"[I]n Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist."That's Glenn Greenwald, in his essay published Wednesday, that looks deeply into implications of our president essentially deepening some of the provisional actions and policies taken under the George W. Bush administration in regard to the murders called "targeted killings," and formalizing how this might be done to you or me.
This policy is one of the most disgusting ever taken by an American president. As Spencer Ackerman noted today, as the implications of the depth of the Obama administration's announcement began to sink in, "not even John Yoo made a claim that radical while serving under the Bush administration."
Trust me, once a president can order the murder of one American, he can order the murder of any American. And when the next president comes along, that power will only be extended and deepened - just like Obama is doing here to something he tenuously seems to be claiming he has inherited from W.
It makes Abraham Lincoln's treatment of Clement Lloyd Vallandingham seem benign.
It makes Woodrow Wilson's vendetta against Eugene Debs less vindictive.
It makes Franklin D. Roosevelt's acquiescence in the internment of 110,000 of our Japanese citizens seem enlightened.
Update - Thursday 6:30 a.m: From the comments: "So targeted killing of known terrorists will lead to my being targeted next."
The evidence against al-Awaki is hearsay. It is up to the United States Courts to determine the quality of the evidence brought against any citizen. This concept goes back to a quaint document called the Magna Carta, and is backed by all case law in the United States regarding the disposition of evidence regarding capital cases.
"Congress granted the authorization in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Al-Awlaki isn't the first example of someone being classified as a non-civilian, and frankly, the question of battlefield borders doesn't hinge on Obama's sole determination either."
U.S. courts have ruled against parts of the Authorization of Military Force and executive branch interpretations of it. And using its existence as justification for acts against any American deemed to be the kind of threat the administration is making al-Awaki to be, could certainly be stretched by a chief executive to mean somebody supporting an organization like the fringe group in Michigan that was busted recently.
Frankly the argument that the 2007 killings of innocent people in Sadr City that surfaced this week was OK, and that al-Awaki is fair game, strike me as potentially racist. Were these considered to be white people, these events or potential developments would be greeted differently.
There are slippery slopes and there are sippery precipices. This is the latter.
"The depressing thing is we all thought Obama was different, but as it turns out he is like GWB in many ways. What we have going on now was planned out over a long period of time by the real controlling powers in this country."
Olbermann on MSNBC Wednesday:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
33 comments:
Impeachment, really?
It's shit like this that makes it really difficult to take PA seriously.
So targeted killing of known terrorists will lead to my being targeted next?
Or you being targeted next?
Time for impeachment ?
Jumping Jebus, Phil, have you been licking your fingers after applying that mold inhibiting powder on your seeds?
Yes, this authorization does raise questions that need to be addressed, but try to keep your absurd tendency to fling yourself bodily towards your feinting couch confined to instances where your irrational hyperbole might be better appreciated.
In any case, it's not a question which hinges on your overweening fixation with Obama as a target for your hysterical and implausible piss ups, Phil, Congress granted the authorization in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Al-Awlaki isn't the first example of someone being classified as a non-civilian, and frankly, the question of battlefield borders doesn't hinge on Obama's sole determination either.
A past Congressional order is where the authorization came from, it's not something that can be set aside to provide you the means to single out Obama as if he's acting without Congressional authority.
Your assessment of the situation is woefully ill-conceived, not to mention ludicrous.
And Phil, if you're going to get exercised to the point of such histrionics, why pray tell, haven't we seen the consistency of directing your tremulous snits at that Congress who created that authority during all these past several years ?
Oh, and by the way, your greenwald link is busted and you've been spammed again above.
This has been going on for decades, what has happened is people are just now figuring it out. Yes, ordering the death of a citizen and denying due process is completely against our constitution, but our country has been assasinating people in and our of this country for a long time. The depressing thing is we all thought Obama was different, but as it turns out he is like GWB in many ways. What we have going on now was planned out over a long period of time by the real controlling powers in this country.
A year or so ago, I bought a bottle of Irish whiskey called "Black Bush" and have had a drink on those times when Obama has seemed just like Bush.
The bottle is empty now...
anon @ 8:19 a.m:
As a longtime Bushmills fan, I can sympathize. I prefer the plain ol' Old Bushmills, though. My bottles of it usually last about three years these days.
I was on a grand jury, and I imagine al-Awaki could get indicted by a grand jury. Grand juries only need to be strongly suspicious to indict. Has he been indicted? I googled but I can't tell-- has he been indicted?
Seems like we should at least indict the guy before we kill him. Perhaps an indictment has been made. (I hope so). Our prosecutors should at least rationalize suspicion.
After suspicion has been articulated by our democratic courts, we should extradite the guy. Yemen's government might be helpful. If we know his gps kill coordinates, we might instead employ those coordinates to catch the guy and bring him to our country for a fair trial.
Would we kill him just because we thought we couldn't convict him in court? If we know where he is, but we didn't extradite him, and instead chose to blow him to smithereens, that would be ugly.
The fact that you toned down your histrionics and muzzled your tin hat paranoia, doesn't bring this hissy fit of yours any closer to any semblance of responsibility or rationality.
And attempting the magic trick of equating Obama to Bush is nothing but plain old delusional folderol.
Merely the latest installment in a long line of similarly ill-conceived and unfounded misconceptions that you've attempted since you first experienced a touch of buyers remorse on Obama.
A worse display of magical thinking is hard to fathom from one who merely has pretensions towards a plausible reality based view.
Like Brandon said, it's shit like this that makes PA hard to take seriously.
You make a number of seriously lame presumptions trying to extricate yourself from your tizzy.
One, you claim the evidence, (which you've never seen and don't have access to), is 'hearsay'.
Whoo hoo, if Phil says it's hearsay, then it surely follows that no one on God's green earth could possibly believe otherwise ? You and Glenn Beck get to dictate the terms of reality based on your lack of access to reality ?
Two, you make the unbelievably stupid pronouncement that because the courts have ruled against some part of an act of Congressional authorization, then it stands to reason there isn't any validity to any other distinct part of it.
That rhetorical device is as foolishly credible as those who argue whole premise of climate change is a hoax because there was a revision made to a couple of findings in one separate study.
I'd have thought you'd have learned by now that taking your cues right out of the playbook of the neo-con's and the tea-partier's dissembling only results in you looking as ungrounded as they do.
Some time back I took the time to inform you of the multitude of ways Obama didn't match up to your narrow minded simplistic assessment.
Your response ? ......crickets.
Just like with the average impaired wingnut, you choose to continue with your fantasies instead of acknowledging a reality that doesn't support your unfounded preconceptions and presumptions.
Those who do choose to tackle slippery slopes or precipices, (and successfully conquer them), don't start off imagining they alone are atop the summit, unleashing a barrage of crazed yodeling incantations, and then fling themselves bodily off the cliff.
They start at the bottom and assess the route necessary to gain their goal and then climb step by step to that goal.
The policy questions within this issue will be addressed, and doubtless, after rational and reasoned consideration and debate, they will be corrected or clarified, but having to detract from that process, by having the need to walk back all the fatuous and moronic hyper-sensationalism will surely detract from lending any promptness or clarity to that process.
If you want to be taken seriously, try acting like an adult instead of adopting the juvenile bombast and disingenuous sniveling of a quivering and enfeebled shock jock wanna-be.
Freeper and others,
"Your response ? ......crickets."
How can I write instant responses to your hysteria when I'm at work? Talk about bullshit.
It is hearsay until heard in a court of law. A grand jury can only refer a "true bill" to a court of law. Or reject a true bill. This case is outside the scope of the FISA courts.
I suggest readers read Greenwald's, Marcy Wheeler's and Spencer Ackerman's essays on this.
I get off work about 9:30 tonight. Back to work.
"The evidence against al-Awaki is hearsay." Right. But at the moment the "Obama administration's assassination plan" is also hearsay. Note: This information comes from unconfirmed sources, which are ubiquitous in the MSM. Also note that Glenn Greenwald has a tendency toward hyperbole and (often feigned) outrage. I've been reading his posts for years, and I'll match my progressive credentials with his (or yours) any day. Yet I frequently find him to be over the top. I hate to see you going there, too.
Nobody should be rushing to judgment about Obama being GW Bush redux. A reader has already pointed out earlier on this thread that Obama is not using his authority as president to unilaterally order the murder of a U.S. citizen. We're talking about an act of Congress! Geez. Also, remember Judith Miller and Saddam Hussein's WMD? So, just take a deep breath, Mr. Munger. And please remove that ridiculous picture of Obama above. Thank you.
Judith Miller's information came straight from the office of the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney.
Please cite some instances where Mr. Greenwald ended up being wrong.
Phil,
While I understand your dislike (disdain, hatered) of this policy, I have to admit I think it is a necessarry approach to dealing with a very real terrorist problem (insert "then the President could target me", which I doubt he will). We don't torture (or shouldn't), but we do fly drones into building. We don't carpet bomb like we did in WWII, but we do try to limit collateral damage today. War is terrible, and these wars appears to have been avoidable. That said, we need to extracate ourselves, and if taking out one of the worst of the terrorist leaders requires an action such as this, I can live with it. But let's work to get out asap.
Keep the faith,
Anon
Does the FBI still issue "Wanted, Dead or Alive" notices? What is the law in that instance?
anons,
Though PA prints anonymous comments fairly regularly, I don't feel nearly as motivated to respond to "anons" as I do to people who sign a name or a nom de blog.
To me, a person who has almost never signed a comment as "anonymous," I find dealing with posts with a lot of possible different anonymouses irritating.
The expression "wanted dead or alive" hasn't been used in a long time, IIRC.
and, remember what Ben Franklin said about trading freedoms for so-called security.
back to work...
Phil:
Regarding "Wanted, Dead Or Alive", here is a recent article by the retired Seattle Chief of Police, Norm Stamper regarding the shooting of murder suspect Maurice Clemmons by a Seattle police officer. Clemmons had murdered 4 Seattle police officers. Clemmons was thought to be armed, but was not armed when killed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/wanted-dead-or-alive_b_375494.html
Now, don't take offense. Just attempting a reasonable understanding of the use of deadly force against American citizens. You have a strong internal compass, sir, with much to be admired.
Regarding my online handle, "Polarbear", I use it because I own a business in Anchorage, and frankly, I have to do business with some very conservative Republican customers and companies. If I blogged in the open, I would lose a substantial amount of business, and there would be "Wanted, Dead or Alive" emails flying around about me. That's just the way it is in Anchorage. So, I really appreciate the opportunity to use a handle. I am proud to follow in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, who also used pen names, and who had to sell newspapers in a Philadelphia whose colonial government and financiers were dominated by very conservative Quakers.
For anyone who's followed the antics of Phil in these pages, the right to anonymous political speech is something that confuses Phil.
One day Phil will support someone's right to anonymity and severely castigate those who would deprive someone of that right.
Note that the Supreme Court upheld the right to anonymous free speech in landmark precedents, so supporting anonymity in cases of political free speech is backed by, not only the courts, but a long history confirming it's uniquely American heritage as being both, protected and an indispensably necessary adjunct to one's rights as an American.
On some next day, Phil is just as apt to dismiss or demean someone's desire for anonymity, he's just as apt to attempt to degrade that right of anonymity and attempt to minimize or ridicule anyone who may choose anonymity.
But then again, consistency of message isn't one of Phil's stronger points.
(....aside from his consistent message of whackdoodlism and bloviating histrionics in regards to his unbalanced and entirely overblown anti-Obama stance.)
As to 'answering my hysteria', as you call it, I'll give you another chance to answer.
Here below is what I wrote in January in the comments to one of your previously ill-conceived and imbalanced screeds wherein you again attempt to equate Obama to GWB.
(note that this was asked before the passage of HCR and before the signing of the renewal of START. Both accomplishments that never would have happened under GWB.
and Phil, I read Greenwald, Ackerman and Wheeler.
None of their editorials were as overweening or biased and whacked as yours. At the least, they held to a semblance of pragmatism and simple probity.
You might take a cue from that.....
""How 'unwise' does one have to be to not be able to comprehend that announcing a plan to end the war in Iraq, refocusing our strategic plan in Afghanistan and Pakistan, bringing about consensus among the world's economic leaders to agree to a plan to avert economic collapse, shifted away from Bush era policies on defense sharing in Europe vis a vis missile defense, helped to arbitrate between Turkey and Armenia resulting in their normalizing relations, committing the US to strengthening non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, pushing for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, announcing with Russia a plan to begin new START treaty talks, reset Russian US relations, directly addressed Iran's people, agreeing the US will participate in UN talks with Iran, proposing a progressive military budget that prepares the Pentagon for revision, cut funding for the unnecessary F-22, the DDG-100 destroyer, and Future Combat Systems, vowing to bring the budget for war in Afghanistan and Iraq into the budget process, committing to funding more money to vets and medical coverage for vets, offering the largest increase in veterans funding in 30 years, elevating diplomacy as the key tool in US foreign policy, restoring the UN Ambassador to cabinet level positioning, engaging the Muslim world and announcing the US is not at war with Islam, inviting Syria's ambassador to meet and sending two representatives to Syria along with the Secretary of State, pledging 900 milllion in aid at the Gaza conference to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized and recognized, improving relations with Cuba, removing travel bans on Cuban Americans, improving relations in Central and Southern American nations by making commitments at the Summit of the Americas, pushing for a treaty to end small arms trafficking in the Americas, beginning the creation of a national climate policy, providing significant funding for clean energy R&D, committing the US to the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, repealing the gag rule which withheld US funding for organizations that discussed or provided family planning services abroad, resumed funding for the UN population fund for family planning, committing US aid to Haiti, pledging half a billion to vulnerable populations and a billion to food safety at the G2 summit, urged the Sudanese to allow aid workers back into Darfur, announced support for the International Criminal Court, increased funding for the UN peacekeeping force, supporting the UN declaration urging nations to decriminalize homosexuality, creating an Ambassador for Global Womens Issues, established a White House Council on Women and Girls, announcing the US will run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.
Should I go on? Do I need to go on? There is much much more, these are just representative of moves and initiatives in more of the foreign policy realm, domestically, there are many more achievements I could list, but I grow tired of doing research for people that ought to do some for their own selves.
I can add, that nearly all of these initiatives and moves by the Obama administration would not and could not be accomplished by previous administrations. In fact, many of them we have been compelled to act on to reverse the damage previous administrations have done.
Instead of just looking for what everyone else might focus on, try to get a bit of a comprehensive view of your world so you don't get trapped into the narrow view of others.
Yep, that's an unshielded slap at Phil's trite and narrow reporting.""
freeper
Freeper: Appreciate your summary. I concur there is much to hope for based on Obama's actions. I like his Presidency.
However, with regard to Phil, on behalf of my neighbor, I would remind you that late March and early April are tough months for Alaskans, with episodic weather lapses back into mid-winter conditions. Second, my neighbor just completed a large piece of original music, a complicated score in my view, which must have been, had to have been a high-energy endeavor. He will probably crab at me for saying so, but we need to cut each other some slack this time of year. Everyone is going to relax a tad as the land returns to green around us.
PB,
Thanks for the support.
Freeper,
Thanks for the highly detailed analysis. Should I decide to some day visit a shrink, I'll bring your analysis along with. Might help break the ice.
Phil:
I had speculated that al-Awaki could get indicted by a grand jury-- I read some of his statements and it seems to me he could qualify for indictment. Am I incorrect?
I certainly don't think they should cut out the middleman (courts) and kill him, but I feel his day in court might be warranted. I still believe in juries and courts-- especially juries.
Phil:
Thinking about this more, I think al-Awaki should turn himself in. It would be a heck of a personal sacrifice, but it might be the best way for him to save his life and many others (at least U.S. citizens).
If a jury found him not guilty, then we'd REALLY wonder why our government wanted to kill him. Even if a jury found him guilty of something less than a capital offense, I'd wonder why my government wanted to kill a U.S. citizen just for a misdemeanor. Our court system may be the best credible way to prove how wrong the executive branch can be. I still have faith in juries. Judges are another issue . . .
As per usual, when presented with contextual substance that refutes Phil's imbalanced and whacked misconceptions, material that provides a more objective perception of reality, Phil resorts to anything but responding within the context of the subject matter at issue.
...as if cracking wise about someday seeing a shrink is a cogent response and not just another instance of Phil dipping into the playbook of the rest of the buffoons who would rather continue their creation and promotion of their one-sided, fallacious and prejudiced view of reality.
Faced with the perspective that negates narrow-mindedness of Phil's biased histrionics, his only fallback is to attempt to dismiss or demean the person who provides the context to negate his biased and fallacious inanity.
And no, polarbear, there's no excuse for incurious idiocy in the national debate. We spend too much time combatting that from the right to allow it on the left or from anyone like Phil, who shows only a pretext to his claim to be a progressive voice.
If this time of year causes you or your neighbor to be less than lucid and reasoned, all the more reason to hold your tongue until you've snapped out of your enfeebled seasonally induced folly and torpor.
Like I said, we waste way too much time in trying to move forward, by having to stop and walk back to reveal and expose all the lies and bullshit from right's lying spokespersons and their echoing media machine, we don't need to hear the same same brand of moronic idiocy generated from within.
There is no excuse for unreasoned and incompetent, biased inanity and, no one should be led to believe there's an excuse for that, let alone the advancement of the idea it's simply excusable due to some innate obstreperousness inherent in the revolving of the seasons .
Freeper - Phil is a genuine progressive voice, as is yours. Progressives are at their best when allowing differing progressive points of view to stand side-by-side, allowing time and caucus and voting to sort them out. Those of us who live in small towns understand the wisdom of never purposely erecting bitter and permanent barriers between people. I do not believe that you, Freeper, really believe you have the only legitimate voice, ...do you? A bit more civility, please.
Phil, I agree with you that it is dangerous and disappointing.
It highlights to me that there is little effective difference between the GOP and Dems.
In fact, the silence from the left is deafening as Obama steps up assaults on civil liberties and wars abroad. The left would be foaming at the mouth if GWB did this but Obama gets a pass from the MSM and Dems.
Maybe I should write a blog post on this...
Chris
Chris,
Send me the post. This is an important subject.
Take all the time and and all the caucus voting you think necessary.
Neither process is. or can be, an excuse to dismiss reality.
In the face of distortions, and misinformation, bias and lies, there is no need or call for 'civility' as if that could excuse or ameliorate the bias, distortions, misinformation or lies.
My 'voice', as you are wont to describe it, is backed up by a reality that you, (and Phil), have consistently failed to address.
Reality persists, whether it's spoken in my 'voice' or not.
When you care to address the reality instead of trying to marginalize my 'voice', you'll have gone a long way towards following through on your own advice to reject the misuse of the ad hominem rhetorical device.
Despite your unsubstantiated claim that Phil's is a progressive voice, each time Phil relates the evident reality that he isn't supporting progressive ideals, I'll continue to point out the inconsistency and the contradiction.
You should beware of that 'open-mindedness' you allude to,
....open your mind too far and all that has value or substance could fall right out.
.
I'll await the time when either you or Phil choose to address the context provided here,
...but I won't be holding my breath. So far, all I've seen is a determined effort to do anything but address the context, which leaves me wondering whether either of you can or will.
.
Freeper - You marginalize yourself by your tone, with no help from me. Citizens have grown weary of the constant stress, the constant divisiveness, the constant pushing, the constant bullying, the constant fear, and the constant lack of civility in our public political discussions. Especially now, you cannot win citizens to your point of view with a verbal baseball bat to the head. Let the extreme right have their extreme language, implied violence, confrontational arguments, and filibuster tactics. Extreme voices do not win trust. Progressives need to be civil, and remain the party that gets things done. Good grief - look at what the Republicans put up for leadership at their weekend conference in New Orleans. Talk about a vacuum at the top. With any luck the Republican Party will filibuster the coming Supreme Court nominee all the way to November. Lets leave the table pounding to the extreme right.
Freeper,
I know I'm new here, but one thought... This is Phil's virtual house. Would you come to someone's real house and treat the host and other guests like this? Even if you disagreed passionately?
Civility is the lubrication of a Republic. Acting like a boor is not civil.
Phil,
If I get around to drafting a post I'll forward you a link.
Cheers,
Chris
Still unable, or is it just that you're unwilling, to address context.
You're simply attempting to divert attention from the context and hiding behind your rhetorical call for 'civility' and not speaking to the context.
Evidently, attempting to divert attention is your only fallback.
I'll go with unable and unwilling.
Now that we seem to have established an improved tone for this discussion, I thought it best to find out if it is currently legal to target and kill a U.S. citizen located overseas? I do not know.
Per the Christian Science Monitor article cited below, the CIA and DOD apparently believe they need the explicit permission of the President to carry out a strike targeted at an American citizen overseas. While several legal authorities believe this is sufficient, there does not appear to be prior case law.
The CIA is known to have carried out at least one Predator strike in Yemen. A U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, was among six alleged al-Qaeda operatives killed in that 2002 operation but was not the target.
“The answer probably is yes, says Mike Newton, a law professor at Vanderbilt University. If the US could prove that Awlaki is a “direct participant” in a conflict – terrorist operations against the US, for example – then killing Awlaki would probably pass legal muster, he says.
“By making that declaration, the administration has at least admitted the possibility that the fundamental obligation of the executive to protect the American people trumps the basic right to life of that individual,” says Mr. Newton.
Since the incidents last year at Fort Hood and Detroit, Awlaki’s stature has risen within the counterterrorism community. He now represents a top leader of Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which is emerging as a dangerous new franchise of Al Qaeda globally.
While the fact that Awlaki is an American citizen may raise legal questions about killing him, targeting him outside the US may make it more tenable, says Newton.”
Source: Lubold, Gordon. 7 Apr 2010. “Anwar al-Awlaki: Is it legal to kill an American in war on terror?” The Christian Science Monitor. Online: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror
Again, I am not an attorney. My guess would have been that a federal grand jury would have to, should have to return an indictment against al-Awlaki, and a warrant issued prior to his being placed on a target list. I would think that whatever agreements our law enforcement agencies have in-place with Interpol might be another source.
You've added more conjecture of a speculative nature about the issue of targeted individuals.
I don't have anything to add or subtract from that per se.
But, your focus on speculation about the legitimacy or illegitimacy concerning the any one or several points within policy itself is ignoring the objection to Phil's mischaracterization and false premise.
You've not lent any weight to Phil's poorly constructed false premise.
Again, you, and by extension, Phil, continue to fail to address the factual reality of the rise and creation of this authority, bypassing or ignoring that Congress created this authority.
You've offered nothing to support Phil's contention that this issue should be properly portrayed as an indication or verification that because this authority exists, Obama can be even abstractedly ascribed to be a dictator, or that Obama's presidency has given rise to what Phil chooses to characterize as Obama's dictatorial powers, especially when the reality is that Congress created the authority for these powers and granted them to the office of the president that preceded him.
Phil's falsely posited summation of the issue as simplified to the point of being portrayed as an issue of Obama being likened to a dictator is central to my objections to that biased and false portrayal of the reality.
As I said, phil's bias and tendency to equate any number of issues as being suitable for him to state that those issues are to be authoritatively or exclusively pinned on Obama, as if Obama created or truly only reflects phil's unfounded bias sums up his ongoing unbalanced demonization of Obama at the expense of providing any sort of plausible, logical or rational observance of the reality.
I've provided a far-reaching summation of just a small sample of evidence to refute Phil's ongoing biased mischaracterization and misrepresentations.
Neither you nor Phil can support Phil's biased and imbalanced delineation of Obama and I highly doubt either of you would try.
In phil's case, I'm sure it's because he knows he's demonstrably biased, and simply doesn't wish to acknowledge how implausible and irrationally he portrays the reality.
What he hopes to gain by that inaction goes a long way towards dispelling the front he would rather attempt to maintain.
As I said, the policy questions will be addressed, and the basic concerns about the policy aren't at issue in my objection, my objection centered around phil's mischaracterization of the where the accountability for the creation of this policy arose from and where it ultimately should be and must be addressed.
Let's not forget the histrionics and bloviating sensationalism that he felt comfortable with including while posting his original version of this post.
It should be noted that he backed away from some of the most ridiculous whackdoodlisms that led his false premise, but he's far from acknowledging the utterly moronic premise he'd like to surmise.
There was no excuse for it then and there's no excuse you or he can devise to lessen the stark reality of his obnoxiously false portrayal.
Freeper: I searched and searched through my last post, but could not find anything regarding my supporting or negating anything that Phil said. My last post was a humble contribution to the conversation, that's all.
Mike Newton, of Vanderbilt Law School, offers an informed opinion that under certain conditions, the administration probably has the authority to target an American citizen overseas who is an active combatant against the United States. He also hints that they may be trying to establish new case law in this area.
Are you trapped in bashing mode, Freeper?
Bashing mode ?
Not at all, and I can agree with you concerning your most recent post, that particular post doesn't refer to excusing Phil's actions or support for Phil's actions.
But, we both know, your most recent post isn't the only 'contribution' you've offered in this thread.
I would usually imagine that if someone stands up in the comments to make excuses for Phil, they'd at least acknowledge that they remain conscious of their act of offering up that excuse, and be able and willing to track back to or recall what they've said earlier, and that they'd at least address the context of what they're excusing Phil for when that is the context which they have been requested to address.
If someone asks me about apples and I answer that oranges are often juicier, ...there's nothing inherently controversial about my reply, oranges are indeed, often more juicy than an apple ....but my answer evaded the question about apples and was little more than a example of poor misdirection and evasive subterfuge.
As I've stated before, it's becoming increasingly clear that neither you, (who did come forth to attempt to make excuses for Phil's bias and mischaracterizations), nor Phil himself, are willing to address Phil's unhinged and fraudulent demagoguery.
Care to offer up 'a humble contribution' which may fall within the confines of the context to which you've been addressed ?
...or do you think it's a proper display of your civility for you to infer that I'm just able to be easily dismissed through the exercising of your superior percipience, reckoning instead that I should be, without further ado, categorized and labeled as simply 'being in bashing mode' ?
Post a Comment