Where's the moral outrage?

[USFREEDOM911]

Yeah, that is right where I am and all those posts I have made about rendition and everything else can just be ignored.

Then tell me why everyone ranted and raved and railes against what Bush was doing; but when Obama not only keeps those things in place, but has even increased some of them, it's like: "Well yeah, but Bush........"

 

[Phantasmal]

Then tell me why everyone ranted and raved and railes against what Bush was doing; but when Obama not only keeps those things in place, but has even increased some of them, it's like: "Well yeah, but Bush........"

Free, I can only speak for myself and I do not remain quiet about it. President Obama received/s disappointment mail from me on a weekly basis.

 

[Phantasmal]

Free, I can only speak for myself and I do not remain quiet about it. President Obama received/s disappointment mail from me on a weekly basis.

I am in the process of composing one about Karzai and Afghanistan.
I sent one the other day that told him that to me he does not resemble the man I saw at the Democratic Convention in 2000. I may not rant a lot on here, but I do rant privately!

 

[zappasguitar]

Free, I can only speak for myself and I do not remain quiet about it. President Obama received/s disappointment mail from me on a weekly basis.

Hilarious how he expects you to know why EVERYONE ELSE did what they did and said what they sad while Bush was in office...

Can USF tell us why every other conservative did what they did and said what they said during the same time period?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

there is this little thing in the constitution called 'due process'. See, in this country of supposed freedom, liberty, and limited government, we just don't allow assassinations of people for doing something that the government got embarrassed about.

The Constitution and 'due process' doesn't exist for enemies of the United States. Orders to "assassinate" the enemy is what war is all about. This isn't a civilian action, this isn't some hacker stealing Sarah Palin's emails! This is someone publishing highly sensitive US military documents, compromising our intelligence immeasurably, damaging our intelligence relations with others, and putting American lives at grave risk. This is a serious provocation, and should be treated as such. This man has made himself a threat to national security, and an enemy of this nation. He is no different than Osama Bin Laden, in my opinion.

so the constitution is just a set of guidelines then?

The Constitution doesn't protect enemies of the Constitution who want to destroy it! GOOFBALL!

 

[Phantasmal]

The Constitution and 'due process' doesn't exist for enemies of the United States. Orders to "assassinate" the enemy is what war is all about. This isn't a civilian action, this isn't some hacker stealing Sarah Palin's emails! This is someone publishing highly sensitive US military documents, compromising our intelligence immeasurably, damaging our intelligence relations with others, and putting American lives at grave risk. This is a serious provocation, and should be treated as such. This man has made himself a threat to national security, and an enemy of this nation. He is no different than Osama Bin Laden, in my opinion.



The Constitution doesn't protect enemies of the Constitution who want to destroy it! GOOFBALL!

Yes, but thank the gods, you opinion doesn't count in these matters and if we could just just go off half cocked and kill people that we thought committed acts against, we should have just killed Saddam in this fashion and Kim in Korea right now! Why don't we do that, again?

And doesn't Congress have a say in these matters, the President can not act on his own, Bush tried, but he should not be able to do so and I hope Obama doesn't try to do so!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution and 'due process' doesn't exist for enemies of the United States. Orders to "assassinate" the enemy is what war is all about. This isn't a civilian action, this isn't some hacker stealing Sarah Palin's emails! This is someone publishing highly sensitive US military documents, compromising our intelligence immeasurably, damaging our intelligence relations with others, and putting American lives at grave risk. This is a serious provocation, and should be treated as such. This man has made himself a threat to national security, and an enemy of this nation. He is no different than Osama Bin Laden, in my opinion.

The Constitution doesn't protect enemies of the Constitution who want to destroy it! GOOFBALL!

it's a very huge leap from someone actively attacking US soldiers or citizens to publishing classified material and still call that person an enemy of the US with orders to shoot on sight.

your knowledge of the constitution is either sorely lacking or you just don't give a shit.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

For years many liberals who post here ranted and raved about:

Rendition-

Gitmo-

Drones-

Patriot Act-

Under Obama the practice of rendition has not stopped; Gitmo remains open; drones have increased; and Obama has expanded the reach of government under the PA.

I'm still pretty outraged.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it's a very huge leap from someone actively attacking US soldiers or citizens to publishing classified material and still call that person an enemy of the US with orders to shoot on sight.

your knowledge of the constitution is either sorely lacking or you just don't give a shit.

The Constitution doesn't have one goddamn thing to do with an Australian citizen who doesn't live in the United States! We don't apply our Constitution to people around the globe, if we did, women in the middle east would be able to vote! MORON!

The Constitution does not apply to the enemy in the field of battle, that is war. There is a different set of criteria and rules for war. Someone who knowingly reveals classified intelligence through publication, is guilty of espionage, and is a legitimate military target. The Constitution does not protect such a person, nor does International Law. My orders would be shoot on site, and the Constitution wouldn't weigh into my decision.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution doesn't have one goddamn thing to do with an Australian citizen who doesn't live in the United States! We don't apply our Constitution to people around the globe, if we did, women in the middle east would be able to vote! MORON!

The Constitution does not apply to the enemy in the field of battle, that is war. There is a different set of criteria and rules for war. Someone who knowingly reveals classified intelligence through publication, is guilty of espionage, and is a legitimate military target. The Constitution does not protect such a person, nor does International Law. My orders would be shoot on site, and the Constitution wouldn't weigh into my decision.

thank you for proving you don't know anything about the constitution.

1) The constitution doesn't outline rights and liberties for a select group of people. It is a framework and prescribed set of powers and limitations for a federal government. that is all. Your claim about middle east women voting is ludicrous at the very least.

2) julian assange is not on the field of battle. NOBODY is guilty until proven innocent, or have you discarded the US system of justice?

3) it appears that GW Bush is your mentor concerning the constitution, since it wouldn't weigh in to your decision. This seems to be the problem with most of our government officials, is that they think the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper.

 

[Phantasmal]

thank you for proving you don't know anything about the constitution.

1) The constitution doesn't outline rights and liberties for a select group of people. It is a framework and prescribed set of powers and limitations for a federal government. that is all. Your claim about middle east women voting is ludicrous at the very least.

2) julian assange is not on the field of battle. NOBODY is guilty until proven innocent, or have you discarded the US system of justice?

3) it appears that GW Bush is your mentor concerning the constitution, since it wouldn't weigh in to your decision. This seems to be the problem with most of our government officials, is that they think the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper.

You are very consistent, thanks for that, I sometimes don't agree with you, but you are consistent!

 

[Canceled2]

I'm still pretty outraged.

Yes, I can tell by all that silence on the subjects over the past 2 years~

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

thank you for proving you don't know anything about the constitution.

1) The constitution doesn't outline rights and liberties for a select group of people. It is a framework and prescribed set of powers and limitations for a federal government. that is all. Your claim about middle east women voting is ludicrous at the very least.

2) julian assange is not on the field of battle. NOBODY is guilty until proven innocent, or have you discarded the US system of justice?

3) it appears that GW Bush is your mentor concerning the constitution, since it wouldn't weigh in to your decision. This seems to be the problem with most of our government officials, is that they think the constitution is just a god damned piece of paper.

The Constitution does not apply to citizens of Australia, they didn't ratify the Constitution. It protects American citizens, not foreign citizens. Assange doesn't have to be on a field of battle to conduct a provocative act of war. The New York skyline was not a field of battle on 9/11. The US system of justice also doesn't apply to Australian citizens, they would have to join the United States in order for that to be the case. The legal system and constitution, are not designed or intended to deal with international enemies. The Constitution delegates that responsibility to the Federal Government, through the US military and CIA.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution does not apply to citizens of Australia, they didn't ratify the Constitution. It protects American citizens, not foreign citizens. Assange doesn't have to be on a field of battle to conduct a provocative act of war. The New York skyline was not a field of battle on 9/11. The US system of justice also doesn't apply to Australian citizens, they would have to join the United States in order for that to be the case. The legal system and constitution, are not designed or intended to deal with international enemies. The Constitution delegates that responsibility to the Federal Government, through the US military and CIA.

once again, the constitution prescribes powers and limitations to the federal government ONLY. It tells them what they can and cannot do. The constitution affords protections to citizens of ANY nation if they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, expressly because the constitution limits the power of the government. The US system of Justice would apply to Assange IF he ever falls under the jurisdiction of the US.

Show me where the constitution delegates power to the CIA.

 

[Damocles]

This is what you said: "He expanded the PATRIOT act to make unwarranted listening to calls even stronger." But he didn't do that.





No, he called it "extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries." He has ended that practice.





Again, he promised to end the practice of sending people to other countries to be tortured and he did. He did not promise to end all renditions under any and all circumstances.





Um, my views on this stuff are quite clear. And, again, I'm not defending Obama. I'm just setting the record straight while, for some strange reason, you want to lie about it. Obama is better than Bush

Yes, claiming and winning further immunity made warrantless wiretapping stronger.

Extreme rendition is the exact same as extraordinary rendition, I even went so far as to explain the difference between what would be rendition and what would be extraordinary and extreme rendition. You are being deliberately obtuse, it is what people do when they are desperate to believe that their guy is "better" than what they disliked about the other and will go to any lengths to do so...

No, he promised to end something specific, he hasn't. In fact, they continue with even less objective outside people looking into them as the press (and yourself apparently) are excited that he said something about it, even though it was that they would continue.

Yes your views are clear, he is "better"...

He isn't. You delude yourself, and attempt to delude others. You are as much a danger as any Bush bootlicker ever was.

Let's ask a few of those questions you used to ask the Bush supporters that complained about this stuff when Bush was in office.

If you think his policy is an affront to rights, who do you propose will and who are you supporting to replace him? What have you done to protest this other than to just say he's "better than Bush" whenever you are confronted with your own delusions?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, claiming and winning further immunity made warrantless wiretapping stronger.

But there is no need further immunity it at this point since warrantless wiretapping was approved by Congress in 2007. The lawsuit is about warrantless wiretapping that was illegal.

Extreme rendition is the exact same as extraordinary rendition, I even went so far as to explain the difference between what would be rendition and what would be extraordinary and extreme rendition. You are being deliberately obtuse, it is what people do when they are desperate to believe that their guy is "better" than what they disliked about the other and will go to any lengths to do so...

"Extreme rendition where we outsource torture to other countries" and extraordinary rendition are not the same thing. One necessarily involves torture. One does not. The one that involves torture is what Obama said he would prohibit and it is what he prohibited.

No, he promised to end something specific, he hasn't. In fact, they continue with even less objective outside people looking into them as the press (and yourself apparently) are excited that he said something about it, even though it was that they would continue.

Yes, he did say he would end something specific, "extreme rendition where we outsource torture to other countries." And he has ended it.

Yes your views are clear, he is "better"...

He isn't. You delude yourself, and attempt to delude others. You are as much a danger as any Bush bootlicker ever was.

Let's ask a few of those questions you used to ask the Bush supporters that complained about this stuff when Bush was in office.

If you think his policy is an affront to rights, who do you propose will and who are you supporting to replace him? What have you done to protest this other than to just say he's "better than Bush" whenever you are confronted with your own delusions?

Yes, Obama is better. Warrantless wiretapping with Congressional authorization is better than warrantless wiretapping in violation of the law. I'd prefer neither. Extraordinary rendition without torture is better than extraordinary rendition with torture. Again, I'd prefer neither.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes, I can tell by all that silence on the subjects over the past 2 years~

From me?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Warrantless wiretapping with Congressional authorization is better than warrantless wiretapping in violation of the law.

how did congress get permission to ignore the 4th Amendment?

 

[Canceled2]

But there is no need further immunity it at this point since warrantless wiretapping was approved by Congress in 2007. The lawsuit is about warrantless wiretapping that was illegal.

"Extreme rendition where we outsource torture to other countries" and extraordinary rendition are not the same thing. One necessarily involves torture. One does not. The one that involves torture is what Obama said he would prohibit and it is what he prohibited.

Yes, he did say he would end something specific, "extreme rendition where we outsource torture to other countries." And he has ended it.

Yes your views are clear, he is "better"...

Yes, Obama is better. Warrantless wiretapping with Congressional authorization is better than warrantless wiretapping in violation of the law. I'd prefer neither. Extraordinary rendition without torture is better than extraordinary rendition with torture. Again, I'd prefer neither.

Again you stupid dork...they are the same thing! rendition practices of sending a prisoner to another country for interrogation is "extraordinary rendition" or "extreme rendition" or commonly referred to as "rendition".

The only thing Obama did was to remove a layer of US CIA participation...now we just ship 'em off and trust what the country receiving them tells us...somehow Obama thinks this keeps his hands clean...and look he has ignorant apologists like you helping him out on that account!

 

[Damocles]

how did congress get permission to ignore the 4th Amendment?

They didn't. He deludes himself. I believe I may have mentioned that. And his "evidence" that there is no torture is that he simply believes it rather than thinking his way through it. GWB said there was "no torture", there were people who believed him too.

Under any scrutiny that they would give Bush, this is not good. Nor was there "Congressional approval" when Obama filed his arguments for that lawsuit that greatly expanded the immunization enjoyed by the Executive. But we'll ignore what really happened for our own self-delusion, as long as it isn't Bush it must all be "better"...

I'll ask those same questions again.

What do you think Nigel has done to protest these violations?

Who do you think he believes should replace Obama? Who does he support to run against Obama in the primaries?

And lastly, specifically for Nigel:

What have you done to protest this other than to just say he's "better than Bush" whenever you are confronted with your own delusions?