirds of the Afghan prisoners were not a threat and should be released. However, three years after he completed it, Stone’s report remains classified.

9. Detainee Assessment Briefs for Abdullah Tabarak and Abdurahman Khadr

In 2011, WikiLeaks released U.S. military files known as Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs), which describe the cases of 765 prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. However, there were actually 779 prisoners. So what happened to the files for the other fourteen? Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, has noted that two of the fourteen missing stories are especially suspicious: those of Abdullah Tabarak and Abdurahman Khadr.

Tabarak, a Moroccan, was allegedly one of Osama bin Laden’s long-time bodyguards, and took over bin Laden’s satellite phone in order to draw U.S. fire to himself instead of to bin Laden when U.S. forces were chasing the al-Qaeda leader in the Tora Bora mountains in December 2001.  Captured and sent to Guantánamo, Tabarak was mysteriously released, sent back to Morocco in July 2003, and set free shortly thereafter.

Abdurahman Khadr, the self-described “black sheep” of a militant family from Canada, was 20 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan and turned over to American forces. He has said that he was recruited by the CIA to become an informant at Guantánamo and then in Bosnia. When the CIA tried to send him to Iraq, he refused and returned to Canada. His younger brother, Omar, was 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan and accused of killing an American soldier, Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, during a firefight.  He was incarcerated at Guantánamo for almost ten years until he was finally released to Canadian custody on September 29, 2012.

10. FBI Guidelines for Using GPS Devices to Track Suspects

On January 23, 2012, in the case of United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that attaching a GPS device to a car to track its movements constitutes a “search” and is thus covered by the Fourth Amendment protecting Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  But it did not address the question of whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant to attach a GPS device or whether it is enough for an agent to believe that such a search would turn up evidence of wrongdoing.

A month later, at a symposium at the University of San Francisco, FBI lawyer Andrew Weissman announced that the FBI was issuing two memoranda to its agents to clarify how the agency would interpret the Supreme Court decision. One memo dealt with the use of GPS devices, including whether they could be attached to boats and airplanes and used at international borders. The second addressed how the ruling applied to non-GPS techniques used by the FBI.

The ACLU, citing the Freedom of Information Act, has requested publication of the two memos because they “will shape not only the conduct of its own agents but also the policies, practices and procedures of other law enforcement agencies—and, consequently, the privacy rights of Americans.”

11. U.S. Paper on Negotiating Position on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas

The subject of international trade negotiations is one that makes most people’s eyes glaze over. So why is the Obama administration fighting so hard to keep secret a one-page document that relates to early negotiations regarding the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), an accord that was proposed 18 years ago and about which public negotiations ended in 2005? All we know is that the document “sets forth the United States’ initial proposed position on the meaning of the phrase ‘in like circumstances.’” This phrase “helps clarify when a country must treat foreign investors as favorably as local or other foreign investors.”

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Center for International Environmental Law, DC District Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to release the document, but the Obama administration has refused, claiming that disclosure “reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security” because all the nations involved in the failed negotiations agreed to keep all documents secret until December 31, 2013…“unless a country were to object to the release of one of its own documents at that time.” Judge Roberts ruled that the USTR has failed to present any evidence that release of the document would damage national security.

Most likely, the Obama administration is afraid that release of the document would set a precedent that could impede another secret trade negotiation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, which seeks to establish a free trade zone among the U.S., New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia and possibly Canada, Mexico and Japan.

Obama continues US military aid to countries using child soldiers

lost-and-searching-in-america:

President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum waiving sanctions on countries that use child soldiers, allowing US military aid to continue to four countries despite their continued violation of the Child Soldiers Protection Act of 2008.

“When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed— that’s slavery,” Obama said in an address at the Clinton Global Initiative.”It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we’ve long rejected such cruelty.”

But by granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Protection Act to some of the world’s worst abusers of child soldiers for the third straight year, and by continuing to provide aid and sell arms to those countries, President Obama’s claim that America stands opposed to the “slavery” of child soldiering appears dubious to many observers

(Source: the-flame-imperishable, via goodgolly-missmolly11)