War on Terror

Torture Tort Terror

Obama uses national security as a cover for violating people's rights.

|

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for its excessive secrecy, noting that it had "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." Obama also promised to end "extraordinary rendition," a practice through which "we outsource our torture to other countries."

In September, however, the Obama administration used the state secrets privilege to block a lawsuit by five former captives who say they were tortured as a result of extraordinary rendition. Although candidate Obama surely would have been outraged, President Obama is for some reason less concerned about abuses of executive power.

"To build a better, freer world," Obama the candidate wrote in a 2007 Foreign Affairs essay, requires "ending the [practice] of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries." It turned out Obama meant that he, like his predecessor, would seek assurances that detainees transferred to other countries would not be mistreated. After all, why would governments that routinely torture their prisoners lie about it?

Obama's broken promise sheds light on his determination to suppress a lawsuit by five men who sued the Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan over its role in helping arrange prisoner flights during the Bush administration. The lead plaintiff, Binyam Mohamed, is an Ethiopian citizen and legal U.K. resident who was arrested in Pakistan on immigration charges in 2002. He says he was turned over to the CIA, which flew him to Morocco, where he was held for 18 months and subjected to "severe physical and psychological torture." Moroccan security agents allegedly beat him, broke his bones, and cut him with a scalpel all over his body, including his genitals, after which they would pour a "hot stinging liquid" into the wounds. His four co-plaintiffs tell similar stories of abuse at the hands of Moroccan, Egyptian, Jordanian, and American officials.

Even if every word these men say is true, the Obama administration argues, they cannot be allowed to pursue their claims because doing so might endanger national security. In September the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit narrowly accepted this maximalist position, dismissing the lawsuit rather than letting it proceed based on publicly available evidence.

An administration truly concerned about excessive secrecy would have waited to see if either side in the lawsuit actually needed privileged information to make its case. Instead Obama, like George W. Bush before him, insisted that the mere possibility was enough to deprive torture victims of a legal remedy.

In May the Obama administration used a similar argument to block a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer whom U.S. officials erroneously identified as a member of Al Qaeda and sent to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and repeatedly beaten. Although the details of Arar's case have been public for years, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal nevertheless urged the Supreme Court not to hear his appeal, citing "significant national security concerns."

Specifically, Katyal worried that addressing Arar's claims would require courts to "review sensitive intergovernmental communications, second-guess whether Syrian officials were credible enough for United States officials to rely on them, and assess the credibility of any information provided by foreign officials concerning petitioner's likely treatment in Syria, as well as the motives and sincerity of the United States officials who concluded that petitioner could be removed to Syria consistent with" the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

Given President Obama's plans to continue extraordinary rendition under a different name, you can see why he'd rather not delve into questions like these. But candidate Obama told us to be wary of presidents who use national security as a cover for violating people's rights. 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Advertisement

NEXT: The King's Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not even going to read this article, as it’s clearly bullshit. The President swore to protect and defend the Constitution, he did it TWICE! Plus, he’s a Constitutional scholar, not like that turd George Bush. He’s not going to be violating anyone’s rights. That’s clearly absurd. Are you people smoking K2 over there, or something?

    1. Is this comment satire? I hope so. The mere fact he “swore to protect and defend the Constitution” (which EVERY POTUS does) does not mean he has not violated this oath.

      1. Franklin Pierce didn’t.

      2. The comma in the final line gave it away as satire.

        1. That comma was just for you. Like a secret code. And, I actually did read the article. Apparently, the President doesn’t give much of a shit about your precious ‘rights’.

        2. I knew he was kidding.

          …if he’d been serious, he would have called us all a bunch of racists.

    2. Nice to see that someone finally sees things clearly. Don’t forget, Obama and other government employees are not actually bound to their oath and obligated to follow the Constitution. Government employment comes with legal and moral exemptions that allow us Feds to do whatever we need to to get the job done.

      http://youareproperty.blogspot…..ality.html

    3. Soft balls also has a soft head. Obama is a habitual liar that is incapable of telling the truth about his agenda. As for being a constitutional scholar, he has stated repeatedly that he thinks the constitution is a flawed document.

      Scholar my ass. My 10 year old grand daughter has a better graps of the constitution then that fool.

      How’s that Kool-Aid taste, moron?

      1. OK, apparently I fell for the joke. Sorry soft balls. I thought you were serious. I just don’t think Obama is anything to joke about.

        I finally understand the Left’s “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.

        I have the Obama version.

  2. It’s OK when TEAM BLUE does it. I mean, it’s not like they’re TEAM RED or anything.

    1. How many principled partisans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      None. There aren’t any.

      1. How many principled partisans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

        I’ll tell you when we find one.

      2. principled partisans

        Military intelligence.

      3. principled partisans

        You will find them in the same aisle as military intelligence.

      4. Your punch line implies that light bulbs screw themselves in without any human involvement.

        1. And now lightbulbs always get screwed with Congress’ involvement.

        2. That wasn’t a punch line.

      5. Hey, hey, hey! Are those bulbs incandescent? They are, aren’t they? You monster! You’re killing the Earth by not screwing in a fluorescent bulb!

        Think of the children! Think of them, damn you!

        1. ….”God damn you all to hell!”

      6. don’t know, but it takes 535 unprincipled congressmen to forbid screwing it in if it’s incandescent.

  3. Oh, and I just read that Obama needs twelve stitches in his lip from getting smacked in a bball game. Too bad he wasn’t eating a pretzel at the time.

    1. It’s time for a P.I. Fashion Moment.

    2. Oh, and I just read that Obama needs twelve stitches in his lip from getting smacked in a bball game.

      No blood, no foul.

  4. I just read that Obama needs twelve stitches in his lip from getting smacked in a bball game.

    He can’t move with the ball, and blocking the retarded kid’s shot is against the rules, so that’s not what happened.

    Hillary threw an ashtray at him.

    1. Obama did not waterboard that woman.

      1. But he did board me!

        1. Thanks. I really didn’t need that.

        2. Did Michelle feel you up in an airport to make it better?

  5. I’m curious what the final tally will be of Obama’s invoking state secrets vs. GWB’s. Maybe we’ll only have 4 years to compare, though….

  6. There’s gotta be a caption/alt text for that picture!

    Here’s all I got: “I’m Barack and you’re not. Put ’em up, put ’em up”.

    Take it away, you creative ones…

    1. Obama, just before he got his lip split.

      1. “C’mon! You can totally take that chick in the white suit! Kick her ass, Barack!”

        1. “This is what Kevin Jennings wanted to include in public school curriculum?”

    2. “To the moon, Orzag!”

      1. or however you spell his name

    3. Feint with the hope and give ’em an upper cut with the change.

  7. It’s fine! Liberal Democrat in office!

  8. It’s fine! Liberal Democrat in office!

  9. New York Times:

    It’s fine! Liberal Democrat in office! Nothing to see here!

    1. Stop laughing! I shit my drawers again, so what?

  10. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

    1. Who let you out of room 101? Get back in there!

      1. Juanita|10.11.07 @ 11:42AM|#
        Oh well…But everyone always gets what they deserve. If the kid obeyed the law he would not have been sent there.

  11. Obama also promised to end “extraordinary rendition,” a practice through which “we outsource our torture to other countries.”

    That won’t happen until they get their hooks on the Wikileaks guy.

    1. Bailiff, whack his pee pee!

    2. Outsourcing our torture to other countries means American torturers lose their jobs. We can’t let that happen.

      1. He took MY JOB!!!!!!

  12. Many fear the cables will embarrass the United States and its allies and reveal sensitive details of how the U.S. conducts relations with other countries.

    Oh, dear.

    Bullying? Bribery? Playing politics with the lives of brown people? What else?

    1. Maybe more like saying unflattering things about the diplomats they deal with? Something like normal people sending email around talking about how stupid their customers and suppliers are.

      1. I would expect professional diplomats to be more, well, diplomatic.

  13. Authoritarian abuse of power is not bad in the abstract. An intelligent, reasoned person like Obama will only use such power if it is in the best interest of the country, and the goals are unachievable by other means.

    Bush, Cheney, Achcroft, Rove, et al merely pursued power for its own means, such as getting kickbacks from the likes of Halibutron and Wall Street.

    Obama is using his power to protect us from terrorist threats and abuse by Wall Street, as well as insuring that everybody has equal access to quality health care.

    Bush and co were just instituting a theocracy to carry out the religious will and at the same time getting rich(er) in the process.

    The two can not be compared. It’s too bad you knee jerk libertarians are getting in the way of progress by refusing to see the difference.

    1. I see it! I see it!

      1. Me, too! It’s the difference between a firm, steaming pile of shit and a runnier, slightly cooler pile of shit.

    2. No. You fail to see that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats.It’s 2 sides of the same coin.
      Regardless of whose in office, those in power remain the same.

  14. I voted for candidate Obama specifically because of his stance on restoring civil liberties.

    Instead I got a third term of the Bush Administration.

    I won’t for a Democrat or Republican again.

    1. “I voted for candidate Obama specifically because of his stance on restoring civil liberties.” I too like his wide stance!

    2. I won’t for a Democrat or Republican again.

      This sentence no verb.

      1. This sentence no verb. Brilliant!

      2. I think that’s the first time a grammar nazi made me laugh until I cried.

        1. Actually, I think the verb is “will.” If he’d said, “I will not,” or I won’t,” he would have been fine. I think he’s just missing a comma.

          If someone asked me to double-date because it would have given him a chance to fuck some chick, it would depend on who it was with. For instance, the conversation may go like this:

          Dude, you gotta help me out here.
          Yeah, what do you need?
          I’m trying to fuck Cindy, but she wants you to go out with her friend, Shelly.
          Do you have a picture of her?
          Yeah. She’s a little heavy, but you owe me. I’ve helped you get laid loads of times.
          [looks at picture…sees hot chick with fatty]
          I won’t, for you or for a million bucks.

          You see, “will” is the verb. The second person will not go out with tubby even if it will get his friend laid. She is actually so repulsive, with her fat rolls and triple-chin that the second man wouldn’t even go out with her if it got him a million dollars. That’s how disgusting this chick is.

    3. Paitence comrade, Obama is going to restore civil liberties in his second term. Right after legalizing herb, making health care totally free, and just before forgiving everyone’s student loans. Bush had eight years to wreck this country for the benefit of his corporate masters. Obama hasn’t had two years to fix it. He is so totally focused on jobs and the economy your priorities will have to wait.

      1. “He is so totally focused on jobs and the economy your priorities will have to wait.”

        This has got to be a joke. He spent his entire first year focusing on health care, expending most of his credibility and political capital on health care.

        Bush being bad does not make Obama good.

          1. Hey, what about me? Can I be a racist, too, please?

            1. Depends. Are you white?

          2. Well, I wasn’t a racist until Obama had been in office about 6 months. I actually thought it would be good for race relations to have a black president. Wright and Obama’s Marxist agenda burst that little bubble. Not to even mention some of Obama’s prejudical (?) comments.

    4. I voted for candidate Obama specifically because of his stance on restoring civil liberties… I won’t [vote] for a Democrat or Republican again.

      That’s probably Obama’s greatest gift to the Libertarian Party: ensuring people know how little difference there is between “the greater” and “the lesser” of two evils.

  15. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal

    Who represented Hamdan in Hamdan v. Rumsfield. So apparently his objections were to us holding people in Gitmo, not to rendition and torture.

  16. Pearls of wisdom from the dickwad!

    “My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate ? from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that?”

    1. For a second there I truly thought you were referring to Palin as the dickwad, since that’s her quote. I laughed. Then I realized to my chagrin that you were using her silly “thanksgiving” message to try to make some sort of point. Bummer.

      1. Yes, it is Palin’s list of quotes from our shit for brains President! And he is a bummer.

        1. Palin is a sharp broad. She opens her mouth and stupid shit falls out. Being the ever insecure bimbo that walked off the job in AK, she unloads Limbaugh talking points at our Dear Reader. This nation is doomed.

          1. She reminds me of Mr Obama when it comes to idiocy.

            1. Typical leftards: always blame the messenger for repeating your stupidity back to you.

              1. I think you are missing the point, Bra.

          2. Yes, Palin is a stupid shit. But she is not President. I would never support her for any political office. Her stupidity does not change the fact that the list of Obama quotes are true. Obama is one dumb jack off!

            1. Palin haters are the stupid shits. You prison bitches are the very same retards who voted for this dumb jack off. No wonder you try to project all your faults on Palin: her having all the facts on her side is an unforgivable sin to 0-worshiping delusional morons such as yourselves.

              1. Who you calling a prison bitch?

      2. Alice is apparently too dense to realize all of those comments are from her hero Obama. Stupid twit.

  17. Even if every word these men say is true, the Obama administration argues, they cannot be allowed to pursue their claims because doing so might endanger national security.

    The nation cannot be secure unless the people’s rights are secure.

    1. Sez you. How about we secure your sorry azz in [Location Redacted]?

  18. …Jeppesen DataPlan…

    Are they still around? I thought Grace Slick was dead.

    1. No, she just sucks a lot slower than she used to.

      1. Not me! I still suck with the best of ’em! Watch me now….I’m goin’ [remainder of sentence redacted by the Zappa Family Trust].

  19. A local columnist makes a carefully peripheral excuse for our bozo-in-chief:
    “That, I think, is where the disappointment with Barack Obama lies among the people who voted for him. He’s so obviously smart; why isn’t he more certain of his conclusions? He can be so obviously charismatic; why hasn’t he tried to use that charisma – indeed, to use the cadences of great speeches the way Lincoln and Kennedy did – to bring the country around to his side? Why is he taking it from these bums?”
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..1GH69Q.DTL

    1. He is so obviously smart? I am sick of hearing lefties talk about how smart this fool is. Mr Teleprompter 57 states? I won’t comment on the police officers run in with Mr. GAtes cause I don’t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly? We just need to explain our agenda better. The people don’t understand the wonderful things we have done, we need to explain it better? etc…. Yeah he is a real mental powerhouse. Moron.

  20. How many principled partisans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    In about a year, none, when the principled partisans law outlawing conventional light bulbs kicks in.

  21. I don’t see what the problem is. I have nothing to hide down there. I wish I could say the same for Nader and Drudge.

    1. One has to wonder about the psychological health of people who associate having the genitals touched by a stranger, in a setting in which they have absolutely no control, with “safety.”

    2. Pervert. You probably fly more now so you can get felt up.

  22. He’s so obviously smart

    Not to mention an excellent driver.

  23. From the You Can Be A Terrorist- Ask Me How! file:

    “Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Somalia and resident of Corvallis, Oregon, was arrested after he attempted to detonate what he believed to be an explosives-laden van that was parked near the tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square,”the FBI said in a statement on its website today.

    “The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored closely for months as his alleged bomb plot developed,” the statement said. “The device was in fact inert, and the public was never in danger from the device.”

    What are the chances Napolitano and Pistole make the rounds of the Sunday jibjabfests, citing this as justification for tighter security EVERYWHERE?

    OOGABOOGAAAAAHH! Teh TERRUH is evawhar!!!

    1. What are the chances Napolitano and Pistole make the rounds of the Sunday jibjabfests, citing this as justification for tighter security EVERYWHERE?

      I’d say quite high, because clamping down just on OREGON could be construed as profiling.

      1. Profiling what? Dirty hippies and rednecks?

        1. [1] Strip search all ten-year-olds and all Catholic nuns. [2] Cavity search every third menstruating female. [3] Let burka-clad mohamadists through without a scan or search — this is part of Obama’s Islamic outreach. Any violation of item [3] by a TSA agent will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

        2. No, better to profile Ron Paul supporters and tea-party voters. You never know when one of these racist anarchists might become the next Timothy McVeigh… and they are ALL racist anarchists, according to us.

          1. After seeing the SPLC “hate group” list, it occured to me that the real hate group is the SPLC. Along with:
            NAACP
            NOW
            Most of the Democratic Party
            MSNBC
            ABC
            NBC
            CBS
            Moveon.org
            Huffington Post
            NYT
            LA Times
            Washington Post
            Daily KOS
            and anyone that identifies themselves as “progressive”

  24. Obama has not only dropped the ball on civil liberties, he’s punted it through the uprights (CFL rules). His rhetoric on the subject makes him worse imo as he can add breaking his word to gutting civil liberties.

    This seems par for the course. Bush W. promised a “humbler” foriegn policy and look what he did for “national security.” Nixon’s fiasco’s were done for “national security”, ditto LBJ. Heck, look at Lincoln’s crappy civil liberties record using, yes, “national security” as the excuse.

    When Presidents of different parties and ideologies come into office and act in the same ways the problem must be in the office of the President and the powers given it. I submit it has to do with the way we view the “Commander in Chief” powers. The Constitution says he is to be such but it adds “when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This should mean that he can invoke these powers only after and during a war or emergency declared by Congress. Until then the military/intelligence appartus should be run by Congress which is given the power “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” The powers of the Executive during such times should be limited to administrating those rules created by Congress…

    1. BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!
      BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
      SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK! SQUEAK!

      Now you know what a barking mad moonbat sounds like…

      1. It’s moon beam you ding bat!

      2. I guess school lets out for the week for Thanksgiving and by Saturday kids get all kinds of restless…

        1. Apparently so. To attempt to address the substance of what you wrote, let me say that there are those who are of the mind that such failures are simply the necessary and unavoidable result of the institution of coercive power. The claim would be that coercion is the embodiment of:

          best case: the failure of reason
          worst case: a substitute for reason

          Anti-coercion ideology is not primarily rooted in the proponent’s desire to be free of coercion personally; it is the expression of the opinion that coercion does not represent a valid method of interaction between parties. Yes, it is often expressed in a highly personalized way, because people are people — they necessarily feel its effects — but on the intellectual level, it is about the idea that societal equations which attempt to integrate a force component are by definition, unbalanced.

          I don’t think there is really any valid argument to the contrary; rather, the real question can only ever be concerned with whether the natural course of events yields the ‘best’ result or not. If the answer is no, then we must concern ourselves with the realistic efficacy of attempts to remedy the situation. Such must be seen, by definition, to be methods of power and control, which must necessarily depend on the knowledge and judgment of humans vis-?-vis their implementation.

          And here, we come full circle, asking ourselves questions about whether or not it is realistic to expect ‘good’ behavior from men such as presidents.

          Though I hold that it is not, I regard the entire question to be academic. Reason being, all power derives from people in the aggregate; so long as they regard coercion to be a valid practice, individual men will rise to the occasion, in competition with one another for the privilege of exercising this power. One should, therefore, expect not the most honorable of men, but rather the most competitive, to be in possession of power at any given moment.

  25. I hate to break this to you, Jacob, but the Left doesn’t give a rat’s ass for any personal liberty that doesn’t come with a powerful interest group attached to it.

  26. What is it with reporters and a complete lack of comprehension of risk?

    The arrest of former New York City cop Michael Stephen Bowden for telling a Secret Service agent he’d like to put President Obama up against a wall and shoot him underscores the daily threat matrix for a job that is much more dangerous than, say, the harrowing experience of Bering Sea fishermen as dramatized on the popular TV show “The Deadliest Catch.”

    Obama’s ass is hanging out, just like a guy pulling in crab traps on an icy gale. His life is hanging by a THREAD!!!

    What a maroon.

    and then-

    Last summer, author Ron Kessler wrote that Obama was receiving 30 death threats a day. Other reports state that federal agents had seen a 400-fold increase in threats from President George W. Bush’s last year in office. Secret Service head Mark Sullivan later pushed back at that assertion, saying “threats are not up” in the Obama era.

    Nevertheless, in the past two years the Secret Service has arrested more than a dozen Americans for posing credible threats to the president.

    The Secret Service denies threats are up, but what the fuck do *they* know? If you eliminate the FBI, terror threats are probably down, overall.

    1. I’m very concerned for Obama’s safety, so I suggest he resign from office and take a position as a deckhand on a ship in the Bering Sea.

      1. Better or Worse: President Biden?

        I can see both sides of this one.

        Discuss.

        1. Better because, well, he’s an idiot and wouldn’t be able to get anything done. But worse, because, well, he’s an idiot and the democrats and some republicans in Congress would walk all over him and do whatever the hell they wanted.

    2. lol – they’re “up from Bush’s last term” – who would want to threaten the president on his way out?

      But the article gave itself away with the “more danger than others” while ignoring the obvious safety precautions taken to protect the President and not Bering Sea fishermen.

      I mean, last time I checked, saying you’d like to shoot some Bering Sea fishermen doesn’t get you arrested… to name just one of the additional protections afforded to every President.

  27. Addendum:

    Are some people unhappy with the President?
    Yes.

    Are there individuals sufficiently untethered from reality to think anything might change (for the better) if they or some other “hero” were to bump off the President.
    Probably.

    Is it in any way likely that any of these goofballs could successfully put themselves in a position to successfully carry out an attack?
    the likelihood is not great.

    Should the Secret Service ignore or not bother to investigate threats to the President?
    No.

  28. “So, we’re coming off the elevator and fucking Boehner is standing there talking to some people so I go, ‘Hello, John.’ and right when he turns around I give him an uppercut right to the clackers. Dude, I thought he was gonna hurl. It was beautiful, man. I just wish Rahm could have been there to see it. Hey, Jimmy, see if any of the security cams caught it and send him a copy. I’m totally pumped! We should go shoot some hoops!”

  29. This only reinforces the fact that abuse of power is not partisan. A Liberal Democratic administration has proven once again they can trample our rights just as easily and eagerly as a Conservative Republican one.

    1. They proved it on several occasions before this as well. Now, on those occasions most people didn’t care because the administration was only abusing the law to fix things, like the economy (like ignoring bankruptcy laws to pay off friends when buying GM).

      But honestly, when legislators everywhere can go on national tv and state things like, “I never read the bill and don’t fully understand it”… then just a few short months later get re-elected…

      Well, what exactly is the incentive for politicians to do the right things if doing the opposite has no downside?

      & hell, in the case of reading bills they are voting on – rephrase the question – what exactly is the incentive for politicians to even show up and do the very minimal things which one would expect of an employee with their responsibilities when their is no downside in acting just the opposite?

  30. Hello. My friend

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    thank you !!!

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

    1. I yearn for the days of anonbot.

    2. I wanted to feeel like warm Autumn. I tried paying with PYAPAL but could’t.

      1. Max missed a perfect opportunity to tell us how Ron Pual uses his PYAPAL account…

    3. For free information important to you and your FAMILY, please send your address and social security number to the orange email address under the trusted capitol l brand brand name!

      FREE INFORMATION…PROFIT FOR YOU!

      Send social security number to orange email address under most trusted capitol l brand logo name

      IN GOD BLESS YOU ARE FAMILY!

      PAYPAL excepted.

      Love you r faced with,

      KONGO SUPTARIZICK III
      reply to this

      1. I’m trying to reply, but you didn’t actually give me the address. How can you expect people like us to help if we can’t get you our information?

  31. Sweet! Now they’re shutting web sites down without due process.

    WTF business does the DHS have shutting down pirating (the music ones, not the Somali ones) websites? Without a warrant? Without a law authorizing it?

    Oh, I forgot. It’s a Democrat admin. Nothing to see here, people. Nothing to see here.

    1. Well, it’s so obvious, isn’t it? Pirated-music websites = bin Laden!

      You should never question Dear Leader Version 2.0, sloopy. It’s for your own good, and of the Collective.

      1. Not to mention a Public Health Issue.

        Or perhaps it’s just a SOP for the MPAA and the RIAA to keep them on the plantation.

        1. You talk big behind your “anonymous” handle, Ken, but I’ve personally taken an interest in your e-mails. I have a plan for you and all of your libertarian-minded domestic insurgents, a place I can have you all grouped behind a huge electric fence, where you can’t infect the minds of good, caring, open-minded progressives…

          1. yeah! get ’em, Big Sis! round up all those dangerous free-thinking Christ-fag capitalist pigs!

            1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!!!

          2. “I have a plan for you and all of your libertarian-minded domestic insurgents”

            We don’t have a problem with this.

            1. TRUCKNUTZ!!!

            2. We like the sound of this plan, as well.

    2. Here is borntrade, a site that sold rip-off sports jerseys. Check out the shiny badges.

      They already have a new site.

      1. If you click the link that I provide the dhs claims that they were issued a warrant to seize the domain.

        Carpe domain?

    3. The drug war prohibition approach works so well we will use that model everywhere.

      There’s no need to worry. Technology is always ahead of government these days.

    4. The domain names are administered by the US Dept of Commerce. You don’t own them, you lease them subject to the federal govt’s approval.

      1. Proof that the Dept. of Commerce, like virtually every fedgov Department, has way too much power.

      2. The government also owns frequencies. How fucking absurd is that?

        1. Good point, hmm. Yet another realm that should be government-free.

      3. So, they’re shutting down these websites by revoking the registration of the domain name? If that’s true, it’s fucking stupid both technically and politically.

        Next they’ll be shutting down meth labs by taking the address numbers off the building.

    5. Well, you’re being overly harsh. I mean I know the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech”, but in this case – they didn’t make any laws.

  32. And Willie Nelson once more becomes a victim of the drug war. Will the IRS want the taxes on his purchased goods as well? We’ll have to wait and see.

    1. Willie might be getting a visit from DHS, at this rate…

      1. Well, it did happen at a border crossing. You may be more right than you realize.

        1. Well, Willie Nelson IS a domestic insurgent… if you use liberal domestic-insurgent identification guidelines.

          1. Not that social conservatives like Willie, either… it’s just who’s In Charge now, that’s pulling the political-profiling strings.

            1. …Willie is a Team Blue member, proving liberals will eat their own if it furthers The Cause.

    2. 6 ounces. That sounds perfectly reasonable for Willie’s bus.

      1. http://cafehayek.com/2010/11/i…..judge.html

        It’s at Cafe Hayek and from the WSJ.

  33. Endless torture without recourse, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
    Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.
    (Last link of Banned Book):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/Books…..-000190526

  34. “Hey Barry…show us how Michelle fists you while you jerk her off!”

  35. tOSU 24 – 7 scUM.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Suck it, rudents!

  36. How Jacob Sullum uses nonsense about Obama as a cover for not having anything to say.

    1. …because Obama is without fault, and must never be criticized. Unless it’s for not being liberal enough.

  37. I have been down many of the American roads, wrested the grifters in cat houses across frozen plains, smoked the speedballs with candian mulleteers, climbed mountains with turbo sluts in the sierras. I am the Son of America. An America on the run from the facsists and commiecrats and the nags that want to clip all the rest of the fun from our lives. God bless the real America!

  38. Cocaine, Cocaine, runnin’ around my heart, runnin’ around my brain. Coke’s for horses, lord it ain’t for men. They say it kills you but they don’t say when.

  39. Now if you don’t believe that Cocaine is good, ask Karl Rove or Elijah Wood.

  40. It’s all okay and justifiable because Barack reads the Bible and prays every night. Jesus tells him what to do.

  41. Hillary Clinton gets reviewed about Wikileaks.
    http://youtu.be/Vbn_ElE7TCE

  42. Hello. My friend

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    thank you !!!

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

  43. bottom line is this about someone’s money or stock I should say…..these individuals that initiated this lawsuit most likely had no idea that their lawsuits would affect stock prices….I would be looking for Boeing stock bought up or sold near these dates depending on how the system was rigged on those time frames…the stock was probably bought or shorted in smaller quantities of 10 to 20 thousand shares at a time via several straw man accounts…. Obama or friends of his most likely had some vested interest( meaning they probably ‘bet the farm’ on some Boeing stock)…..Obama had to put the kybosh down on this lawsuit …too much money would have been lost from a bit of bad publicity…at least that’s my educated guess on that debacle

  44. The neolibs are gathering for decades all anti-American movements&prefereds; by the enemy instead of Bush, Palin, Romney, and all at the farest oposition to the neolib work WITH the enemy.
    (tradicional) enemy expl: former ussr’usneolibs, china, cuba (now a new enemy: terrorist, WORKING DIRECTLY WITH eta, farcs, elns, political parties like Panamanian PRD, and their actual copy CD, liberacion Nacional on Costa Rica, sandinists, THE BRAZILIAN COP KILLER AND TERRORIST NEW PRESIDENT REPLACING THE U N FAMOUST (PREPARED THE SOCIALIST ROAD to hell FOR THE CARIOCAS)… YOU’LL SEE WHAT PLAN SOONER THAN YOU THINK…, ETC… .

  45. LISTEN and carefullY the enemy has all resources, govs, orcs oops orgs, bailout culture, sodomic school culture, prision culture for publicbuildings as “managing of the future, expl: miami santuary managing…etc. and, we have to ‘wait for a pasword by email soon, to then step 2 to ID to maybe comment some of this days?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.