NDAA

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has No Idea What This Obama Kill List Thing Is All About

DNC chair should maybe read more

|

WeAreChange.org, an independent journalism outfit, snagged a quick interview with Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, at last week's presidential debate.

The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change's pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won't bite. She's obviously in the "spin room" to spin the debate in President Barack Obama's favor and certainly isn't going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama's "kill list" of terrorist targets he's working to take out — due process be damned — the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she's being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff:

Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald, who has a lengthy rant over at The Guardian about what is either an amazing amount of dumbness or an amazing amount of deliberate partisan arrogance on display. 

NEXT: Israel Intercepts Gaza-Bound Protest Ship

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. This is a great moment for the pursuit of equalitity.

    2. It’s getting a lot of buzz.

      1. I see what you did there.

      2. [rimshot!]

    3. only women are allowed, with exceptions being made for men accompanied by ladies.

      “I’ll have what she’s having.”

    4. The activities of individuals described herein should not be construed as “typical” behavior of Japanese people nor reflect the intention to portray the country in a negative manner.

      This made me laugh. The district the bar is located in is famous for having vending machines that disperse used schoolgirl panties.

      1. The market wills it.

    5. Shibuya = She… Buya!!

  1. This actually would’ve presented a grand opportunity for an enterprising journalist (maybe it still would!):

    Present a hypothetical to Ms. Schultz. Ask her what she would think if an elected politician got together with a secret council, and decided to have people, American citizens even, assassinated. Killed with no courts, no judge or jury, no judicial process at all. What would she think of a politician like that? Does she think something like that would be legal? Record her answers, and voila! Instant story.

    1. Oh, that’d be awesome.

      There’d be enough backpedaling to power a DeLorean back to 1985.

    2. Better yet, say that it’s something Romney want to set up.

      1. Talk about baiting the trap…

      2. That’s a nice idea. Really though, if I were a journalist I’d be all over this. I’M LOOKING AT YOU, REASON!

  2. So this guarantees a question about the kill list at the debate, right?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    I kill myself.

  3. Methinks Nic Cage best find himself a new agent.

    1. Not the bees the antiChrist!! NOT THE BEES THE ANTICHRIST!!!!

    2. From the link, Cage starring and Herzog directing seems like the sort of thing you would have to see.

      1. I wish Herzog would take on filming Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Merdian. It’d be his chance to make Aguirre for the 21st century.

        1. Ohmigod. That would be the best movie ever.

          Actually I last heard James Franco was trying to acquire the rights. The Coen Brothers would also do a very good job, considering how well they adapted No Country for Old Men.

    3. Nic Cage spends money faster then he makes it, so he takes any job as long as there is a paycheck. Give him a paycheck and he will star in your kids birthday movies.

      1. Is there a problem with that?

      2. N. Cage’s lack of acting talent is bested only by Keanu Reeves.

        1. Agree about Reeves, but Cage is actually quite respected by many other actors. His choices of roles, not so much.

  4. Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes me think a war on women is not the worst idea I have ever heard.

    1. She represents the ideal woman to the Democratic party: she’s dumb, synchphantic, and will never question any of the bullshit they feed her.

      1. She always looks like she just got out of the shower 20 minutes ago and hasn’t had time to get ready to go out yet.

        1. She does always seem to be having a bad hair day.

      2. “Schultz Has No Idea”

        That is sufficient title for any article about her.

        1. Schultz, “I see nothing.”

          would be better

    2. Brooksie, quick poll question: Who has the more irritating and bone-crushingly annoying voice, Deborah VASSERMAN-Schnultz or Mika Wiggum-ski?

      Tough, tough call, as both instantly put me in a bad mood.

      1. Mika

    3. Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes me think a war on women nuclear strike on Fort Lauderdale is not the worst idea I have ever heard.

  5. Oh good, this was just what I needed to try and rain on the parade of all the people I know who can’t fucking stop snarking about “binders full of women” right now.

    1. Incidentally I’m just going to link to the Greenwald piece so I don’t have to deal with “OMG Reason! Kochtopus!” hilarity.

      1. That’s JUST what one of the Kochtopus’s tentacles would say.

    2. The San Francisco Chronicle is actually calling it “Bindergate.”

      1. I guess I need to be a woman to get what the big deal is. It’s not even an offensive comment in context. It just seemed like the media and Obama fans were trying to pull a gaffe out of nothing.

        1. But he said “bind” and “women”. Kinky, man.

        2. You don’t need to be a woman, you need to be the “right kind” of woman.

  6. Some things are just never gonna happen.

    A president losing popularity for killing terrorists is one of them.

    At this point in the election cycle, any criticism of this president is good criticism–for the most part. But to most people’s ears, I think criticizing Obama for killing terrorists is like criticizing a quarterback for scoring touchdowns.

    It isn’t really criticism as far as most people are concerned, is it?

    1. yea. when it’s yer issue, due process is never particularly important. how often does that point need to be seen/reemphasized?

      due process does matter. so does rule of law. but it’s oft ignored by ideologues. i see it here, on DU, and god knows amongst obama sycophants

      1. Yeah, it matters to me!

        The questions is…how much does it really matter to other people?

        I’m trying to imagine Congress impeaching a president for killing terrorists, and it just doesn’t compute.

        And the reason that would never happen isn’t because we’d be wrong on the principle; it’s because any congressman associated with impeaching a president for killing terrorists would have a really hard time getting reelected.

        It’s so bad, I’m not sure we’re not helping Obama out here by emphasizing how many terrorists he’s killed–or that it was all up to him to kill them!

        In most people’s minds, killing terrorists is a good thing. That would be a reason why Obama’s not such a bad president after all–not a reason to kick his imperial ass to the curb.

        1. i apologize if you thought i meant “YOU” as in K Schultz. i was speaking generally when i said “yer” issue, like “you when you get a fly in your soup and…” iow not directed towards you at all.

          i get your point about the terrorist things. for many people killing terrorists is such a win, that some “minor” due process violations are not an issue AT ALL.

          we would agree plenty of people think like that.

          ends justifies means.

    2. This puts Republican partisans in the awkward position of actually supporting Obama’s actions, though they won’t admit it so they don’t respond to the information. And it puts Democratic partisans in the awkward position of knowing they should oppose Obama’s actions, but since they feel he can do no wrong, they either ignore the information or mumble something about him being a decent man who inherited a big mess. Either way, the information evokes no discussion.

      1. It’ll be depressing to see those stupid anti-war puppets @ those anti-war marches that are sure to return if Romney is elected.

        1. Yeah, a lot of people who wanted Bush gone because of his policies don’t seem to have much to say about Obama continuing those policies, that’s for sure.

          1. It would be a useful litmus test. It would “out” certain people such that I would never again feel obliged to take them seriously. Yay!

    3. But nobody is criticizing the President for killing terrorists.

      He’s being criticized for killing people who are suspected of being terrorists, along with their families, first responders, and funeral attendees. He’s being criticized for choosing to kill suspected terrorists without providing any evidence to support their assertions as to their guilt.

      1. But I think I see that you’re perhaps saying that people will perceive that as criticizing him for killing terrorists, even though it isn’t.

  7. They found a pet that cops won’t shoot…

    http://seattle.cbslocal.com/20…..-dui-stop/

  8. DWS oozes sleaze. Blue Team/Red Team politics aside, she is easily the most inept and deceitful fleabag politician in my lifetime. If I were Jewish, I would be furious with this scrunt for perpetuating every Jewish stereotype.

    1. You mean the stereotype that Jews are extraordinarily intelligent?

      1. Jeff Goldblum alone should crush that stereotype, except his stupidity is an awesome personality enhancement. I’ve never seen anyone work a flaw to their advantage like he does.

        1. And then there’s Senator Schumer…

          1. Schumer isn’t stupid, he’s just a gigantic asshole.

  9. A president losing popularity for killing terrorists is one of them.

    Ummm, the whole issue is that the Serial Killer In Chief says he can kill basically whoever he wants, including U.S. citizens, without due process or a judge or a jury, and his apologists are LABELING the victims terrorists.

    Unless you subscribe to the D definition of “terrorist” of “any adult male in an Islamic country”.

    1. You know, there is a real possibility that when Romney is president the press regains its bearings, and when Romney continues this program they turn against him. I can see the scenario, a French student gets killed in an attack, the French protest by temporarily pulling their ambassador, the American press runs with it for months, trickling out revelations it had from the start to keep the story going, the House and Senate will have no choice but to investigate the program, and the talk of the entire nation for the next several months is whether or not Romney should be impeached. Republicans will protest ‘but, but Obama’, however, a re-assertive mainstream press feeling its new found powers drowns them out.

      On the plus plus side, as the story consumes everything else in Washington, gridlock!

    2. It’s his word against ours.

      I’m not saying we’re wrong on the issue, but I’m not sure we aren’t scoring more points with swing voters for Obama right now with this.

      1. Swing voters already know he killed OBL with his bare hands and shit from the MSM. If killing terr’ists is all they care about they’re on his side already.

        No harm in discussing how much of a monster he is, even if his monstrosity is popular.

      2. I know what you mean. I know a lady who’s a Republican but talks up Obama because when people need to be killed, he gets it done with a minimum of fuss.

    3. Ummm, the whole issue is that the Serial Killer In Chief says he can kill basically whoever he wants, including U.S. citizens, without due process or a judge or a jury,…

      Okay pf (or anyone else who wants to engage), serious question.

      Would you have a problem with the following scenario?

      A US citizen during WW II defects and joins the German army, and one of our soldiers kills him on the battlefield.

      What’s the difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?

      My opinion. Absolutely nothing. You say, “…the whole issue is that the Serial Killer In Chief says he can kill basically whoever he wants, including U.S. citizens, without due process or a judge or a jury…”

      Isn’t that what war is? One side killing the other side without due process? Pretty much always. And it is horrible, which is exactly what makes it something to be avoided. That’s why you never enter a war lightly. That’s why you have specific objectives, you accomplish them and then get the fucking thing over with as fast as possible.

      cont.

      1. I don’t particularly have a problem killing terrorists. I don’t particularly have a problem killing a traitor who was aiding terrorists. Killing innocent civilians happens during war, although every precaution to minimize this should be taken. I don’t have a problem with droanz, as they are just newer better weapon systems.

        What I have a problem with is our country going to war as an initial option rather than the option of last resort. I have a problem with this open ended bullshit without an end game. I have a problem with asshole politicians using war to further their agendas.

        My .02

      2. A US citizen during WW II defects and joins the German army, and one of our soldiers kills him on the battlefield.

        What’s the difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?

        The validity of the kill in your scenario depends on the situation. Say, a Roman Catholic priest out of Boston defected to Nazi Germany. If the soldier shot him in the head after bursting down the church doors while the priest was in the middle of a sermon on the evils of America, that soldier would clearly be guilty of murder. If he shot the priest while the man was charging with pistols in his hand, it would not be murder, but a waste of a bullet. All clergy choose the cloth because they are too incompetent to do anything useful with their lives. The priest with the guns blaring would have accidentally shot several of his fellow Nazis before he ever got close to the soldier.

        This people need to get in their heads. Clergymen are useless. On the field of battle on the operational level, they can only get in the way. Awlifartze was a propagandist, not a mastermind.

        1. My point is. There is always a “kill list”. Be it a list of targets or a list of terrorists. Griping about due process is meaningless during war. War is immoral…ALWAYS. “Principled” warfare is an oxymoron. If you want to bitch about Obama’s incompetency in not winning decisively and getting out, fine, that’s one thing. If you want to complain about a flawed strategy, good, perfectly legitimate. But don’t bitch about a kill list. That’s just war.

          1. There is always a “kill list”.

            No there isn’t. Obama’s actions are unprecedented. No previous president made battlefield decisions (while president — Washington, Grant, Bush I in the lower echelons don’t count) due to the need of having plausible deniability. This was a key concept necessary to maintain some semblance of Constitutional order when the state metastasized after WWII that has been utterly wrecked by Obama’s policies. It is a threat to the stability of the executive branch for reasons I outlined above on what this will mean for Romney if he chooses to continue with this program.

            1. When the enemy hides among the civilian population, you have two choices. Kill everybody, or identify who the enemy is, so that you can kill them.

              How exactly would you work it differently?

              1. It’s called the rules of engagement, it is what separates soldiers, and mercs even, from common thugs.

                When the enemy hides among the civilian population, you have two choices. Kill everybody, or identify who the enemy is, so that you can kill them.

                How exactly would you work it differently?

                Here you have a false dichotomy. Soldiers in Iraq faced the scenario of taking out terrorist milling about in the general population on a daily basis for a decade, and the majority of those days they did so quite well and honorably.

                1. ROE is domain of the executive and is situationally dependent on the circumstances.

                  So are you claiming that instead of attacking the enemy’s centers of gravity, we sit back and fight a defensive war, only firing when fired upon? That goes against thousands of years of military doctrine.

                  No, first you determine the outcome you desire, then you select targets that once destroyed will bring about your desired outcome. Then you aggressively attack and destroy those targets. Sometimes the targets are military hardware. Sometimes they are ball bearing factories. Sometimes they are people. All dependent upon the given objective.

                  In this war, the objective is to rid the world of terrorists by attrition. We can argue the merits of that objective, but there is nothing new here as far as warfare is concerned.

                  1. ROE . . . is situationally dependent on the circumstances.

                    That is why they are rules in regard to engagement.

                    So are you claiming that instead of attacking the enemy’s centers of gravity, we sit back and fight a defensive war, only firing when fired upon? That goes against thousands of years of military doctrine.

                    Is that what I said? Doesn’t resemble the words that I used, but okay.

                    Take The Surge, did the soldiers follow the ROE in their daily pursuit of its goals? Would you describe The Surge as being in anyway passive? Point being, even in war assassination and combat are not obfuscated. They have a different purpose.

                    We can argue the merits of that objective, but there is nothing new here as far as warfare is concerned.

                    Yes, there is for the reasons I laid out above (president assigns kills, political assassinations over operational target objectives) but you ignore.

                    1. Okay, now I understand where you are coming from.

                      You are claiming that killing specific people (targets) in war amounts to an assassination?

                      If so, I call bullshit. Once war is declared, the term assassination is no longer valid. There are legal military targets (combatants) and noncombatants. Where they are and what they are doing has nothing to do with it. A soldier eating in the mess hall is a legitimate of a target as a fighter pilot closing for a shot.

                      Just because these idiots won’t wear a uniform doesn’t give them special dispensation. They are STILL enemy combatants, which means, once identified, can be killed on sight.

                      (If you care to debate the meaning of declaration of war, we are probably on the same page. Congress is remiss in its responsibilities in this matter.)

                    2. And if war isn’t declared?

                    3. If they don’t like the Good ‘Ol U S of A, that’s all the declaration that we need!

                      /hurr

                    4. And if war isn’t declared?

                      Then we shouldn’t be killing anyone.

                    5. Yeah, that seems to be the missing link in everything FdA is saying.

                    6. No, I don’t bullshit, but the president does:

                      Here from the Wikipedia page on the Fort Hood massacre:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

                      Despite the communications with Anwar al-Awlaki and previous terrorism investigations of Hasan, the FBI had found no information to indicate Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot, and has not established any motivations of the perpetrator.[9] Although the government has never established formal links between Hasan and any terrorist groups, Awlaki was later named as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and was known by the UN to be associated with al-Qaeda. After Awlaki was killed by a U.S. predator drone missile attack in 2011, President Obama called Awlaki “Al Queda’s most active operational affiliate”

                      Note, Al-wfuckall was not Hasan’s commander in a chain of command as Obama would have you believe. From that link you’ll find Al-wi (get it ‘owwie, those bombs sure hurt!’) gave him advice in his capacity as clergy.

                      (cont.)

                    7. Here is the real chain of command.

                      [Awlaki] is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn’t even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

                      Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guant?namo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a “terrorist rehabilitation” program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

                      Mr. Awlaki isn’t the group’s top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

                      Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.

                      Obama had resources diverted to kill a nobody for a political assassination, a notch on his belt. So, yes, a president having a kill list is quite wrong because it distorts the proper purpose of warfare for political ends.

                    8. So, K, in WWII, was a headquarters dedicated to war propaganda a legitimate target?

                    9. Newsrooms and radio stations are pretty much off limits.

                    10. Depends. Read through the LOAC link below. If you can make a case for “military necessity”, i.e. the continued operation of that radio station is hurting the effort, it can be a legitimate target.

                      We generally do/will not and claim the moral high ground.

                    11. Where they are and what they are doing has nothing to do with it. A soldier eating in the mess hall is a legitimate of a target as a fighter pilot closing for a shot.

                      Sorry, Charlie. That just isn’t true. I suggest you look up what the Geneva Protocols and the Hague Conventions actually say about lawful actions in war.

                    12. That’s Lt Col Charlie, and unless he’s surrendering or in a hospital, he’s fair game.

                      LOAC

                      Targeting Personnel. The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited. Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. Judge advocate, intelligence, and operations personnel play a critical role in determining the propriety of a target and the choice of weapon to be used under the particular circumstances known to the commander when planning an attack.

                    13. Well, Lt. Col. I do admit, that as the U.S. defines it, the laws of war would allow you to target a HVT in the mess hall and level the place with a drone.

                      However, in more civilized times, the world community disagreed.

                    14. There is nothing civilized about war. That’s why you shouldn’t do it. Attempts to make it civilized make its use more likely.

        2. “The validity of the kill in your scenario depends on the situation. Say, a Roman Catholic priest out of Boston defected to Nazi Germany.”

          More realistically, assume an atheist American poet who makes propaganda broadcasts for the Axis. In fact, there was such a person – Ezra Pound (“Religion, oh, just another of those numerous failures resulting from an attempt to popularize art” – http://www.positiveatheism.org…..ote-pq.htm).

          What the U.S.A. did was arrest the atheist Pound and bring him to a civilian court for a treason trial. Apparently, he was too nuts to be tried, so he was sent off to St. Elizabeth’s mental hospital, where he finished his career.

          Now, if he’d been in the field shooting at Allied forces, they could certainly have shot back at him, not because they’re trying to single out “the traitor atheist Pound,” but because it’s traditional to kill and be killed on the battlefield, whether you’re an atheist traitor poet or not.

          1. Yup, was thinking of Pound too. Made up the example I did for accessibility purposes.

          2. But there’s yet another missing element that distinguishes current events: secrecy. Nobody tried to keep Ezra Pound’s name secret. What would be the harm in publicly labeling somebody a terrorist? The terrorist already knows s/he’s a terrorist, so it’s not like you’re losing the drop on them.

      3. A US citizen during WW II defects and joins the German army, and one of our soldiers kills him on the battlefield.

        What’s the difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?

        It’s a known battlefield and the traitor was presumably wearing a German uniform. It’s much harder to abuse the “war justification” in the situation you posit.

        It’s like saying that since a cop can almost always get a warrant to search someone’s house or vehicle for drugs if he wants to, there’s no point in requiring a warrant for a search.

        1. So are you going to force the terrorists to wear uniforms?

          Somehow, I think they don’t, just to make it hard for us to find and kill them. I may be wrong. Should we just not fight an enemy who won’t wear their uniforms?

          As far as “known battlefield” goes, the enemy has chosen not to adhere to geographic boundaries. I also suspect that’s to make it harder for us to find and kill them. Should we just give up?

          Asymmetric warfare is still warfare. It is a natural evolution that takes advantage of the enemy’s weakness. Ours is that we think a war must have boundaries and must be with another nation state. Not at all the case.

          1. I’d rather risk letting an “enemy” go free than give the president the personal power of life and death over everyone on the globe (maybe excluding the US) with zero accountability. Particularly when that enemy has shown no capability to attack us in 10 years.

            Shultz is probably going to have a conniption fit over my saying this because it’s not politically popular, but I’d rather have a 9/11 attack every year than give the prez that power.

            1. The pres always had that power.

              A2 S2

              The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

              That’s why going to war is such a big fucking deal and requires a declaration from Congress.

              And I too would rather have a 911 every year than prosecute wars of stupidity, of which the last two certainly qualify.

              1. A2 S2 doesn’t override A2 S4 which is left intentionally vague. He can be removed for conduct unbecoming as diverse as Oval Office blowjobs to violations of the War Powers Act. Since Nixon v. United States, it is concretely ruled not in the judicial review however way congress chooses to enforce it.

              2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ew_Johnson

                Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 in the U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his “high crimes and misdemeanors”,[1] in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution. The House’s primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year. Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War (whom the Tenure of Office Act was largely designed to protect), from office and replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant.

                If the president can be impeached for replacing his Secretary of War, then obviously the title Commander in Chief is not the absolute designation of power you are arguing for above.

                1. K, I couldn’t agree more. Obama should have been impeached over a year ago. He has pretty much flipped off the Constitution by going to war in Libya without authority. My belief is the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Congress needs to declare war before the President can fire a shot. But, the WPA has been the law of the land for 40 years and Obama refused to comply with the Constitution OR the law.

                  I cannot understand why America isn’t OUTRAGED by this egregious power grab. We impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob and yet this guy shits all over the Constitution and gets a pass?

                  But I do understand WHY he’s not being impeached. The citizenry is too fucking stupid to know a crime is being committed. The press is in the tank for the guy, and it’s apparently okay to break the law provided the right guy is doing it for the right reasons. Finally, Congress won’t do anything because they know they don’t have the votes in the Senate to get it done, and they don’t want to look like they are just being obstructionists.

      4. What’s the difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?

        We declared war against Germany.

    4. Or anyone who attends his funeral.

    5. ‘D definition of “terrorist”‘:

      Make that any 10-year-old child that was killed by an Obama Drone.

  10. Finally, someone is asking politicians the tough questions and then uploading it to youtube.

    /lonewacko

  11. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Suck it Purdue fans.

    1. O – H!

    2. Oh dear, we’ve got somebody here who’s a fan of A State University in Ohio?

      To be honest, even though I would have had no dog in the fight at the beginning of the game, once Braxton Miller was taken down with a horse collar and no flag was thrown, I would have been rooting against Purdue. Other than that, I only care that every team in the SEC picks up one loss and there are two undefeateds elsewhere. Oregon and K-State would be good for that. Well, OK, I care that the F***ing Irish pick up a loss, too.

    3. I’m not really a “fan” (I’m not into sports) even though I attend, so it’s okay.

  12. It’s Biden, and he has Donuts.
    http://instagram.com/p/RAruBtmwwS/

    1. Think of the havoc this man could wreak with TIMBITS!!!!

  13. I love the “…’course you don’t. Fucking idiots” not edited out at the end of the video.

  14. So I know that Glen Greenwald likes to mix it up in his comments sections sometimes, so I decided to wade through during lunch and was rewarded.

    Otherwise, I saw a lot of “misogynist!” accusations, which seems to be the new “racist!”–Republicans drafted Glen Greenwald into the war on women, who knew?–and “well, I haven’t heard of this, so the assassination of citizens by an unaccountable star chamber isn’t happening/isn’t a big deal, so shut up with your hysterics, you big meanie” useful idiocy.

    1. That take down was delicious. The amoral detractor there clearly loves the taste of his own anus:

      This eliding of salient facts represents a monumental error of journalistic judgement.

      Prose so purple it looks like butt hole.

    2. I saw Glen Greenwald at UCSD on Wednesday, very nice man who gave a great talk about civil liberties and the repugnant hypocrisy of the left and the right.

    3. Somethings, you should never read the comments.

  15. Glenn Greenwald is right twice a day. I don’t know that I’d call that rant “lengthy,” though. It’s only 674 words. It can take Greenwald that long just to order a latte.

    1. Is Greenwald’s Kochtopus card not working? He should have a slave on hand to make his latte immediately.

  16. OT: Everything Feministing says about men being inherently crazed rapist animal-beings is true….when it comes to Egypt.

    What is this, like the 100th female journalist gang raped in Cairo in the past year?

    1. Ahhh, the Arab Spring, when a young Muslim Brother’s thoughts turn to loving foreign journalists, whether they’re in the mood or not.

      1. France24 TV even described the attack as “savage”.

        Don’t they know they can’t say that because drones….or something?

        1. So, there actually is a demonstrable War on Wimminz, just not in the US, or at least the way Sandra Fluke et al. wish to paint this mural.

          I’m sure The Feminfisting Crowd will jump right on this. Oh wait, “BINDERZ FULL OF WIMMINZ!!!!”

          1. BINDERZ FULL OF WIMMINZ!!!!

            Ain’t that some crazy shit. I thought it a bit condescending when I heard it in the debate because it was in line with the logic of affirmative action. How is it femcommies picked up on the condescension when what makes it so is it is in line with a policy they support? You can’t separate the two without maintaining definitional cognitive dissonance.

          2. BINDERZ FULL OF WIMMINZ!!!!

            …and BIG BIRDZ!

            If that’s all the left’s got, the salty ham tears are indeed going to be yummy.

            1. That is all the left’s got, yet they’re probably going to keep the Senate and the Presidential election is a coin flip at the moment. What does that tell you about the electorate in America?

              And once Obama murderdrones the people “responsible” for the attack in Benghazi and bombs Syria or Iran next week, he’ll get a bump in the polls that will likely put him back in the WH for another four years.

              We’re well and truly fucked when a person with the character of Obama is not only electable, but is re-electable once he’s exposed for the vile human being he truly is.

              1. Nope. It’ll be his wonderful soft diplomacy opening the lines of communications with Iran that he’s relying on. Iran thinks they’ll have more time if Obama is re-elected. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10…..=all_r=1

            2. I hereby give to Hit+Run, my fellow commenters, and the internet, an entirely new (zero Google hits) mashup meme: Binders Full of the War on Women.

              Do with it what you will.

              1. I’m apparently the second person to come up with The War on Binders Full of Women.

        2. Denunciations in 5..4..3..

  17. Who has the more irritating and bone-crushingly annoying voice, Deborah VASSERMAN-Schnultz or Mika Wiggum-ski?

    I’m going to have to go with Debbie. The accent pushes her over the finish line.

  18. By a…

    NOSE!

    1. Ouch! The poor girl is holding out for when ObamaCare covers elective cosmetic rhinoplasties (though listening to her voice, it is entirely possible she has a deviated septum. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION!)

      Also, keep in mind, in the interest of fairness, Chuck Schumer has a more impressive rack than either of them, and he has a remarkably annoying voice as well, in the same nanny timbre as the other two liberal lasses.

      1. If she hasn’t done anything about her hair yet, I doubt she’ll do anything about the nose either.

        1. This^ +1

  19. It’s a same that the only people who want to confront the government about NDAA are the ZOMG ILLUMINATI-ZIONIST-FREEMASON-LIZARD PEOPLE DID 9/11 SO THAT THEY COULD SACRIFICE WHITNEY HOUSTON IN A DEMONIC RITUAL TO EMPOWER PROJECT MONARCH AGENT LADY GAGA WITH ARCANE ANNUNAKI POWER!!!!! crowd.

    Of course no one is going to take Obama’s secret kill list seriously when the topic is broached by these clowns.

  20. What I learned at lunch today (again).

    Corporations are Teh DEBBIL’S HANDMAIDENS.

    Private property (when it belongs to other people, especially the evil rich) is not fair and should be abolished.

    Resource extraction is always and everywhere wrong and unnecessary and GASOLINE COSTS TOO MUCH!

    Capitalism has wrecked America.

    Mitt Romney is a depraved granny-slaughtering monster and he will drink our blood if he gets elected.

    Blargleblerghfffzzzzttt!

    Maybe I will just stock up on .45 acp and barricade myself in the Fortress of Solitude until after the election. If Mittens wins, I can loot the homes of all the people who hang themselves in terror and despair.

    1. That last part sounds like a party I want to go to. Send me an email before you head out, will you?

    2. Count me in.

    3. Where the hell did you have lunch, the Communist Club Restaurant?
      They must make a wicked Monte Cristo.

    1. You guys were all for a doable standard last night.

      1. What do you mean, “you guys”? Where the hell was I last night?

      2. And FWIW, I’ve always been in support of a “doable” standard. And yes, I abandoned it in a moment or two of weakness in my younger days. Who hasn’t?

        1. She can’t weigh more than me, that’s pretty much it.

          If DWS wasn’t such a morally vile creature, I’d find her within the acceptable range of attraction. I have no problem with big honkers and big tangly hair. The later is kind of a fetish of mine anyway.

          1. If DWS wasn’t such a morally vile creature, I’d find her within the acceptable range of attraction.

            (vomits) ?????????

    2. C’mon man, Plax-ee got caught in NYC, bit different.

      Reminds me of this:

      CENTERVILLE — May he forever rest in pieces.

      There wasn’t a dry eye in the place as the Carl’s Jr. restaurant at 385 N. 800 West in Centerville held a funeral for its beloved “John” — the toilet that exploded Jan. 12 after a customer dropped his Kahr P40 handgun and sent John to a porcelain heaven.

      Restaurant manager Christian Martinez said John received condolences via e-mail and cards from all over the country.

      “He was survived by the men’s urinal and wash sink,” Martinez said during the eulogy. “He left us way too soon.”

      Employees gave bottles of Kaboom Bowl Blaster toilet cleaner, which Martinez said was “the toilet’s favorite,” to the first 50 restaurant patrons.

      A Bountiful flower shop, Shanks Floral, even delivered a large floral arrangement for the service.

      “In all my years, I can say without a doubt that I have never delivered for a toilet,” said deliveryman Doug Graham, “but I thought it was the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. I got a kick out of it.”

      The story became a hit nationally and was the subject of many news stories published in media outlets all over the country.

      “It did get quite a bit of publicity,” Martinez said. “We had some customers ask about it when they came in, but we didn’t see a huge rise in business.”

      cont…

      1. All funny business aside, Martinez said the ordeal was pretty frightening for employees and customers.

        “The gentleman was actually pretty scared,” he said of the man who dropped the gun that went off.

        “At the moment it happened, it wasn’t funny at all. It was pretty scary to hear that loud gunshot.”

        Centerville police said the 26-year-old man who dropped the gun was cut on the arms by porcelain shrapnel, but no other employees or customers were injured.

        Police blamed the accident on the gun and style of holster the man was using. They described it as an “inside the pants” holster that was not secure.

        Initially, the firearm was taken into custody for safekeeping, but Centerville Police Lt. Paul Child said the gun was returned to the man and no criminal charges would be filed.

        Martinez said although John was replaced in mere hours by another toilet, he won’t soon be forgotten.

        The new toilet has not yet been given a name.

        I think this is Utah or Arizona.

        1. no criminal charges? but he wasn’t a cop derp derp derp. that’s UNPOSSIBLE

          are they actually saying the gun went off because it was dropped? that’s near impossible for most modern firearms, although it doesn’t say what kind of firearm it was.

          i can say as a simple matter of physics, my glock CANNOT go off merely because it was dropped. it’s not possible, by design

          1. My Ruger .380 LCP can. In fact the manual recommends not carrying one in the chamber for that very reason.

            1. yea, sadly there are a few exceptions. that’s why i said “most”. of course, the ultimate safety for any handgun is the owner. im not a huge glock fan, although i think for an institutional weapon choice, you can’t do better, however, the drop safety on them is very good.

              damn reliable, extremely easy to armor/fix/modify (less parts than any gun ever made … apart from a zip gun 🙂 ), interchangeable mags etc.

              1. interesting info, btw. thx.

            2. My Ruger .380 LCP can. In fact the manual recommends not carrying one in the chamber for that very reason.

              …Despite advertising it as having a capacity of “6+1”. I’m thinking about getting one of those. How do you like it? What kind of holster do you use if I might ask?

              1. As my friend put it, the best gun to carry is the one you’ll carry.

                Cons: pretty good kick because it’s so light/small, accurate to about 15 yards, long trigger pull (on every shot), hard pull until you put a couple hundred rounds through it, no safety

                Pros: small, extremely easy to conceal, it with a laser sight fits in my back pocket, light, you don’t even know it’s there, it feels like a wallet in your back pocket

                I have a Blackhawk size 3 pocket holster as it is the only holster I could find that would accommodate the Crimson Trace laser sight. I went with the CT over the LaserLyte because same friend says his LL adds width that he notices when he sits on it.

                I like it, but it is what it is. A last resort, in close, pop gun that’s easy to carry. Not going to fend off a couple guys at any king of range.

                I do carry one in the chamber. With that long hard pull and it inside the holster I see little chance of an accidental discharge.

                1. kingd

                2. As my friend put it, the best gun to carry is the one you’ll carry.

                  Yes of course, but perhaps a better reaction to this fact is to correct one’s faults that would lead one not to carry a more suitable firearm, rather than settling for an inferior one.

                3. Thanks.

        2. Utah. The Cartesian coordinate address gives it away.

      2. Right, because when NYPD officers accidentally fire their guns, they face the same charges.

        Money quote FTA: Police say the officer said he thought his finger was off the trigger.

        How do you “think your finger is off a trigger”? And how the fuck is that a plausible defense? Oh that’s right, when you’re a cop, and defense is a plausible defense.

        1. Also notice what is conspicuously absent from the article? That’s right: they fail to mention the name of the cop that shot someone when he “thought his finger was off the trigger.”

  21. Did they really think there would be another outcome here?
    Former Canadian MP arrested as Israel stops ship bound for Gaza

    1. Regrettably, he wasn’t arrested simply for being a former NDP MP.

      1. oh god . please no ore gaza blockade bullshit. had enough of that already.

        man, if anybody gets accused of excessive force more than cops at hit and run, it’s israeli troops dealing with “protesters” violating the blockade, etc.

        1. I’m cheering for another Rachel Corrie, myself. The more shrieking leftists that throw themselves under D9s, the better.

          1. yea, but caterpillars have really poor performance over water 🙂

            1. Maybe the Israelis can ring up that Japanese ship on “Whale Wars” that sunk the eco-pests’ speedboat.

  22. now THAT is excessive force… and assault i might add

    http://www.policeone.com/legal…..f-assault/

    1. And yet…

      1. Read the other stories on the trial. The cops entire defense is based on “just following orders.” And of course, if they weren’t trained specifically on how to handle people on the fringes of an unruly group (which it is pretty apparent this kid was not a part of), then the fault lies with the institution, not the guys beating the shit out of him.

        Also, notice the mentality of real cops thinking they are commenting privately? They really do, by and large, have nothing but contempt for the general public.

        1. Indeed:

          BFD = when you are placed UNDER arrest and do not IMMEDIATLY comply,you face the use of force that is deemed needed by those with their ASS and boots on the ground.

          Dont like that,go to another country where they will shoot or beat you with STEEL rods or beat in your head as they dont have ‘use of force’ rules.

          I see a beatdown to a idiot that could have been at home OR at very least stopped challenging the only arm of the people to keep ORDER.

          1. From a citizen’s perspective:

            BFD = when you wrongly place someone UNDER arrest you face the use of force that is deemed needed by those that pay your fucking salary.

            Dont like that,go to another country where you’re allowed to shoot or beat citizens with STEEL rods or beat in their heads as they dont have a ‘well armed citizenry’.

            I see a beatdown of a rights depriving tyrant that could have been at home OR at very least stopped challenging the rights of the people to live as they see fit.

          2. Actually, this might be the best representation of what cops really think about the people who pay their salaries.

            Ex A: I don’t care why the clown is out of control…be it off his meds, on something or diabetic. It is our job to get him under control and then figure out what is going on. My safety and the safety of my partner is the only concern I have.

            Ex B: Says PD on my uniform and people can curse me to hell but I will not do CPR breaths cause of all the diseases out there (one way valve or not)unless its someone I know or another LEO.

            …and the mask continues to slip.

          3. Dont like that,go to another country where they will shoot or beat you with STEEL rods

            They’re shooting people with STEEL rods? Where can I get one of those guns?

            Seriously, where did these cops take English? If I wrote reports like that in my profession, there’s not a customer in the world that would trust my intelligence.

            1. They can’t be that bright to begin with.

            2. By “STEEL rods” I believe he’s referring to an expandable baton.

              1. FACT: I have an “expandable baton” in my pants.

  23. challenging the only arm of the people to keep ORDER.

    This must be one of those rule-of-law-and-order libertarians I have been hearing so much about.

  24. Would you have a problem with the following scenario?

    A US citizen during WW II defects and joins the German army, and one of our soldiers kills him on the battlefield.

    Don’t have a problem with that scenario. Not sure what it has to do with the president ordering hits on unarmed non-uniformed U.S. civilians who have not actually defected, including kids, on a non-battlefield during a non-war, with absolutely no oversight from the other branches of the federal government, and no ability for the press or any other civilians to observe the process, much less serve on a jury that can hold the government accountable and veto the kill decisions.

    1. I can’t believe you are going to make me defend Obama, but…

      It’s the same thing.

      Intelligence showed al-Awlaki aided the enemy. We are at war (albeit an undeclared war and I will cede that is THE most important part of your argument). He is by all rules of armed conflict a legitimate combatant. Intel is all that’s required in wartime, there is no due process. That’s the difference between war and peace and exactly why it is so important to get the actual declaration from Congress.

      including kids

      Let me assure you, NO ONE is targeting kids. No one in the armed forces would follow such an order. But, yes, kids die in war.

      on a non-battlefield

      And there is no requirement within the LOAC that specifies acts of war need occur within a specified battlespace.

      There is oversight from Congress, and the pussies have abdicated their authority under the Constitution. They can turn off the funding tomorrow and elect not to.

      The Press and civilians don’t have the right to observe the specifics of targeting procedures. It’s classified and if you want to be able to prosecute future conflicts, rightfully so. You don’t get a veto, except with your vote.

      cont.

      1. I don’t think a lot of libertarians have a grasp of what war really is. Not many libertarians have interactions with the military and tend to make a lot of assumptions about how they think it is or should be. I’ll note that we don’t let others get away with that on unrelated topics and I think we should hold ourselves to the same standard.

        War fucking sucks. It is immoral and brutal and should be the option of absolute last resort.

        1. “Inter armes silent leges” does not apply to the Constitution, which was written with war a very real memory and an imminent threat.

          A citizen cannot be convicted of treason without the testimony of two people in court.

          A citizen cannot be deprived of lifewihout the due process of law.

          Neither of those specific clauses in the Constitution mention war.

          The fact that the citizens in question were not on a battlefield, not actively taking up arms, were not combating us in a declared war, and were not given any chance for review outside the Executive branch makes the argument that they were wartime casualties unacceptable.

        2. another way to think about this:

          There is no formal proof that the americans in question were doing anything illegal or combatitve towards the US. This is because the Executive has not proferred any such proof in any court of law (just in nauseating press appearances). If your logic were to hold, any time we were at war (or “war” in this case), the Executive could just start assassinating people randomly and asserting that they were somehow combatants or propagandists or whatever.

          You cannot possibly believe that this is justifiable.

          1. Point taken. I shouldn’t have used “traitor” as he was never convicted.

            As I said up thread, the term assassination has no meaning in war. There are only combatants, which you can kill, and non combatants which you cannot.

            Question: Do you use the term assassination because there was no declaration of war? If so, we technically in agreement. The argument against, which I do not agree with, is that Congress’s authority to use force amounts to a declaration.

            Libya, Syria, entirely different matters.

            1. As I said up thread, the term assassination has no meaning in war.

              You’re playing semantics. Whether it’s called assassination, manhunting, or targeted killing doesn’t change its morality. As for its legality, if your point of view was as accepted and cut and dry as you believe it to be, Obama would have had no need to have “Harold Koh perform his horse and pony show to prove to the world it was legal.

              1. HM, did you even read my comments above? I have repeatedly said war is immoral. ALWAYS! There can never be any moral justification for people not being able to work out their problems without killing each other.

                But, it nonetheless happens. And legally, it is cut and dried. Combatants are legitimate military targets.

                Out of curiosity, how would you select targets? What would be acceptable, particularly in an asymmetric conflict where the enemy is embedded in the population? Would you set up some kind of legal board to weigh the evidence against the bad guy before you bomb him? How exactly would you implement that?

            2. With no declaration of war, we are in agreement then.

              But even with a declaration of war, I claim that there oughtta be a pretty decent standard for targeting (I don’t care if you call it assassination or otherwise) a citizen. ESPECIALLY when said citizen is not standing on a battlefield, or holding a weapon.

              What exactly was different between this situation and a police action? And, again, without any review by anyone other than the Executive department (and substrata reporting up to it), how is there ANY way – war or not – to confirm that the Executive targeted someone because of the war and not because of some random personal prejudice?

              Again, I am not saying that the Exec has to justify every target and ask permission for every strike in wartime. But in peacetime, and against a citizen at the very least, it does not seem like too much to ask – ugliness of war be damned.

              1. Hamilton, I agree. To target a citizen there would need to be some pretty damning intel that showed he was, in fact, directly supporting our enemies. Was there? I can only assume.

                …how is there ANY way – war or not – to confirm that the Executive targeted someone because of the war and not because of some random personal prejudice?

                That’s why it is important to elect an executive of good moral character, because he alone will be making calls like this.

                See my 1108AM comment to GBN below.

                1. That’s why it is important to elect an executive of good moral character, because he alone will be making calls like this.

                  Not true, Francisco. There’s where we differ.

                  You stake the lives of citizens on the hope (which is almost always false) that we’ll elect a Good Dictator who will only execute the Bad Guys, honest. Screw that.

                  Obama could have presented the “pretty damning intel” you infer to a court. He could’ve even done that secretly, sorta (but I’d argue that the target deserves a defense). He could’ve displayed that evidence NOW, even – again, to a closed court if you want. It would have taken very little effort indeed to have a non-Executive-branch body review and approve a non-time-critical action against a citizen (recall the guy was targeted for like months). It did NONE of these things. It isn’t even trying to explain why it didn’t – not even trying to explain anything about violating one of the most important principles of our government.

                  Unquestionably the administration should be required to present its evidence on the strike that killed the guy’s kid, for gods sakes!

                  Your position completely relies on the kindness of the Executive even in cases where it would be trivial – trivial – to try to follow the Constitution. I don’t buy it.

                  1. Fair enough. He could have bought it to a secret court. I’d say he should have. I’m not aware that it’s ever been done before and I understand his trepidation in doing so (NOT defending him, he’s an asshole).

                    The action would have put the question of his Constitutional authority in the spotlight and would have meant a debate. As he’s a political piece of shit, he wouldn’t risk losing his perceived authority (he actually believes the president can kill at will, without approval from anyone) and/or placing himself in a political situation that could turn out poorly if/(when) he loses.

                    Again, NO moral character. He believes it’s better to kill than confront tough issues that could threaten his power. Unfortunately, I’d guess a majority of our elected officials would have done the same.

                    You’ve given me something to think about wrt naming a citizen a combatant (without due process). Surely, if he’s shooting at you, it’s justified. Wouldn’t you agree? What if he’s helping the enemy plan attacks? What if he’s just supporting the enemy through propaganda? Is your only recourse to capture and return him for trial? You point out that due process requires the individual the right to defend himself. Where would you draw that line?

                    1. Shooting at you, yes.

                      Helping the enemy in any of the ways you describe: prove it. Prove it to a court that is not subject to your immediate jurisdiction. Ideally, prove it while giving the accused a chance to defend themselves before you kill them.

                      Meaning: if the situation is not absolutely immediate and emergent, then prove your goddamn case.

        3. I don’t think a lot of libertarians have a grasp of what war really is.

          Why don’t you educate us, Mr. Rambo?

        4. I don’t think a lot of libertarians have a grasp of what war really is.

          Why don’t you educate us, Mr. Rambo.

          This should be interesting…

          *grabs beer*

        5. I don’t think a lot of libertarians have a grasp of what war really is.

          Why don’t you educate on this point, Mr. Rambo?

          This should be interesting…

          *grabs beer*

          1. Thanks for the ad hom. I’m sure I deserved it somehow.

            Here is what is allowed in war:

            Law of Armed Conflict

            If you read it, you’ll see it gives unbelievable latitude.

            1. Sorry, but I’ve never heard of the Supreme Court ruling that treaties and foreign law carry the same weight as the Constitution. Care to reference the applicable rulings?

              Also, treaties aren’t relevant here, and if they were, we’d be shackling Holder, Hillary and Obama and shipping them to Mexico to stand trial for accessory to murder for FyF. Also, Obama would be standing trial in Pakistan for murderdroning innocent children there, as he was not authorized in our treaty with them to bomb many of the people he has.

              Your little website there is totally incorrect and/or inapplicable IRT to murderdroning people in nations we have not directly declared hostilities against, and especially in nations we are considered to be allied with in the “War On Terror”.

              1. Well,Sloop, my “little website” is what DoD is held to and failure to comply is punishable under the UCMJ. So like it or not it IS how US wars are prosecuted.

                If you would like to see something different, petition your Congressman.

                1. I’ve yet to see a legal challenge brought against the war powers in use currently IRT to murderdroning. I fail to see how they would pass muster if taken through the federal court system. And since our current CinC has totally disregarded treaties, national sovereignty of other nations and the general right to due process and disregarded any and all requests for information regarding those breaches, I’d have to conclude that his current activities are outside of those allowed him under any current “state of war” that he claims to exist.

                  Also, just because someone twists a definition of a law to fit his needs doesn’t mean it is Constitutional in the spirit of the document, and it certainly doesn’t make it moral.

                  And I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but treason is strictly defined and there is a specific process to be followed when a person is suspected of it. What our CinC did to Al Awlaki is as unconstitutional as it would be if Obama did it to Romney. The constitution guarantees rights whether or not the person is overseas. Sorry, but he had no right to assassinate that man. None at all.

                  1. Yes I recanted the “treason” comment above. It was a poor argument for all the reasons you state.

                    But tell me Sloop, at what point can he be treated as a combatant. Does he need to be actively shooting at our guys? What if he enables other bad guys to shoot at our guys? If he wasn’t a US citizen, such actions would clearly make him a legitimate target. Or is your position that he can do whatever he wants, and because he’s an American citizen, we can’t do anything except capture him and bring him to trial?

                    1. The problem is that the war on terror is not a war in the modern sense of nation states engaged in organized political conflict.

                      It’s more analogous to piracy wherein large criminal conspiracies use military weaponry and tactics. Which requires a hybrid approach. Yes sometimes military action is necessary, but the fight is more of a crime issue than a war issue. It is a difficult issue for nation states to deal with.

                      But for heaven’s sake, governments 300 years ago were able to do so against pirates, ie military engagements with the captured pirates subjected to criminal trials and punishments.

                      So to answer your question, yes the only time an individual should targeted for death in the war on terror is in the heat of battle. And most certainly not for providing some kind of moral support.

                      Seriously, going down the rabbit hole that you and Obama are will end with Dominate era levels of tyranny.

            2. Oh geeze man, I totally understand the horrors of war now and completely agree with you. That about.com article coupled with your ‘interactions with the military’ have shown me the way. Sorry to ad hom you, precious, didn’t know the caliber of person I was dealing with*.

              You seem to be under the illusion that because something is codified it’s justified.

              Besides, nowhere in that steaming pile is a lawful justification of killing someone who objectively poses no immediate threat to this country, but merely has the audacity to live in another country and espouse anti-American rhetoric.

              I was going to argue some more points, but I am drunk and lazy. Instead, let me ask you: What is the limit to the government’s power to kill?”

              I mean, we have this amorphous “war” going on, can we drone strike Tulpa while he teaches his class because he may have said things critical of the war effort? Sure you’ll kill a bunch of kids learning calculus, but hey, it’s war right?

              *just fuckin’ around dude, don’t get all mad and shit

              1. I had to shut down last night too, as I was too drunk to debate further. (Surprised I realized it, normally I just start babbling)

                A declaration of war is like flipping a switch. Before it happens, the executive has NO authority to kill anybody (IMO). After it happens, he can pretty much do as he pleases (only to those named in the declaration), PROVIDED he complies with the Laws of Armed Conflict. And as I mentioned before, the LOAC gives a shitload of leeway. Pretty much all you need to do is claim military necessity and you are covered.

                This is exactly the reason that the declaration needs to be taken so seriously. In giving it, Congress is unleashing an incredible amount of executive power.

                War is immoral. Period. There is no due process for those named in the declaration. It is just the executive branch eliminating a threat to the nation in the manner the president sees fit. Ugly business and to be avoided except in the most dire of circumstances.

                I invoke Kirk:

                Death, destruction, disease, horror. That’s what war is all about, Anan. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided. You’ve made it neat and painless. So neat and painless, you’ve had no reason to stop it.

        6. Not many libertarians have interactions with the military

          [citation needed]

          1. Only meant you don’t see a lot of libertarians in the military. I would guess libertarians generally gravitate to the private sector. Hypothesis/opinion. Not intended as a statement of absolute fact

            But I don’t see libertarianism at odds with the military. They serve a purpose protecting the rights of individuals, which is the only legitimate function of government. Up to elected officials to use it correctly.

            I do occasionally see comments here that seem to fall in line with pacifism. I just don’t see pacifism being a tenet of libertarianism.

            1. If you support the head of state having the immediate, unreviewable power of life or death over everyone on the planet…sorry, you’re not a libertarian.

              1. Tulpa, how do you think it works?

                Do we hold a popular vote to decide targets? Is there some commission in place to decide who dies? Does Congress hold debates on the legitimacy of each target?

                How would you have it work?

                You elect an executive to make these decisions. Once Congress declares war, which I believe is an absolute MUST prior to firing the first shot, the President does have the power of life and death over anyone addressed in the declaration. If the action doesn’t fall within the LOAC, he can be prosecuted for war crimes.

                That’s how it works. Did you think it worked otherwise?

        7. My problem is that what is defined as a terrorist today might change in the future.

          Democrats and the Left love to call those on the right terrorists and such. It’s not just hyperbole, either, they really, really mean it.

          A few weeks ago the police shot down a local anti-government pamphleteer as he was turning himself in at a gas station. They immediately put all the government buildings in the county under increased security, because they are convinced that there is going to be retaliation.

          This is the same Sheriff that made news 4 years ago for wanting to run a truth squad and arrest anti-Obama critics if they weren’t being honest. Glenn Boyer of Jefferson County Missouri.

          People like him would be happen to kill for the President’s sake, IMHO. I don’t want to give him the chance.

          1. D’oh. Would be happy

  25. Ontario brewers come together to make 15th-century style wild beer

    Now, a group of Ontario brewers are turning back the clock. They’re making a “wild” beer, which they’re hoping will spontaneously ferment using ambient yeasts which just happen to drift into the brew. While a few ardently traditional Belgian brewers use the same principle to create “lambic” style brews, it’s not exactly a technique that’s sweeping through the brewing industry.

    1. But it’s used with bacteria by the makers of sourdough all the time.

  26. “But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out ? due process be damned ? the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast.”

    The only process due an enemy combatant is what the Geneva conventions allow, which is any lethal force not disproportionately greater than that required to destroy the target.

    1. And who determines who is an enemy combatant?

      1. Valerie Jarrett.

        1. Odd. I thought it was Susan Rice. Or even Samantha Power. And HillDawg, natch.

          You know, for the Feminfisters claiming the fairer sex is all about pacifism, peace, love and humptiness, that’s a lot of XX in those Warboners. I still remember Sally Field claiming in a fit of extra-special award acceptance idiocy, that if “Wimminz wuz in charge, there’d be no more warz!”

          Anyone heard from Gidget lately?

      2. The people pulling the trigger. It’s called war.

        Look it up.

        There is no daylight between the idiocy of objecting to the current policy of using drones and SpecOps teams to kill people found by the intelligence organs to be terrorists, and the insistence that an infantryman consult a jury for a verdict or at least a lawyer every time before they pulls a trigger.

  27. Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson Set for 9/11 ‘Truther’ Film September Morn

    I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that ? that would be the ultimate betrayal,” he told an interviewer in 2007.

    Sheen grew suspicious after his son Charlie, also an actor, alerted him to apparent contradictions, such as how a structure known as “Building 7? fell.

    Asner, who has won seven Emmys, has several times urged a new investigation into 9/11. In 2010, he told an interviewer: “This country ? which is the greatest, strongest country that ever existed in the world, in terms of power ? supposedly had a defence that could not be penetrated all these years. But all of that was eradicated by 19 Saudi Arabians, supposedly. Some of whom didn’t even know how to fly.”

  28. A Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan administration would bring back to American foreign and domestic policy all the worst elements of the Bush administration, along with a greater degree of militarism, home-grown fascism, and a greater likelihood of war with such countries as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Russia.

    1. Which oddly enough coincide with the worst elements of the BO administration.

      1. That can’t POSSIBLY be true. Next you’ll try telling me our President is a murderer

        1. Wow wakeup, I’m glad you omitted Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Honduras, Mali, Sudan and China. I was worried there for a second.

    2. That article is hilarious.

      1. Mormons want to start the apocalypse.

        And worse, they’re Zionists

        Mormons believe in the imminent apocalypse and would have no problem pushing the world to the edge of nuclear annihilation as a fulfillment of their prophecies …

        The Mormons and Romney are also in lockstep with the goals of Zionism

  29. another good use of video, this time – dash-cam shows officer clearly doing the right thing, in this fatal collision that took his life.

    running code, and car turns right in front of him

    http://www.policeone.com/polic…..icer-crash

  30. More Fake Attacks on US Banks Blamed on Iran Validate Secret Technocratic Grid

    The US government is planting the propaganda seed that according to “highly classified” documents provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Intelligence Directorate confirm that Iranian hackers are committing cyber-attacks against US financial institutions. This report assures that US mega-banks are a “valid target” of the Iranian “cyber army”.
    Why wouldn’t hackers destroy documents of actually disrupt banking transactions? Because the scheme was perpetrated by the banking cartels in conjunction with the White House to not only bring about draconian cybersecurity, but also explain how a false flag concerning our banking system will occur in the near future.

  31. “we got that shit on tape!”

    good. totally justified that kick in the head.

    amazing.

    http://www.policeone.com/close…..goes-viral

    this is the kind of scum cops face day to day… the vast majority of people are good, law abiding, etc. some are scum.

  32. I can’t believe you are going to make me defend Obama, but…

    Not making you do anything. You’re choosing to defend a serial killer.

    We are at war (albeit an undeclared war and I will cede that is THE most important part of your argument). He is by all rules of armed conflict a legitimate combatant. Intel is all that’s required in wartime, there is no due process. That’s the difference between war and peace and exactly why it is so important to get the actual declaration from Congress.

    The federal government (not “we”, since what that gang of thugs does is not anything I have consented to or authorized) is not at war, since the Constitution requires certain actions to take place for a war to occur. The “rules” of armed conflict thus do not apply, and even if a war was occurring, the president does not, under the Constitution, have the power to unilaterally order such murders.

    There IS due process in war outside a battlefield, BTW, but that is irrelevant to this argument since there is no battlefield, just a serial killer using fancy sounding words to justify killings in peacetime that no President has the Constitutional power to order. That this sociopath has managed to not just evade doing life in prison, but has a coin flip or better chance of being reelected, shows just how good a manipulator he is (or how gullible the electorate is — OK, both).

    1. Wow. Rarely is a point so eloquently and accurately made. I can only hope the next time someone tries to justify Obama’s (or any president’s for that matter) total disregard for the Constitutional guarantee of due process, that I’ll be able to state it as well.

      With all sincerity, bravo.

    2. We haven’t declared war on anyone since 1945. Does that mean that every military action since then was “serial killings” by whoever was President at the time?

      I think we should have declared war after 9/11, but you seem a bit too purist on this point.

      1. Who would we have declared war on?

      2. Yes.

      3. What city do you believe Bush should have nuked?

  33. Shorter: the less wordy and more accurate word for “undeclared war” is “peacetime”. Once you quit arguing that the feds are at war when they are not, the heinous nature of these killings should become clearer.

    1. “the less wordy and more accurate word for “undeclared war” is “peacetime”.”- love it.

    2. And if that’s your only point I agree. There needs to be a declaration from Congress. I’ve said that from the beginning of the thread.

  34. one correction… not “ordinary citizens”, “EXTRAORDINARY citizens” take down robbery suspect. one is shot in arm.

    mask, gun, it’s all there. lock stock and one smoking barrel

    awesome job. the people of seattle can be pretty fucking awesome sometimes

    http://www.king5.com/news/citi…..37966.html

    http://www.king5.com/news/citi…..24026.html

  35. Two off-duty Florida police officers kill a naked woman.

    Two off-duty Florida law-enforcement officers fatally shot an armed, naked woman who confronted them at a social gathering Saturday, authorities said.

    The shooting occurred at about 1:15 p.m. Saturday in Hernando County, north of Tampa. The county sheriff’s office said in a news release that the men were approached by an “armed, naked and irrational female.” The news release does not identify the weapon, but it says “one or both of the law enforcement officers fired their weapons, striking the female.” She died at the scene.

    When gang rape goes wrong?

  36. I learned that when bad things happened, Amy Klobuchar passed laws to make sure bad stuff stopped happening.

  37. We haven’t declared war on anyone since 1945. Does that mean that every military action since then was “serial killings” by whoever was President at the time?

    I think we should have declared war after 9/11, but you seem a bit too purist on this point.

    It’s more than the lack of a war declaration, though that by itself plunges every “peacetime” killing into the “Unconstitutional” zone.

    It’s one thing for armed U.S. soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, acting under ROEs (Rules Of Engagement) and under the orders of their commanding officers, to shoot back at armed Taliban who fired upon them, in a country where Congress passed a resolution, albeit unconstitutionally, giving the President powers to conduct acts of war. I don’t think the “serial killer” point applies there.

    It is quite another thing for a President in an air-conditioned office in DC on “Terror Tuesdays” to calmly look over a list of people who are not in a specific country where Congress has declared some power to conduct military action; who not currently, to anyone’s knowledge, armed or shooting at anyone; some of who are U.S. citizens clearly subject to Constitutional protections of due process; who are not imminently threatening anyone with bodily harm; and with no judge or jury given any ability to review the list and the facts and determine for themselves if these people are about to imminently inflict bodily harm upon U.S. citizens.

    THAT is where the serial killer thing comes into play.

    1. + a lot

    2. Fantasyland FriscoPapaya pictures Obama as some sort of DEXTER in The White House, with a “code” that makes him take out only the “bad” guys and finish up grinning with blood dripping from his fangs.

  38. The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change’s pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won’t bite. She’s obviously in the “spin room” to spin the debate in President Barack Obama’s favor and certainly isn’t going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

    But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out ? due process be damned ? the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this cheap nfl jerseys list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she’s being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff

  39. For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people’s courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags.

    Nauseating stuff. Whoever is responsible for the poster maybe should have considered the misery cheap nfl jerseys inflicted by the Soviet Union on countries that are now members of the E.U. While to ignorant left-wing westerners gripped by middle-class guilt the hammer and sickle might be some sort of pathetic symbolic refuge, to the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland it might have a different connotation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.