Skip to main content

View Diary: In bitter earnest (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good Question: (7+ / 0-)
    do you support a right of government leaders have a right to massacre people?  Because that is the question here.
    Eric Holder's words reveals the answer for us:
    “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

    -cut-

    Holder outlined four requirements the United States has to follow in order to legally kill a citizen:

        The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

    Then we have the reality of what those words mean, in practice:

    Bradley Manning Headed To Prison, While Those Who Authorized Torture Go Free

    The U.S. used extraordinary renditions to swoop up terror suspects and send them to repressive regimes in places like Syria and Libya for torture.
    Maybe you missed these memo's.  WE grabbed innocent people and sent them to places TO BE TORTURED!

    In fact, one of those places was SYRIA.

    And as for the "we must save the children" meme:

    The drone strikes our current POTUS has ordered has killed hundreds of innocent children.  The drones strike civilian casualty lists our current POTUS claims very few if any civilians have died.  Why's that?  They falsely label those innocent victims as "terrorists" or "militants".

    The final nail in this coffin of hypocrisy would be this:

    Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

    It does seem our government has answered your very important question.  Our government leaders not only believe they can massacre people, they think they have the right to do it to anyone, anywhere at any time by any means and then give retroactive immunity to those responsible for said war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:02:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Um (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell

      1) torture is massacre of civilians, how?
      2) And I presume that consistent with your opposition to doing anything about mass murders, you also supported this torture?  Or something (I know I opposed that personally)

      3) your list of examples have zero to do with Syria

      •  Because HEY LOOK OVER THERE! (0+ / 0-)

        RANDOM BAD STUFF 'BOUT AMERICA AND OBAMA!

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:53:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you want an example of the massacre of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, CenPhx, gerrilea

        civilians: The Clinton administration's no fly zone bombing and economic sanctions against Iraq, which deprived the Iraqi people of food, medical supplies, and equipment to repair sanitation facilitiess.
        Result: Over 500,000 excess deaths among Iraqi children from
        malnutrition and diseases like cholera.
        Clinton's Secretary of State said that was a price worth paying.
           Is Clinton in prison at the Hague? No, he's an honored elder statesman.
           How is slow acting biological warfare not as bad as chemical weapons?

      •  Okay, maybe I need to explain further for you. (0+ / 0-)

        Your question was:  Is it okay for government's to kill civilians intentionally and with impunity?

        Clearly the answer is Yes, the American Government absolutely believes that.  Our government has stated and acted in just such a manner.  It now believes it can target and kill any citizen anywhere in the world, and has done so.  It has indiscriminately killed children as well with drones.  IN Pakistan alone, over 178 children have died from them.

        I gave examples that outline our New Amerikan Policy as dictated by Eric Holder himself.

        Oddly, in his 4th guideline of how do legally kill a citizen, he claims some morality that WE do not practice in reality, ie "not using weapons that will inflict unnecessary suffering."

        Again, I pointed out how black sites, in of all places, Syria, have been used to kill and torture "suspects" by our government.

        I pointed you to the fact that our government kills with impunity as well.  The true heroes get tortured and put in jail while the actual war criminals are given "immunity".  Again, as per Eric Holder's own policy statements.

        Now, the final point you attempted to make, I guess I really didn't address for me personally.  It's obvious that ever American supports this behavior, we did vote these people into office, both Bush Jr and President Obama, twice!

        And the smell of hypocrisy has surely reached the heights of Heaven.  It's okay for our government to do it but no one else.  We can't make this into some "moral imperative" that we ourselves do not practice.  

        I guess that's what you'd have us do here and I don't buy into any "moral" framing of this issue we are facing yet again.

        Let me make this clear, with another example for you:

        Remembering the millions of innocents killed in US imperial wars

        In the years since the end of World War II, the United States has killed more innocent people in more foreign countries than any other nation on earth.

        -cut-

        Never mind that the government they (our troops) serve supports some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world, from the Saudi monarchs who brutally repress their own people while funding the very terrorists our nation has been battling for so long, to the Bahraini regime that murders and tortures dissenters, to the wicked Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan-- notorious for boiling his opponents alive-- to a host of lesser yet equally horrific tyrants in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

        So, honestly here, what policy will be enacted once we bomb the hell out of Syria?  What puppet dictator will we install there and what will they go on to do, with our support and praises?

        Will it be Eric Holder's stated policy that any government can kill it's citizens, without charges, judge and jury?  If innocents, including children, are killed, it's okay, as long as they're labeled "insurgents" or "terrorists"?

        Will we continue to use depleted uranium bullets that will shred the DNA of every species that comes upon their spent shells for the next 4 billion years?

        Will the "cannon fodder" our Military Industrial Complex creates be sadistic killers forever? You know, the ones we want them to be to fight never ending wars to solidify our Imperial Empire?

        If we didn't believe and want these things, then why did we vote them into office again?

        Our votes have consequences, deadly ones.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:10:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Upon review, I must clarify one thing. (0+ / 0-)

          I said this:

          I guess that's what you'd have us do here and I don't buy into any "moral" framing of this issue we are facing yet again.
          Might I revise this to say: "I don't buy into any moral framing that states we must go after evil doers when we ourselves do so much evil.

          What our government has done, in our names, I find morally repugnant and I do not want it to continue under some false narrative of "a moral urgency".  

          It's all hogwash.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:17:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  so person A robs someone (0+ / 0-)

      at one point in his life...he doesn't get punished for it because the prosecutor says there is not enough evidence.

      Later in his life, he sees someone else get robbed, he wants to stop it because he's different now and he recognizes what he did earlier was wrong, but according to you, he must stand by and say or do nothing, because otherwise...hypocrisy.

      And that makes sense how?

      •  The problem with the analogy you present (0+ / 0-)

        is that we still are the robber today.  There is no "later in life" thing going on here.  Our government has no remorse for their continuing actions.  In fact, they believe they have the right to rob but no one else can. Your analogy is more appro when viewed from this understanding.

        That's the hypocrisy I see.  It's a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality they are now attempting us to buy into.

        I don't.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:46:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site