Skip to main content

President Jimmy Carter penned a must-read op-ed in today's New York Times, sharply criticizing the current President.  Carter and Obama share more than having held the same office, they are also both Nobel Peace Prize winners.

Here's what one Nobel Peace Prize winner has to say about the policies of another:

The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.
Citing the Obama administration's assassination-by-drone program, the National Defense Authorization Act's (NDAA) indefinite preventive detention provisions, increased authorities for government warrantless domestic spying on innocent Americans, and the still-open-for-business and holding 169 prisoners Guantanamo Bay facility, Carter eloquently describes the consequences of the U.S.'s moving backward on human rights.
At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

Particularly astute are Carter's descriptions of the drone assassination program, something some Kossacks have actively supported. (See some of the comments to my prior diaries on the program here, here, and here.) Carter was particularly incensed by the number of innocent lives "sacrificed" in drone attacks:

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. . . .
We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.
As for those who accuse opponents of the drone assassination program of being naive or impractical, Carter sat in the oval office. He knows the challenges, the compromises, and the sacrifices of the nation's highest office. With all of his experience and first-hand knowledge of what it takes to serve as President, Carter writes about the assassination program:
Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended . . . As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.
Carter's op-ed is right on. Americans should listen.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (341+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, absdoggy, billmosby, david mizner, One Pissed Off Liberal, Kathleen McClellan, Aspe4, Dallasdoc, Gooserock, NMDad, Crabby Abbey, Terra Mystica, Romberry, rb608, Only Needs a Beat, PhilJD, ffour, terryhallinan, nogo postal, greengemini, Claudius Bombarnac, Indiana Bob, Smoh, gooderservice, anyname, gulfgal98, Saint Jimmy, ZhenRen, Mentatmark, slapshoe, BigAlinWashSt, maryabein, cslewis, ChemBob, Eddie L, Spirit Dancer, HairyTrueMan, Artandscience, Egg, operculum, Shockwave, Haningchadus14, fuzzyguy, 420 forever, bookwoman, The Walrus, MKinTN, skyounkin, markdd, annecros, poligirl, albrt, shopkeeper, snoopydawg, hubcap, LSophia, Damnit Janet, Medium Head Boy, allenjo, xaxnar, profh, pfiore8, trumpeter, cloudbustingkid, jbob, detroitmechworks, Kingsmeg, redlum jak, FrY10cK, sockpuppet, 4kedtongue, 3goldens, cruz, Chi, Lady Libertine, socal altvibe, Robobagpiper, shaharazade, DeadB0y, No one gets out alive, vacantlook, Nespolo, kevinpdx, tegrat, joanneleon, Andrew C White, angelajean, JayC, Lujane, DRo, Gustogirl, Temmoku, tgrshark13, Ginny in CO, glorificus, bluicebank, Jim R, jedennis, dull knife, Superskepticalman, Dr Colossus, joe shikspack, filby, rogerdaddy, Rogneid, itsbenj, BradyB, sawgrass727, dkmich, BlackSheep1, Lisa Lockwood, Hayate Yagami, atana, jeopardydd, zerelda, fritzrth, elengul, Tool, importer, ccasas, Skennet Boch, JVolvo, jayden, minorityusa, subtropolis, Jim P, strangedemocracy, JayBat, Knucklehead, SpecialKinFlag, priceman, sunny skies, anodnhajo, Detlef, chuckvw, Lefty Coaster, Chitown Kev, KVoimakas, zooecium, Pescadero Bill, DorothyT, Alexandre, dear occupant, diffrntdrummr, Russgirl, lunachickie, LucyandByron, TimmyB, chipmo, no way lack of brain, ceebee7, tidalwave1, commonmass, emal, Opieo, llbear, confitesprit, davelf2, Mariken, bobdevo, wsexson, artisan, limpidglass, m00finsan, chicagobleu, madhaus, dejavu, WisVoter, Karl Rover, cybersaur, Jazzenterprises, roses, Demeter Rising, NonnyO, Old Iowa Liberal, Shotput8, protectspice, Burned, RFK Lives, berko, angel d, Dem Beans, mkor7, radical simplicity, Simian, owlbear1, GainesT1958, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Laughing Vergil, Sharon Wraight, George Hier, TruthFreedomKindness, geph, AmericanAnt, Preston S, javan, rmonroe, expatjourno, jaf49, ovals49, BobTheHappyDinosaur, Sanctimonious, leonard145b, Bisbonian, aliasalias, pgm 01, ratzo, Funkygal, BlueInARedState, zerone, entrelac, Eddie C, histOries Marko, Little, StateofEuphoria, LamontCranston, Ignacio Magaloni, Sean Robertson, Flying Goat, Lurker in the Dark, WheninRome, MrJayTee, adigal, Son of a Cat, randallt, OLinda, JesseCW, dharmafarmer, CT Hank, spunhard, Flyswatterbanjo, 2laneIA, Alumbrados, dewley notid, DawnN, Aaa T Tudeattack, TracieLynn, nailbender, Mokurai, blueoasis, newpioneer, pot, Mr Horrible, figurine, VictorLaszlo, kurt, JonBarleycorn, high coup haiku, icebergslim, CarolinW, seabos84, ichibon, doingbusinessas, psnyder, Oaktown Girl, WisePiper, JDWolverton, ashowboat, peachcreek, Dark UltraValia, Agathena, grimjc, mickT, Debs2, pickandshovel, wayoutinthestix, Rhysling, BrooklynJohnny, denise b, Gorestro, SteveLCo, ratmach, bnasley, Nica24, filkertom, Superpole, bunsk, bewild, Alice Olson, suejazz, PBnJ, davidseth, dradams, flash123, daveygodigaditch, roadbear, oldhippie, ewmorr, slatsg, Involuntary Exile, RebeccaG, dskoe, Zinman, SteveS Austin, dRefractor, MsGrin, triv33, for 6 too, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Sanuk, Bule Betawi, Keone Michaels, MJ via Chicago, tiggers thotful spot, gundyj, mint julep, DAO, Janetrhodes, recontext, lotlizard, mujr, fishwars, aufklaerer, HCKAD, babatunde, Leo in NJ, techno, peternight, Sunspots, montecristo, thegood thebad thedumb, Pat K California, DuzT, native, CTDemoFarmer, Nebraskablue, ornerydad, Carol in San Antonio, greenbastard, John Kelly, jo fish, flavor411, Liberal Thinking, wagdog, Earth Bear, rapala, m16eib, LaEscapee, jm214, eightlivesleft, CIndyCasella

    My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:55:20 AM PDT

  •  And again: (113+ / 0-)

    Even if all these attacks are thought to be right and proper in the context of these times and this President, the next Presidents will be free to use the same methods and technologies to attack other people and other U.S. citizens in whatever way they think necessary.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:01:47 AM PDT

    •  Carter's contrast of current policies (62+ / 0-)

      with pro-human rights steps U.S. has taken in the past is particularly stark:

      With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:05:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  right, i thought after reading that line (8+ / 0-)

          when??

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i thought that too... (20+ / 0-)

            upon reading that line.  then i considered that perhaps these things are relative.  america had made some progress in diminishing its excesses over a period of time and now the pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction again.  
            my cynical side says that the kind of people who lead nation-states (not only politically, but also the economic and corporate elites) are not the sort of people whose behaviors are determined by moral values; rather, they are motivated by personal profit and personal power.  so at any given time, none of these reprehensible behaviors that violate moral standards of human rights are "off the table."  they are only suppressed and/or the fact of their suppression is used as fodder for public relations campaigns which in turn improve the elites profits and power.

            if we are ever going to "solve" the problem of man's inhumanity to man, we are probably going to have to find a way to change the incentives for certain behaviors of ruling elites.  this will be difficult at best and may not be possible, because it would probably require the organization of vast numbers of people across national boundaries to demand this change and wield their power of consent to obtain the elites acquiescence.

            so says my inner cynic.

            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

            by joe shikspack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:30:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The civil rights movement in the U.S. (5+ / 0-)

              starts with free speech, by abolishing private money control of politics. Like Pompeii after Vesuvius hit it, democracy was stopped in the 1970's by Buckley v. Valeo. Carter was the last democratically elected president and he is the foremost proponent of democracy in the world. Whatever he proposes should be adopted and advanced by those who support democracy.

            •  Re: Change the incentives (0+ / 0-)

              Like doing away with income taxes and replacing them with wealth taxes?

              Or setting the top marginal income tax at 125%

              I'm a fucking retard.

              by Helpless on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:00:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i was thinking something more like... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis

                the idea of people deciding that the 1948 declaration of human rights means something and that governments that did not follow it would not be consented to by their people, supported by the people of every other nation on earth.  this loss of consent would dissolve their government and their legitimacy, leaving them international pariahs.

                i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                by joe shikspack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:25:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. Indians. Slavery (ongoing, overseas, (3+ / 0-)

            and bigger than ever - out of sight  . . . . .)  It's the Euro/American way!

            I spent many years in multinational business environments.   Manna trumps morality just about 100% of the time.  I have a shitload of untold stories as I am sure, others do as well.  For example, some 35 years ago,  an adhesive chemist I was friends with confided that a very well known and widely used food packaging adhesive was silently withdrawn from the market, after years of use, because it was laced with PCBs.  I never read a word about it in the press, and that was my field!

        •  The atomic bombs... (12+ / 0-)

          saved millions of lives (mostly Japanese) that would have been lost had the US and its allies invaded Japan. Japanese civilians were being equipped with sharpened bamboo sticks and encouraged to participate in rear-guard actions once US troops had occupied their villages. The Japanese killed millions of Chinese prior to and during WWII.  

          However, we certainly do practice human rights inconsistently and at our own convenience.

          "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

          by VA6thDem on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:13:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dropping them on non-inhabited areas would (36+ / 0-)

            have served the same purpose of terrifying the populace into surrender. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were saved from regular bombing in order to experiment and test the effectiveness of the weapons. It was an immoral act to drop them on the centers of both cities. Both were not military targets so the largest number of casualties were women and children.

            Japan was on the verge of collapse. The US had to rush the bombing program in order to drop them before Japan could fully surrender.

            •  Not true... (8+ / 0-)

              They were saving their resources for the main invasion. They had over 2,000 flight worthy aircraft in reserve, thousands of suicide boats and had caches of ammunition all across the country waiting for the invasion. They also correctly guessed/surmised the US' planned invasion points. Would more fire-bombing been more humane than the A-bombs? The March 9/10 Tokyo raid killed an estimated 100,000 people. The Japanese were not ready to surrender. Hirohito only surrendered when he knew he could maintain his position as emperor within the framework of unconditional surrender.

              "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

              by VA6thDem on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:14:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not true- (6+ / 0-)

                the decision to keep Hirohito on the throne was made by MacArthur after the signing of the armistice and after MacArthur had met the emperor. MacArthur personally wrote the new constitution almost single handedly and much of it is still enforce today. The only good thing that that man ever did and it does not make up for all the bad stuff starting with firing on the Bonus Army. The Japanese surrender was unconditional, no strings attached. And no back room deals to save the royals.

                Let me add that Russia was within days of sending troops to Japan after declaring was on them in July 45. By using the atomic weapons we kept the Russians out of an active role in Japan and showed off our nifty new weapons. Stalin had known about the weapon but acted nonchalant when told of it by Truman. Maybe Truman wanted to make a point.

                •  I agree. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  expatjourno, Sharon Wraight, kurt

                  I also concur with your opinion about the bloviating self-important MacArthur. I would add his Inchon landing to his list of accomplishments making it 2 rather than 1 (if you expand beyond WWII). I certainly agree. It fit MacArthur's egomania to have the Emperor of Japan reporting to him. Good catch.

                  "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

                  by VA6thDem on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:50:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the targeting criteria. It was to be used (4+ / 0-)

                as an instrument of terror - both for Japan and the world - not for an attack on military installations.

                Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945

                7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

                A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

                B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

                8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

                A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

            •  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically chosen (10+ / 0-)

              because they were industrial centers that had large civilian populations. Hitting military installations with them would have had the same effect, but we wanted to let them know who was boss.

            •  this is wrong.. (0+ / 0-)

              remember the us did not have a large supply of bombs to drop at the time.  And as it was it took two before the japanese surrendered.  the us did not have spare bombs to use to frighen them with.  and the cities the dropped them on where also military targets.  I dont hear you crying about dresden either. and realise the effects of fallout were not know at the time.

              We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

              by delver rootnose on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the selection criteria for choosing targets (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slatsg, lotlizard, Hayate Yagami

                There was one hell of a lot of "crying about Dresden" from within the US military. The US originally did not want to bomb the city. Alsom, very few of the military targets in and around Dresden where hit. The bombing was concentrated on the city center and was designed to strike terror into the civilian populace. You just need to look at the amount of incendiary devices that were dropped.

                The US already knew about the dangers of fallout from atomic bombs from tests before hand.

                Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945
                ...
                6. Status of Targets

                A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. These targets are:
                ...
                7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

                A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
                ...
                9. Radiological Effect

                A. Dr. Oppenheimer presented a memo he had prepared on the radiological effects of the gadget. This memo will not be repeated in this summary but it is being sent to General Groves as a separate exhibit. The basic recommendations of this memo are (1) for radiological reasons no aircraft should be closer than 2-1/2 miles to the point of detonation (for blast reasons the distance should be greater) and (2) aircraft must avoid the cloud of radio-active materials. If other aircraft are to conduct missions shortly after the detonation a monitoring plane should determine the areas to be avoided.

              •  The effects of fallout were not known? (0+ / 0-)

                Your science history books didn't mention Marie Curie?

                Well, go read the instructions on how far away the planes had to be before the bombs went off. They likely needed specific info on the fallout effects from an actual bomb exploding. Details...

                I have included Dresden's firebombing being as inhumane as the Japanese cities.

                "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:51:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  there is a difference between.. (0+ / 0-)

                  ..radiation created from the explosion reaction and the radioactice debris and how far it would disperse and how radioactive it would remain afterwords.  And also, the long term effects of exposure to said debris.

                  We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                  by delver rootnose on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:44:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There had been a comment about the plan (0+ / 0-)

                    to collect that detailed information when the bombs were dropped. The specifics were not really important to the decision, the arguments against it included the

                    - Human foolishness of glorying in war and the shedding of human blood. The bombs were clearly going to go far beyond the shedding of human blood. We had enough knowledge about the effects of radiation to know the damage was going to be catastrophic initially and over time.

                    My daughter is dyslexic and has to work very conscientiously to write clearly. She's a 4.0 engineering student - even aces English and writing assignments. Your spelling and other writing problems don't strike me as dyslexic. Maybe there is some other reason you write so poorly as to be easily misunderstood.

                    I don't know how to respond to the second comment because the follow up sentence is unclear. What are you trying to say? The shock wave and heat were far worse than what the 'regular' bombs produced. Isn't that an effect of the radiation?

                    My father in law was in the Army Air Corps during WWII and then a career officer in the new Air Force. He was a bomber navigator, then a POW (18 mo) then a wing commander. Oldest son ran electronic repair shop for fighter planes. Interesting conversations.

                    Then there's my mom's friend and neighbor at her apartment building. WWII Navy vet who was in the crew that went in after the bombing to find what was left, including people. Just a little PTSD from that experience.

                    War is a racket perpetuated by the wealthy to maintain the highest potential income. Fabricating the Cold War started with dropping those bombs. Both the US and USSR spent ridiculous amounts of money on military expenditures - especially compared to the stuff Ike mentioned in his Iron Cross speech.

                    We are still getting into unnecessary, expensive wars that do little but kill and dislocate millions while destroying their countries, health and humanity. I just want to be sure we understand what stupidity we got ourselves into in the past.

                    "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                    by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 02:54:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I do not disagree... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...with the stupidity of war arguments you make.  They are correct.  However, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan during WW2 saved American lives.  The argument that dropping them was unneeded has been debunked many times considering how many American lives would have been required to achieve the end of the war without them.  There is even reasonable argument that there would have been more Japanese deaths if they had not been used.  I am unsure of those arguments though.

                      Go ahead and criticize my spelling and typing it shows the weakness of your own arguments.  The rest of you comments are interesting but anecdotal.

                      I am done commenting on this.  It is a dead thread.

                      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                      by delver rootnose on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:57:01 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  and to ad... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...i would bet the info on how far the planes had to be from the blast had much more to do with the shock wave and the heat generated rather than the fallout.  And by fallout I do not mean the radiation from the reaction causing the blast.

                  We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                  by delver rootnose on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:46:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Except we wanted to drop the bombs regardless (4+ / 0-)

            as it had been clear for months Japan was ready to surrender.

            Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth. - Lucy Parsons

            by cruz on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:47:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  Start here. (2+ / 2-)
                Recommended by:
                JayBat, Bisbonian
                Hidden by:
                volleyboy1, JNEREBEL

                You can find the rest in libraries on your own, like I did.

                Was Hiroshima Necessary?

                Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth. - Lucy Parsons

                by cruz on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yikes! Holocaust deniers? (17+ / 0-)

                  Sure - great place to start.....something.

                  The same place that has these "experts"?

                  Dr. Butz is the author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry.
                  Robert Faurisson is Europe's leading Holocaust revisionist scholar.
                  Irving's reputation took a beating following the publication in 1977 of Hitler's War, a monumental work that was hysterically criticized for its contention that Hitler did not order the extermination of Europe's Jews: the mass killings must have been carried out by Himmler and his cohorts behind Hitler's back, Irving concluded at that time. So enraged was the Zionist Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith by Irving's book that the shadowy organization promptly added his name to its ever-growing list of enemies.
                  And we should believe their revisions of the Pacific war, as well?

                  from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                  by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:11:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Try Ike, MacArthur, and contemporaries (4+ / 0-)

                    When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

                    by Bisbonian on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:10:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  They don't seem quite as definitive (0+ / 0-)

                      From what I'm reading there they had reservations, or even outright objections, but not at all based in the same reasoning. Fascinating stuff to read though - can you imagine if there had been blogs then such that they could have communicated their thinking in real time? Of course, I doubt Ike or Truman or MacArthur would have done so in public given their official roles, but no doubt posters of the day would have happily tossed block quotes from interviews and books back and forth.

                      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                      by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  historical ass covering (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dhonig, Catte Nappe, howarddream

                      and revisionist history.

                      MacArthur was fully convinced an invasion was necessary and plans extended well into 1946.

                      Japan had reserves of supplies and weapons and 5 million troops- two million on the home islands.

                      The Decision to use the Bomb

                      Though her industries had been seriously crippled by air bombardment and naval blockade and her armed forces were critically deficient in many of the resources of war, Japan was still far from surrender. She had ample reserves of weapons and ammunition and an army of 5,000,000 troops, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. The latter could be expected to put up a strong resistance to invasion. In the opinion of the intelligence experts, neither blockade nor bombing alone would produce unconditional surrender before the date set for invasion. And the invasion itself, they believed, would be costly and possibly prolonged.

                      According to these intelligence reports, the Japanese leaders were fully aware of their desperate situation but would continue to fight in the hope of avoiding complete defeat by securing a better bargaining position. Allied war-weariness and disunity, or some miracle, they hoped, would offer them a way out. "The Japanese believe," declared an intelligence estimate of 30 June, "that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction, and there are as yet no indications that they are ready to accept such terms."

                      Whether that was correct or not, that is what military intelligence believed.  The invasion was going to happen, and tens of thousands of Americans and even more Japanese were going to be killed.
                      •  Japan was in the process of surrending when (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Catte Nappe, kurt

                        they were faced with the entry of Russia in the war against them. They simply ran out of time.

                        The Decision to use the Bomb

                        Why, therefore, was it not possible to issue the warning before a Soviet declaration of war against Japan and rely on that event, together with an intensified air bombardment, to produce the desired result? If together they could not secure Japan's surrender, would there not still be time to use the bomb before the scheduled invasion of Kyushu in November? [61]

                        No final answer to this question is possible with the evidence at hand. But one cannot ignore the fact that some responsible officials feared the political consequences of Soviet intervention and hoped that ultimately it would prove unnecessary. This feeling may unconsciously have made the atom bomb solution more attractive than it might otherwise have been. [62] Some officials may have believed, too, that the bomb could be used as a powerful deterrent to Soviet ex-pansion in Europe, where the Red tide had successively engulfed Rumania, Bulgaria, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. In an interview with three of the top scientists in the Manhattan Project early in June, Mr. Byrnes did not, according to Leo Szilard, argue that the bomb was needed to defeat Japan, but rather that it should be dropped to "make Russia more manageable in Europe."
                        ...
                        The receipt of the Potsdam Declaration in Japan led to frantic meetings to decide what should be done. It was finally decided not to reject the note but to await the results of the Soviet overture. At this point, the military insisted that the government make some statement to the people, and on 28 July Premier Suzuki declared to the press that Japan would ignore the declaration, a statement that was interpreted by the Allies as a rejection. [78]

                        To the Americans the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration confirmed the view that the military clique was still in control of Japan and that only a decisive act of violence could remove it. The instrument for such action lay at hand in the atomic bomb; events now seemed to justify its use. But in the hope that the Japanese might still change their minds, Truman held off orders on the use of the bomb for a few days. Only silence came from Tokyo, for the Japanese were waiting for a reply from the Soviet Government, which would not come until the return of Stalin and Molotov from Potsdam on 6 August. Prophetically, Foreign Minister Togo wrote Sato on 2 August, the day the Potsdam Conference ended, that he could not afford to lose a single day in his efforts to conclude arrangements with the Russians "if we were to end the war before the assault on our mainland." [79] By that time, President Truman had already decided on the use of the bomb.

                        •  That source is from WAY back. (0+ / 0-)

                          I understand initial history can depend on who the victors were and that even accurate reports can be 'edited' later to reflect a different light on what is then perceived with different moral conclusions.

                          The 'revisionist' history that has developed over the years has been possible because a lot of previously classified documents that have been declassified were released. Carroll cites what seems like hundreds of them in House of War.

                          New scientific information can also reveal misinformation.

                          The excellent Fog of War is another source of more current reflection, from McNamara who worked with LeMay.

                          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                          by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:34:58 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Hidden for using IHR as a Source (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JNEREBEL, howarddream

                  What next... davidduke.com or perhaps Stormfront?

                  "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                  by volleyboy1 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:49:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Points taken (0+ / 0-)

                  about IHR.

                  I didn't look at the supplier of the page, but the summary, which - regardless of who compiled it - is largely correct.

                  This is not "revisionist history," a reactionary phrase for when historical facts challenge the oppressor's point of view, but a fuller, more complete history. And as others have noted, there are plenty of legitimate sources to back this up.

                  Having said that, this is the first time (I think) I've had a comment hidden. Lesson learned. :)

                  Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth. - Lucy Parsons

                  by cruz on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:39:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Should I trust you, or Ike and Mac? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ginny in CO

                Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:16:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You absolutely have no idea (14+ / 0-)

              what you are talking about which I find frightening. The fact is that leaders of any country at war have to have credibility in order for warring countries to sit down and make treaties with them. Germany proved in WW11 that unconditional surrender was the only way because their leaders had violently usurped prior truces and treaties.

              Japan was exactly the same and none knew it better than us. They had been taken over by a militaristic govt who warped the idea of honor and nationalism along with the Asian concept of face. Death was more preferable than dishonor. The citizens were made to feel the same. Don't believe it?  look at Okinawa where scores of Japanese woman jumped off cliffs with their children to commit suicide rather than surrender to American troops.

              Look at the Casualty figures and the number of Japanese taken prisoner during some of the major battles ; Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guadalcanal and Okinawa. It was normal to see in excess of 10,000  Japanese troops dead with less than 5% of them prisoners. As important. The ratio of Japanese who were killed in action to the ratio of Americans killed in action were as much as 100% of the Japanese killed . Usually Just a 10% difference separated the troops killed on either side. The Pacific theater was , incredibly enough, the most vicious part of WW11 but the war with Germany was far easier to cover.

              Hard-fought battles on the Japanese home islands of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and others resulted in horrific casualties on both sides but finally produced a Japanese defeat. Of the 117,000 Japanese troops defending Okinawa, 94 percent died.[79] Faced with the loss of most of their experienced pilots, the Japanese increased their use of kamikaze tactics in an attempt to create unacceptably high casualties for the Allies. The U.S. Navy proposed to force a Japanese surrender through a total naval blockade and air raids.[89]

              Towards the end of the war as the role of strategic bombing became more important, a new command for the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific was created to oversee all U.S. strategic bombing in the hemisphere, under United States Army Air Forces General Curtis LeMay. Japanese industrial production plunged as nearly half of the built-up areas of 64 cities were destroyed by B-29 firebombing raids. On 9–10 March 1945 alone, about 100,000 people were killed in a fire storm caused by an attack on Tokyo.

              They weren't ready to surrender then. Not a chance, as long as the military was in control of the govt.

              Finally, go to Frontline on PBS and search for interviews with aging Japanese soldiers who were in the "rape of Nanking" China in 1937. The old soldiers spoke fondly of tossing Chinese babies up in the air and bayoneting them in half  on the way down.

              The Marines were brutal as the war progressed. As I read JB Sledges, account of the war (who was a professor of Microbiology before he retired and died in 2001), The Marines brutality was a byproduct of seeing things like medics being shot deliberately, which was avoided by both sides in Europe, Penises in the Mouths of their friends who were tortured and killed. The list went on. The unrelenting Heat, the lack of water, support, and the absolute willingness of Japanese soldiers to die before surrender created it's own piece of hell for every person that was there.

              They had to be to survive. They had horrific casualties that have only been outdone by the Civil War. They fought in the most unforgiving and extreme locations. All so ill-informed people like you could post on boards and imply that we were the predators . Do some research before posting. If anything, most of the troops were angry that Truman hadn't dropped them earlier so they could have avoided the carnage on Okinawa.

              I'll be the first to tell you that every war after WW11, was avoidable and it most cases completely unnecessary. But you won't find me second guessing decisions made by men who have seen the absolute worse that human beings could do to each other 70 + years ago.

              •  If Lincoln had atomic bombs should he (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mkor7, JesseCW, ffour

                have used them against the south? That goes to the heart of the question "Would have dropped the bomb if the Japanese had been white people?'. Would not the American people have fought as hard to defend their homeland as the Japanese would have. Would it take anything less than unconditional surrender to get us to give up? So would it then be all right to drop nuclear weapons on us?

                •  That is simply nonsense (4+ / 0-)

                  It would require time travel to arrange, as in Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South. If the US had had the science (Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity) and technology (airplanes and radio, not just railroads and telegraphs) of eighty years in the future, they would have had a totally different political and military situation. No meaningful assessment is possible.

                  We could discuss what would have happened if the Allies had had nukes before D-Day, or at any point from there to V-E Day. According to Oppenheimer, that might have been possible if Edward Teller had been willing to help the war effort instead of working only on H-bombs. For sure they would have been used in Germany. Compare the firebombing of Dresden, which takes us to another piece of science fiction, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five.

                  Busting the Dog Whistle code.

                  by Mokurai on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:02:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Japan burned as well (4+ / 0-)

                    prior to the A bomb and still they fought on. Anyone who thinks that they were willing to surrender prior is engaging in sheer speculation.

                    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:13:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not sheer speculation. There are a lot (0+ / 0-)

                      of declassified documents, letters from leaders involved and other sources that clearly relay a different version.

                      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                      by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:57:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  That analysis does not take into consideration the (0+ / 0-)

                      impact of Russia and China entering into combat on the Japanese homeland. Did Truman's decision have anything to do with limiting Soviet influence in the Far East? By July of 45 the lines were becoming clearer in Europe. And a quick study of American military doctrine since the 1870s indicates the stragetic importance of the Far East in American military thinking, especially naval doctrine. See The Importance of Sea Power by Alfred Thayer Mahon published in 1890. Every naval officer since has memorized much of it and it had a huge impact on the admirals running the Pacific War. And Truman's advisers too. Also remember that Japan defeated Russia in 1905 and we know how vengeful the Russians can be.

                  •  It is not nonsense if it is a question of (0+ / 0-)

                    morality. If the Crusaders had the bomb would they be morally justified in using it? Or Michael Collins in the Irish Revolution. It really is a matter of where you come down on Immanuel Kant. It is moral if and only if I would want it done to me. Or Jesus's Golden Rule. Or Confucius.

                    Science fiction asks moral questions. And the best science fiction does not allow technology to overshadow the moral questions.

                    But if you argue that we were right to drop the bomb on Japan then you must acknowledge a scenario where someone will feel entitled to drop the bomb on us. Same with drones and torture.

                •  Go to a Sci-Fi discussion somewhere else (0+ / 0-)

                  This isn't a farcical what if ...this is what happened. There are always historical revisionists who can take little bits of contrary evidence and manipulate them to back up nutty theory.

                  Then there are there are the  "what ifs"

                  I tend to focus on the realities we know from our own experience. The war was over in Germany. DC was getting besieged to end the war with Japan as quickly as possible. This was the America we all know. There was no war profiteering thans to FDR thus corporations were anxious to get off war footing. The pressure at home was humongous. Too bad we didn't/don't see the same thing now  when wars stretch out over a decade.
                   Early on, it was established that nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Japan would be  the only acceptable way to end the war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, not only killed their credibility but was also not the way of the Japanese warrior belief system.  To align one reality against another more recent one: We also saw with Osama Bin Laden just as their religion or belief system ordered an attack only begin after the enemy was warned.
                     The resources and manpower required for a hostile invasion of Japan was too much to ask the American people. Truman saw a way out and took it. He killed two birds with one stone as he also warned the Soviets what they faced if they tried to enlarge their spheres of influence.
                   No one was crying for the Japanese then. It only spurts out here and there generally from people like you who are completely and utterly out of touch with reality.
                     Playing your time travel game:  Even if you could go back in time, thinking what you know now would be relative then, you probably would have been arrested by Hoover if not beaten in a back alley.

            •  Utter Bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kefauver
              as it had been clear for months Japan was ready to surrender.
              Can't believe this got 4 recs.

              I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

              by howarddream on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:37:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The bombs (19+ / 0-)

            especially the second was more about sending a message to Russia than Japan. Said message being We have the technology AND the willingness to use it.

          •  The Atomic bombs followed months of (12+ / 0-)

            fire bombing of Japanese cities. See The Fog of War regarding how much the US used firebombing in areas of high civilian residence during WWII, thanks significantly to Curtis Lemay. [WSJ,  Emphasis added.]

            Following Pearl Harbor, this country asked its military leaders to commit acts that, when taken out of context, can be viewed as war crimes today [even in context]. Between March and August of 1945, 38-year-old Gen. Curtis LeMay ordered the deaths of more civilians than any other man in U.S. history. No one else comes close, not William Tecumseh Sherman, not George S. Patton -- no one.

            On the night of March 9, 1945, LeMay sent 346 huge B-29 bombers loaded with napalm ... to Tokyo. The first planes dropped their incendiaries on the front and back of the target area -- like lighting up both ends of a football field at night. The rest of the planes filled in the middle. More than 16 square miles of Japan's capital city were gutted, two million people were left homeless, and 100,000 were dead.

            It didn't end there. Washington gave LeMay the green light as his bombers burned 64 more cities. He used the World Almanac and just went down the list by population. Altogether, an estimated 350,000 people lost their lives.

            This followed the extensive firebombing of Germany, also excessive. Or as McNamara summarized in Fog of War, it was about the utter disregard for proportionality.

            As Carroll exposed in House of War using declassified documents from that time, the bombs were dropped to send a message to the USSR. The Dulles brothers were obsessed with the USSR and contributed significantly to the fabrication of the Cold War.

            The '48 declaration was an honest attempt by some to get power out of the abuses, while others saw it as a great camouflage for America to be able to do what it wanted, while holding others up to a standard we didn't follow.

            Undercover bipartisan support...

            A few years ago I came across William Strauss' The Fourth Turning, which I did not have time to read but found interesting in what I did understand. At the time I wondered who in our country could be the pivotal teacher to inspire the change. Carter came to mind then, it grows stronger every time speaks up.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmmm. If I had been put in charge of defeating (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nickrud, ozsea1, kurt

              Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, what would I have done?

              Honest thought experiment.

              Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

              by Pescadero Bill on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:29:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Far beyond a 'thought experiment'. (6+ / 0-)

                It is supported by a lot of sheer data, and reflections by those who were a part of those battles and the war - in high positions.

                The term is OVERKILL - by many, many times what was needed. Dropping the atomic bombs has particularly been exposed as unnecessary and primarily to send the message to Russia. The aspect of using it to get information on the effects of the explosion as explained in a comment above was new to me. It fits with some of the other information about the people and institutions who worked on it - MIT comes to mind.

                There is a tremendous resistance to looking at our actions to learn what was right and what was wrong so we do less of the wrong. It is exactly why we are still grappling with the problem. Comes under what we are convinced apparently saved us in the past - which is therefore unquestionably moral. There are many evaluations of the WWII tactics and campaigns, some of which question the extent of the bombing in both theaters.

                Some of us are more willing to consider the facts with 20/20 hindsight. Thought experiments may suggest what other courses could have been tried. Since the context always changes, the primary take away is to learn what questions need to be asked in any new circumstance in order to get the best answers, not just what seems right.

                "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:53:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  There is a credible case to be made that if the (4+ / 0-)

                resources expended on "saturation bombing" and "dehousing campaigns" had been used to build fighter-bombers and ground-attack aircraft that had focused on air superiority and the destruction of rail and shiping, the war would have ended earlier with far far less loss of civilian life.

                Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:20:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think there's something to this, and I've been (4+ / 0-)

                  involved in the above debate for a very long time.  But the U.S. moved away from 'precision' bombing (toward 'saturation') after the experience of our 8th AF vs the RAF in 1943 and 44 over Germany.  We aimed for vital war infrastructure, during the day; the British aimed for the cities at night.  We took far, far more casualties than the Brits did, while we couldn't be certain of the measurable benefit.  So we adopted the British strategy of burning civilians.  Which they adopted from the Nazis...

                  •  After the war, we found out that we'd been (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lotlizard, Ginny in CO

                    doing a lot more damage to German production capacity than the euphemistically named "De-housing" efforts did.

                    What we never tried, though, was forgoing large level bombers (at least for everything besides hitting submarine pens, oil fields, and large shipyards/rail stations) and focusing on true precision bombing and air superiority.

                    With dive bombing and Thunderbolts armed with rockets, we could do a fairly good job of avoiding civilian deaths.

                    The commanders decided to use terrorism, instead.

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:45:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  right, but WE might have taken more casualties w/ (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lotlizard, Ginny in CO

                      more precision-bombing and that was very much a factor in USAF decision making by '44.  Avoiding civilian casualties was, if anything, an inverse factor for LeMay et al.  So yeah, you are absolutely right -- LeMay and the high command opted for exactly what Hitler had called "terror bombing".  Which was no more effective against the German state than  it had been against the British state.

                      It's hard to know if that was even the purpose.  Just re-reading "Gravity's Rainbow", which is a very interesting meditation on all this.  I bet Boeing made more $$ building 'Forts than they did making P-47s...

            •  Seeing what happened to Nazi Germany in its war (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melfunction

              with the allies should not the Japanese have expected the same treatment from the same allies? Look at the destruction of both Germany and Japan and the reports of rape and mistreatment of women and children at the hands of Soviet troops. And the fear that payback is a motha****. If you were a Japanese civilian wouldn't you expect to get the Nanking treatment from the Chinese and Americans?

              They pledged to fight to the death because thats what you do when you are being invaded. And they knew that they would be held accountable for the war crimes committed by their military, even if they were innocent civilians.

              •  Well, just off the top of my head. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bisbonian, kurt

                How much did the Japanese civilians really know about what was happening in Germany, let alone what their government was doing in China, etc.?

                And even if they had known enough, how much influence would they have had on their leaders? Those that could overcome the strong nationalism of that country.  

                Are you advocating that just because a country's leaders, with support from citizens who probably aren't fully informed and are more likely intentionally misled, are pursuing a stupid policy of aggression; we should fire bomb or nuke them 'back to the stone age'? Or even the iron age. Just because we can do it does it mean we have to?

                The banksters weren't at all concerned about how many would be victims of their financial gambling. They were not breaking as many laws as a lot of people think - the laws had been repealed. They weren't using ethics or morality, they aren't necessary in conducting business if no law enforces it. So the citizens bear the burden of what those in power, with far more knowledge, do to destroy life and liberty, and any retaliation instigated.

                Americans sure didn't jump all over the payback problem when BushCo insisted torture wasn't really torture, and even when it was, being able to try to get to their ends, justified any consequences of the means used. More awareness and open disagreement that the Japanese had? Definitely. Effect on policy? Very small, mostly through lengthy court battles.

                "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:51:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Japanese civilians and most in the military... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kurt

                  new little until it was literally on their doorstep. Japanese military leaders having lost Okinawa thought of that campaign a success because it bought far more time for defense of the homeland than they believed it would. Hirohito himself referenced the atomic bombs in his unprecedented speech of August 14 to the Japanese people in announcing surrender...

                  To our good and loyal subjects:  After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

                  We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.

                  To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which we lay close to the heart.

                  Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.

                  But now the war has lasted for nearly four years.  Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

                  *Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.   Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization*.

                  Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors?  This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

                  We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia.

                  The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met death [otherwise] and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.

                  The welfare of the wounded and the war sufferers and of those who lost their homes and livelihood is the object of our profound solicitude.  The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great.

                  We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects.  However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the [unavoidable] and suffering what is unsufferable.  Having been able to save and maintain the structure of the Imperial State, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.

                  Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion that may engender needless complications, of any fraternal contention and strife that may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.

                  Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith of the imperishableness of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities, and the long road before it.  Unite your total strength to be devoted to the construction for the future.  Cultivate the ways of rectitude, nobility of spirit, and work with resolution so that you may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world.

                  "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

                  by VA6thDem on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:05:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You do realize that you're arguing that terrorism (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    oldhippie, Nada Lemming

                    can be a good thing, right?

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:22:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You realize you appear to be arguing that... (0+ / 0-)

                      we should have folded our tent after Pearl Harbor and let Japanese expansion cover all of East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Southwest Pacific, the Marshall Islands, the Admiralty Islands, etc. Ask older Chinese civilians about how the Japanese treated them.

                      "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

                      by VA6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:49:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  We Still Kill People to "Save" Them Today (12+ / 0-)

            The claim that we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by dropping two atomic bombng on their cities to "save" other Japanese civilians from death is one of the most outlandish things I have ever read.

            However, that statement also shows how fucking stupid we are as a country.  For this is the new propaganda line used on us stupid Americans, that the purpose of our country's wars is to "save" the people of the country.  

            We invaded Iraq to "save" them from Saddam.  We are in Afganistan to "save" them from the Taliban. We will bomb Iran to "save" them from the Ayatollahs.

            We kind and noble Americans don't invade, bomb, or occupy other countries because of political or economic reasons.  Oh no, we kill them because we love their people and want to help them, or so our government tells us.

            Why would anyone hate us for our freedom when we fall for this government produced shit?  What freedom do we actually have, when we allow such obvious lies to justify our country killing and maiming people all over the Globe?  I'll tell you, we have the freedom of sheep.    

             

          •  Not only that, many deaths elsewhere in Asia (0+ / 0-)

            the war would have cost many more lives over the succeeding months in Indonesia, Burma, China, Indochina, the Philippines and more. POW camps and internment camps would have been liberated much later with fewer survivors... many reduced to starvation as supplies dried up. There were already famine areas and epidemics all across the war zone.... even just the Japanese lives saved was considerable. Total death rate from all causes was many thousands per week. The lives saved from all war related causes in the Pacific theater from just the first 3 weeks or so after surrender equaled all the immediate and subsequent deaths from the bombs. Add to that the likely continuation well into the fall and early winter and omitting the deaths from an invasion of the home islands and the lives saved amount to several million.

            Also, the Russians were completely ready to declare war and invade Manchuria and occupy Korea etc. but were still biding their time until their invasion was set into motion sooner due to  the Atomic bombings. They could not afford to sit back any longer (they would have done it before winter but not for a while yet). The original plan was to wait for a total Japanese collapse or until it was nearer. As it was when they had to act they found the Kwangtung army in Manchuria was no match for them. But if the war had dragged on for several more months they would have hardly had to fire a shot and just walked in at a time of their choosing while many across the war zones would have continued to die. (see the Russian response to the uprisings in Warsaw against the Nazis... they just camped out and let others do their work for them....)

            And lastly the peace faction in the Imperial Japanese court were weak and not making any progress in changing the Emperor's mind. members of this group have stated clearly that they felt the Bombs as horrific as they were made the difference and ultimately saved many lives. The Warriors code had the War party preparing the entire country to fight for every inch as they did in Okinawa. The civilian death toll in an invasion would have been colossal. The War faction literally wanted to retain honor with a fight to the death rather than surrender...

            Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

            by IreGyre on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:18:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You might want to read the opinions of (4+ / 0-)

            knowledgeable people, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, various other airpower experts at the time of the nuclear bombings:  http://www.doug-long.com/...

            When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

            by Bisbonian on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Japanese were on the verge of surrender (3+ / 0-)

            and had already put out feelers.

            They were without oil and essentially no navy left.  Our blockade was tight and getting tighter.  They were no longer able to feed their own people.  

            The did not surrender, though, until the USSR attacked them.  It was that, and not the bombs, that finally caused them to surrender.

            Because when your only choices are occupation by Uncle Sam or Uncle Joe, you pick Uncle Sam if you're smart.

            It is completely self contradictory to argue that they would happily have expended millions of civilian lives in hand to hand battles with pikes V rifles, but that they were so terrified of 100,000 civilians being killed that they surrendered.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  They made that story up after the fact (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, Ginny in CO

            As John Kenneth Galbraith had the courage to testify.

        •  I thought about the letter that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Monseñor Romero sent to then President Carter...

        •  Oh boy, look what you did. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight, oldhippie

          What was this dairy about? I can't remember.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:27:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Since when exactly has the US killing of (42+ / 0-)

      Civilians been unthinkable?

      Or were all those Indians we massacred considered soldiers? What about the populations of Hiroshima and Nagisaki?

      This is a horseshit sentiment that has nothing to do with anything that's ever been reality.

      Not that I agree with the drone program but lets be honest here the only thing that's changed is that technology has made it easier.

      •  If you know of another assassination program (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, JVolvo, lotlizard

        aside from JFK's Phoenix Program, kindly list it.

        Striking at kings and presidents and other heads of government outside of war is excluded.  I would also exclude the special case of Pancho Villa.

        Best,  Terry

        •  Are you serious? Up until 1976 (9+ / 0-)

          it was routine.

          http://articles.cnn.com/...

          David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:43:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why? (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mkor7, Bisbonian, kurt, snoopydawg, mickT, lotlizard
          Striking at kings and presidents and other heads of government outside of war is excluded.
          Frankly I don't care if we don't actually do the assassination. Setting up and fostering the conditions which persuade the civilians to take out a head of government for reasons that are not in their best interests has just as many harmful consequences.

          And leads folks like Rev Jeremiah Wright to preach about 'chickens coming home to roost'. Maybe Obama should have been there that day?

          See: S Kinzer Overthrow!

          Can we agree that assassination and other means of elimination were US policy and practice long before the CIA was formed and given the lead role? Aided and abetted by the US Military to enforce the financial interests of American corporations.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:27:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why? Self preservation. (0+ / 0-)

            If one head of state massacres another country's civilians, that's just business as usual.  But if he takes out another head of state, it sets a dangerous (for him) precedent.  He's next on the list.

            Thus has it always been.

            When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

            by Bisbonian on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:15:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think there is zero possibility we would (0+ / 0-)

              attempt even an undercover operation against the head of state of a country that could band together with enough other countries, and attempt to assassinate POTUS.

              If the scenario somehow managed to get that far, the retaliation by the US would be, uh, bombing them into the stone age.

              As I said, I don't care if we do the assassinations or foster conditions in the country so the citizens depose their leader against their own self interests because of US manipulation of facts, etc.

              Lining up armies across a field and marching the lines toward each other while firing when they came in range was a war tactic that endured for ?? a very long time.

              The emergence of the US as a superpower after WWII was even eclipsed when the USSR failed. It's the biggest baddest military this planet has ever had, and there isn't another that comes close enough to attack.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:07:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm from Missouri. Show me. (0+ / 0-)

            [at least we lived there for some years. :-) ]

            Can we agree that assassination and other means of elimination were US policy and practice long before the CIA was formed
            I'm not in denial but asking for evidence.

            Nor am I questioning that the U.S. felt free to assassinate Allende in Chile and set up a horrendous government or knock off banana republics at will.

            The planned multiple assassinations of JFK and Obama seem to me a new departure that is most unwelcome and dangerous for all kinds of reasons.

            Best,  Terry

            •  I have Show Me genes :) (0+ / 0-)

              Kinzer is the shortest version of CIA subversive and not so subversive overthrows. Clarke went into some of the Clinton/Gore escapades - which actually end up being fairly acceptable, mostly because the drones then couldn't fire or drop bombs. By the time they got a ship positioned and a bomb ready to send, bin Laden was gone.

              Perhaps the problem is I don't see all that much difference between the past specific eliminations of  non-cooperative regimes or rulers (Hawaii, Phillipines, banana republics) often without an open declaration of war, or the kidnap from another country and bring them somewhere they could be tried (if they survived) and the assassination list.  

              I can see it is a somewhat different way to dispense US justice without due process, a trial etc. Made possible by new technology. Sounds like Gitmo to me, just without the torture and indefinite wait.

              Just to be perfectly clear, when I said that assassination, etc had been US policy and practice- it meant unofficial policy and practice as hidden or disguised as possible. Trying to overthrow the government to get better trade for our corps? Oh no, we are trying to help the people rid themselves of an oppressive dictator.

              One of the analogies I read about the danger of Bush's power grabs was the President's Toolbox. Basically from the first presidents, every time a new trick or strategy was devised to increase POTUS' power, it was a tool that went in the box. The opposition party would yell foul. Problem was when their next candidate got into power, the new tool was never removed from the box. So over the years, that power has grown very, very big. Even taking tools in the box and using them together in a new or different way, is building on what was already there.

              At this point, I guess there is the dual fear of what Obama is doing now and what the consequences might be, and what the next GOP POTUS will do with all the tools.

              All the problems have one deadly core. The 1 %. The power they have acquired trumps just about everything else, including POTUS. There is only one source of greater power. We the People. There will be no real change until or unless there is a sufficient, sustained, peaceful, non violent revolt.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:11:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You Would Dare Compare The Slaughter of (0+ / 0-)

                aboriginals, sometimes to the point of total extermination, to the somewhat more refined rules of war among civilized people genociding each other?

                How dare you?

                A woman in Sweden was going through the usual harangue against American imperialists.  I asked her sweetly about what Sweden had been doing to my Saami aboriginals [I am probably 1/4].

                "We love our Saami," replied the Swedish woman.

                Yes, indeed.  So do we all love such people.

                Not always easy to draw lines but happily there are some like the Swedish peaceniks draw - with love.

                My peaceful Cherokee/Swedish wife draws lines that only a rabid lunatic would cross and thus there is peace.

                Peace.

                Best, Terry

      •  You're right of course, but we can't change (36+ / 0-)

        the awful past.

        The story of Droney is still being written. The fact that our past is awash in blood doesn't require our future to be as well.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree to a certain extent. (5+ / 0-)

        The extermination campaign against native americans during the 19th century is a very good legal and moral analogy for this administration's systematic death squad program.  

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden for that matter) were horrific, but are treated differently under international law because the countries were officially at war.  

        In the rest of the developed world consumption is taxed to pay for education and health care, in the United States, health care and education are taxed to pay for consumption. Stirling Newberry

        by albrt on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:24:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can someone please clarify (5+ / 0-)

        "Killing of US citizens"? Some American citizens fought for the Germans during WWII. They were not spared. And then there's that Civil War.

        I think it's fair for Carter to criticize aggressive foreign policy. He always prefered peaceful negotiations over direct military force, and that's a fair position. Obama, however, campaigned on the platform that he would use appropriate military force against Al-Qaida.

        Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

        by MrAnon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:13:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just reread Carter's article (22+ / 0-)

          He's not specifically critcizing Obama, but rather the direction American foreign policy has taken in the last few years. He's noted that this is bipartisan and has faced little public dissent. I think that's a fair position to take.

          Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

          by MrAnon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, but (8+ / 4-)

            the diarist never misses an opportunity to bash Obama.

            "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

            by MartyM on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:23:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, he is the one currently leading, and (16+ / 0-)

              expanding our aggressive foreign policy.

              And why so? Does he truly believe it will stop terrorism, or even neutralize it when in fact, the program he is heading could be exacerbating it? And to what end? Political expediency?

              Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

              by Pescadero Bill on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:38:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hold on here (6+ / 0-)

              It's absolutely fair to criticize the incumbent. That doesn't mean we don't support him for re-election, just that we have concerns with specific policy. I was clarifying something about Carter's article, which was more about the general direction of American foreign policy (Carter still supports Obama overall). The diary was focusing on how this criticism did apply to the President, as Carter mentioned specific policies.

              Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

              by MrAnon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:49:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think the diarist (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MartyM, edrie

                is being accurate when she implies that Carter is exclusively criticizing Obama and not any other parties?

                I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

                by Satya1 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:08:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I haven't seen many of this diarist's (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry

                  other diaries, but I got the idea that the diary was highlighting the fact that Carter is now criticizing Obama as well. It's well known that Carter criticized Bush's foreign policy, but here he is also criticizing Obama's.

                  Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

                  by MrAnon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:37:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I give criticism when Obama abandons (10+ / 0-)

              the rule of law and praise when he stands up for it.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

              by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Crime of Failure to Sufficiently Support Obama (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BradyB, aliasalias, mickT

              Nothing but blind and unquestioning loyalty is allowed.  Doesn't Carter, and by extension the diarist, know this?  

            •  This is not about the diarist (6+ / 0-)

              it is about President Carter's op-ed. Try to stay on topic.

            •  Not hr worthy (5+ / 0-)

              It's an opinion and not something so horrible it has to be hid from sight.

              In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

              by vcmvo2 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2

                Recced in response to HRs, not because I support the comment.

              •  there seems to be a spate of hrs because (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, Flying Goat

                of differing opinions of late.  perhaps those who hr should check out the latest NR list.

                it is not cool to hr because one disagrees.  that is just being disagreeable.

                •  I think the HR-worthy part is trying to switch the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  allenjo, kurt

                  … focus onto a personal, disparaging opinion about the diarist (in this case, characterizing her as an "Obama basher") rather than the topic. Kos has written several guideline remarks about how one as commenter should try to conduct oneself with civility as a guest in another person's diary.

                  The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

                  by lotlizard on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:11:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lotilizard, disagreeing with the premise of (0+ / 0-)

                    the diarist and questioning the motivation for her choosing to portray president carter's op-ed in a manner inconsistent with what he actually stated is not making the criticism "personal".  it is simply challenging the veracity of the information presented.

                    it would seem that some who have thrown donuts are doing so in an attempt to stop others from questioning both the accuracy of the diarist's interpretation and her consistency in making statements as "fact" that form a bias that is inconsistent with actual facts.

                    the choice by this particular diarist of emotionally laden words that misrepresent what she describes is what is being questioned.  it has absolutely nothing to do with her as a "person" but it has everything to do with the credibility of what she writes.

                    this happens in diaries other than hers, btw.  when two strongly held opinions are presented that offer differing views of the same issue, the donuts fly, the demands for people to "respect" (agree) with the diarist or "leave", the personal insults start flying.

                    until all posters get past this juvenile behavior, there will never be any resolution to ANY problem because no one is willing to entertain anything other than their own closed opinions.

                    a very wise person once said "it is what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts".

                    that applies to this site and all political discussions held anywhere.  if we cannot entertain ideas other than our own, what makes us different than those who are rigid on the right?  the inability to see past our own biases makes us just as blind as those on the far right.

            •  Oh, man (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pelican

              With all these attacks on the diarist and reflexive defenses of the President, I think it's time to break out this classic--

            •  Sigh. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Flying Goat

              Uprated with a heavy heart. The comment is childish and stupid, but it's not TR-worthy.

              Please stop making me uprate mindless, red-herring non sequiturs. I would dearly love to remove this rec, but I can't until the unjustified TRs are gone.

              The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

              by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:34:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I thought it was decreed... (0+ / 0-)

                that comments like "Obama Sychophant", "Obama Apologist", and "Obama Basher" were HRable.

                If I am remembering this incrrectly, I am sorry and will remove my HR.

                •  Forgive my ignorance. (0+ / 0-)

                  I was not aware such a decree was made. I assume it was in the interest of curtailing the pie wars.

                  Does anyone have a link? I'd like nothing more than to be wrong about my uprate, here.

                  The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                  by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:14:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just because something isn't HR worthy doesn't (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pot

                    make it Uprate worthy.

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:26:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fogiv

                      ...exactly when something is uprateworthy: when it draws unwarranted TRs.

                      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                      by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:36:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Nonsense. If it doesn't deserve an uprate, it (0+ / 0-)

                        doesn't deserve an uprate - whether or not you feel someone else abused an HR.

                        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                        by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:18:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I guess I just take that whole (0+ / 0-)

                          ...community moderation thing seriously. If I feel someone has abused the ratings, it's my duty to offset it with an uprate - whether or not I agree with the comment.

                          To ignore abuse because I think the comment is stupid or douche-y is to invite the kind of TR trench warfare we've seen break out repeatedly. It's petty. I'm not interested in being petty.

                          The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                          by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:31:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Alright, now that we've dealt with that mess (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity, sviscusi

          Can someone answer my question?

          Holder's justification for Anwar Al-Awlaki's death is not that the government has any new authority to kill US citizens, but rather that US citizenship does not grant immunities to foreign hostiles at war with us (which is, imo, consistent with previous policy, such as Americans who joined the Nazis. Also note that in war, the law of the land is foreign treaties such as Geneva Law, which makes no distinction for citizenship). Holder did not say that the US has the authority to kill citizens in the United States, or even citizens living in countries where law enforcement can handle the things.

          Of course, this is a minor detail of Carter's piece. Again, Obama's foreign policy can certainly be considered aggressive, but he did not campaign to the contrary. That itself can be argued (and this is what Carter is arguing) as evidence of a general bipartisan trend towards a highly militarized foreign policy. I (and Carter and likely the diarist) still support Obama's re-election, but that doesn't mean he cannot be criticized.

          Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

          by MrAnon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:28:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I would suggest that using examples of past (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisePiper, oldhippie

        barbaric behaviours in no way excuses continuing present barbaric behaviours.  We're supposed to learn from our past, not continually revisit it.

    •  I wish it were not. (10+ / 0-)

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  U.S. killing civilians has NEVER been unthinkable. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d, mickT, snoopydawg, RebeccaG

      As Native Americans, Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians and many others throughout the USA's blood-drenched history can attest.

      Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

      by expatjourno on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:10:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Minor quibble with President Carter (78+ / 0-)
    The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.
    It has abandoned its role as the global champion of human rights, and has validated the complaints of countries like China who complain that the US's human rights concerns are mere political posturing.  Human rights violations can't just be blamed on one president or party anymore.

    Shame on this country, and shame on its leaders.  President Carter is right.

    When Free Speech is outlawed, only outlaws will have Free Speech.

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:03:10 AM PDT

  •  The criticisms are right on, although (59+ / 0-)

    I could do without the claim - pretense?-- that the United States was ever the "global champion of human rights." It's a decent rhetorical device, but it's dangerous to whitewash the past.

    Anyway, relatedly, a U.N. investigator says US policy of killing rescuers and funeral goers is a "war crime.'

  •  "In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas (26+ / 0-)
    said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution.
    --Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967 "Beyond Vietnam"

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

  •  If you want to read it that way, I guess (28+ / 0-)

    Nowhere in the piece does he use the word Obama, and executive and President turn up only once each. On the other hand, I finally quit counting the accumulation of legislative/legislation, law, Congress. Perhaps you are overly focused on the influence of one person, and neglecting the substantial influence of several hundred others.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:20:57 AM PDT

    •  The assassination program is the work (50+ / 0-)

      of the Obama administration and the op-ed links to the Times coverage of Obama's "kill list."

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      Certainly, Carter is also criticizing Congress, but Obama signed the NDAA, authorized assassinations, perpetuated constitutionally-inferior military commissions, and failed to close Guantanamo.  

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:34:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Surely you understand how our govt. works? (16+ / 0-)

        The NDAA was a product of Congress, and was a huge bill that included necessary expenditures such as paying soliders. Obama did not get to pick and choose which part of it he would sign, He had to sign it all, or veto it in its entirety.

        Congress (including Democrats) likewise raised the obstacles that prevented the closure of Guantanamo. And part and parcel of the attitudes that created those obstacles, it leaves little choice but to rely on military commissions.

        For those who are less single minded about lambasting Obama, there's an interesting overview of the military commission situation here: http://www.slate.com/...
        That particular piece includes a very important sentence that suggests that, to the extent this issue is actually important to you, you need to redirect your persuasive efforts.

        Congress yet again gave these bodies its approval in the 2011 defense authorization law—approval that, unsurprisingly, mirrors widespread support for commissions by the American people.

        I leave the contentious issue of the "kill list" to last, because it is actually a small part of a much larger debate that seems to be continually overlooked. Are there more effective, and less damaging, ways of fighting the wars or terrorism we are fighting? If so, please enumerate them. Or, perhaps, should the debate actually be over whether we should be engaged in those wars at all?

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:13:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that's what the debate should be about, imo. (17+ / 0-)

          "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

          by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:19:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One by one (48+ / 0-)

          1. Obama should've vetoed. Indeed, he threatened to veto -- for a different reason from indefinite detention.) Instead, he became the president who codified indefinite detention for the first time in American history. Indefensible.

          2. Gitmo & military commissions are a complicated issue. Yes, Congress blocked Obama from transferring Gitmo to the U.S., but the problem with Gitmo isn't the location; it's the system of injustice. That's why Russ Feingold voted against. In a different but related issue, Congress has also blocked funds to transfer Gitmo detainees to the US for trial, but that ban was not always in place; indeed, Obama tried a Gitmo detainee in NY and planned to do the same for KSM, until he changed course. Obama could have and should have closed down Gitmo by transferring all those the US was willing to try to the US for trial and releasing the rest. It would've been a political nightmare, but human rights and the constitutional demand it. Congress is even worse than Obama on this issue, but it's simply not true that Congress stopped Obama from closing Gitmo or forced him to rely on sham trials.

          3. Are there better, more effective ways to fight terrorism? Um, yeah, stop killing so many civilians and creating so many terrorists, for starters. Then maybe we can talk about a long-term security policy, one that relies on respect for human rights and on rolling back American occupation.

        •  Start with the Constitution and laws, (27+ / 0-)

          which all prohibit assassination without due process.
          See, e.g., U.S. CONST. amend. IV (prohibiting seizure of a person without probable cause), amend. V (prohibiting deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law); 18 U.S.C. § 1119 (prohibiting murder of U.S. nationals overseas); Exec. Order No. 12,333, § 2.11 (prohibiting assassination).

          If current law is insufficient to protect the American people, the law needs to be CHANGED not ignored.

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:35:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Constitution that gives war powers to Congress (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, edrie

            You know, like they did a decade ago?

            No many how many times you misuse the term "assassination," no matter how determinedly you ignore Congress invoking its war powers, it will not become illegal to shoot at the enemy during a war.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:51:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Definitions. (11+ / 0-)

              Define "enemy". Define "war". Define "battlefield".

              "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

              by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:46:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

                Enemy - the opposing force in a war.

                War - a state of hostilities.  Under American Constitutional Law, a state of war exists when Congress invokes its war powers.

                I didn't write anything about "battlefields," but it is worth noting that every war the United States has fought in since World War One has involved air strikes on areas well behind the lines, and away from any active combat locations - whether we're talking about air fields or ball bearing plants or the enemy's command and control center.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:51:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again: (0+ / 0-)

                  Define "opposing force" in the context of the GWOT. i.e. who is this "enemy" you speak of?

                  "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                  by Hayate Yagami on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 03:43:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •   (0+ / 0-)

                Enemy - the opposing force in a war.

                War - a state of hostilities.  Under American Constitutional Law, a state of war exists when Congress invokes its war powers.

                I didn't write anything about "battlefields," but it is worth noting that every war the United States has fought in since World War One has involved air strikes on areas well behind the lines, and away from any active combat locations - whether we're talking about air fields or ball bearing plants or the enemy's command and control center.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:51:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  There are rules governing how to shoot (12+ / 0-)

              at people during combat. Drones operate outside of zones of combat. When you shoot someone you need to be pretty sure he is shooting at you. Being at war does not justify killing all willy nilly. And you can only go to war with a nation-state? What nation-state are we at war with here? Somali, Pakistan, Yemen?

              this was the justification used by Nixon to attack Cambodia and Laos. International terrorism is nothing remotely like Vietnam and yet Nixon's incursion across the border was and is illegal. International terrorism is criminal behavior not an act of war. If it is an act of war than Iran is entitled to retailate against us for cyberterrorism. Are Iranian drones killing people in America legal or justified?

              •  Shooting at people who shoot at you (4+ / 0-)

                That really doesn't seem to be a rule. A considerable amount of bombing from WWI on was against targets who weren't themselves directly 'shooting at' the bomber's country.

                The war only with 'nation states' concept is more logical, and I think is really where these debates need to focus. Here's a group of inimical entities, out in the wild hinterlands of some foreign country, who would like to harm America and its interests. Are they a danger to us? If so, how substantially? If we need to "do something" about them, what would be most effective in eliminating the threat?

                from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:56:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And most importantly: (8+ / 0-)

                  Will our actions resolve the problem, or make it worse?

                  Considering the plummeting views of the US, how much rage the bombings and killing of innocents is causing, and the simple documented fact that that rage is driving people toward anti-American groups, a very strong case can be made around the view that the drone campaign, however well intentioned the people behind it may be, is grossly counterproductive.

                  "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                  by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:14:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which leaves us with the question (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    edrie, Superpole

                    What might be a more effective approach?

                    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                    by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:34:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  IMO (6+ / 0-)

                      and admittedly, I'm at best a layperson, but if, as has been documented, the drone attacks are making things worse, wouldn't a better approach be to stop doing things that make things worse?

                      "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                      by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:40:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PsychoSavannah

                        Your position is they are not a threat to us, and there is no need to "do something"?

                        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:48:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Possibly. Saying that for certain takes intel (5+ / 0-)

                          that is probably either classified (i.e. not accessible to the public), or would take far too much time to go through.  However, counterproductive actions are worse than nothing, so step 1 should be to eliminate the counterproductive actions.

                          That old saying, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" applies, even here. The evidence indicates that the targeted killings are making conditions worse by driving local populations to side with extremist groups. Therefore, they should be stopped and replaced with either an option that can be shown to not have a net negative outcome, or just stopped.  The second case might not be ideal, but something with zero effect is still better than one with a negative effect.

                          "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                          by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:08:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet absent that intel we don't have (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah

                            Those who do have it continue the practice, apparently concluding that it isn't making matter worse. Perhaps they know something we don't?

                            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                            by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then they should justify the actions (8+ / 0-)

                            and not hide behind classification schemes which don't allow for people to even talk about the existence of the program, ESPECIALLY when favorable stories (e.g. the NYT piece or favorable news stories about how "XXX was killed in a drone strike") keep coming out; and publicly available data strongly indicates the opposite.

                            As for the reasons, well, endless war is a profitable thing, and politically, continuing to kill the scary terrorists makes for an image of a president strong on national defense.  From a political perspective, the actual results can be written off.  Have we had any national discussion on the objectives of this military campaign? No. Instead, all we get are headlines and press releases cheering about how more "militants (read: males in the blast radius)" were killed, while people who question the program get slandered as terrorist sympathizers.  Who cares about innocents or long-term results, as long as the PR is good?

                            Consider, for example, the stated motivations of the people who have attempted attacks in the US:

                            As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. policy in the Muslim world, officials said.

                            “One of the first things he said was, ‘How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan’,”

                            When the federal judge who sentenced Shahzad asked with disgust how he could try to detonate bombs knowing that innocent children would die, he replied: “Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody.
                            If you actually listen to what these people say motivates them, you very quickly discover that a great deal of it comes from things like the drones, the wars and occupations, and Gitmo.  The actions that politicians take in the name of defense, are actively making the US less safe.

                            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                            by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:08:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do we learn from that? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stellaluna, Fogiv

                            Other than what they say motivates them. Is there something about their political spin that should inherently be more believable than Mitch McConnell's, or Glenn Beck's, or Karl Rove's?

                            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                            by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:33:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right, people are telling you what they believe (3+ / 0-)

                            The polls and data from the countries these people are from show the exact same sort of rage growing.

                            And yet, because it doesn't seem to fit into your preconceived notion of what's going on, you dismiss all of it as lies.

                            So, since you seem to know what's going on even better than the actual public polling data from these countries, and even better than the actual people involved, what do you think are the motivating factors?

                            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                            by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:02:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no preconceived notions (0+ / 0-)

                            Nor am I dismissing anything as lies.

                            I do wonder why we should accept these folks messages as having more worth, or veracity, or sincerity than any other message from possibly inimical interests.

                            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                            by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:44:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  US bombs town. Kills people. Men, women, children (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catte Nappe, BradyB, kurt

                            Maybe even whole families. Some may be "militants" (read: military aged males). Some might actually be people who hate the US.  Other people in the town see that the US has once again dropped death on them, with no apparent care for innocent people who are caught up in it.

                            Do you expect them to be thankful? To cheer for the faceless, emotionless robot that just killed their neighbors? Or do they, and thousands of others through word of mouth and spreading of information, grow to hate the US even more?

                            If some other country, say, Iran or North Korea, had been dropping bombs and missiles in US towns and cities for the last decade, with no justification other than that the people killed were believed to be plotting against that other country, what do you think the US populace would think of them?  Would they cheer? Would they be thankful? Would they put up with it? Or would they hate, and want to find a way to hit back?

                            (Note: This post was originally accidentally posted as a reply to lotusmaglite. It was meant to be addressed to the above post by Catte Nappe.)

                            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                            by Hayate Yagami on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:11:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just to clarify, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Alice Olson, Hayate Yagami

                            ...your argument is that the people from other countries who say they despise the US because of the violence committed against their people by the US and it's allies are liars?

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:37:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is not my argument at all (0+ / 0-)

                            I simply ask how/why it is that their statements are any more believable or valid than statements from any other political ideologue. Just as an example, Glenn Beck despises me because I am a Democrat. How does that differ from some guy in Pakistan despising me because I am from America? Is there any reason to presume that either of them is going to be more sincere in their messageing? Less prone to "spinning"?

                            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                            by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:50:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The difference being (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BradyB, Hayate Yagami

                            ...that when they say the US bombed the crap out of their village and killed their families, it's because the US bombed the crap out of their village and killed their families.

                            That's not spin.

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:26:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  US bombs town. Kills people. Men, women, children. (0+ / 0-)

                            Maybe even whole families. Some may be "militants" (read: military aged males). Some might actually be people who hate the US.  Other people in the town see that the US has once again dropped death on them, with no apparent care for innocent people who are caught up in it.

                            Do you expect them to be thankful? To cheer for the faceless, emotionless robot that just killed their neighbors? Or do they, and thousands of others through word of mouth and spreading of information, grow to hate the US even more?

                            If some other country, say, Iran or North Korea, had been dropping bombs and missiles in US towns and cities for the last decade, with no justification other than that the people killed were believed to be plotting against that other country, what do you think the US populace would think of them?  Would they cheer? Would they be thankful? Would they put up with it? Or would they hate, and want to find a way to hit back?

                            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                            by Hayate Yagami on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:09:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whoops. Not sure how this got addressed to you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lotusmaglite

                            It was supposed to be a reply to Catte Nappe. Sorry!

                            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                            by Hayate Yagami on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:10:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Heh. Been there. No worries :) n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 02:47:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I Recommend You Ask the Chinese (0+ / 0-)

                      they have a much different approach to "foriegn policy" (code for getting at the raw commodities in the ground). they're getting along fine with several nations-- and China's military is what? 1/20th the size of ours?

                      "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                      by Superpole on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:18:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  WWI and WWII aren't very relevant to most (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dallasdoc

                  of these conversations.

                  Do you know when the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the US?

                  Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                  by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:37:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  This needs repetitious emphasizing: (9+ / 0-)
                International terrorism is criminal behavior not an act of war.
                [My emphasis.]

                Dumbya made criminal behavior an act of war by foisting his delusions of being remembered for a war president on us.

                Dumbya's an idiot, always was.  But how stupid are newspaper and television "reporters" for buying in to his delusion, and how stupid are the majority of US politicians and regular citizens for believing Dumbya, Dickie, and Moronic Media throughout those years?

                I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                by NonnyO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:42:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Mm. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW, splintersawry

                  I disagree that GWB is an idiot. His goofy stupidity was an act, just like his Texas-southern cred. But this is a minor quibble.

                  I disagree more with the idea that the American people need to be stupid to have believed what their government and media were telling them. Most Americans do not live in the hyperinformation bubble we do. They trust the news. It's not their fault the news lies to them.

                  Most Americans do not know that 90% of the sources of information they use are lying, and those who suspect it have no idea where to get real information. That's why I have a memorized list of credible news sources on hand at all times. This is good even for many herd-wingers, who don't know their learned ideas are really bad ones. All they know is that someone isn't telling them the truth. So, I try to tell them who will - not what they truth is, but where to get it and use it to draw their own conclusions.

                  Sometimes, it even works.

                  The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                  by lotusmaglite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:50:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Keep In Mind the MIC Has to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NonnyO

                  have an excuse/rationale for the continuation of their bloated, wasteful sucking of our Treasury.

                  as I've stated here before, go back and read the anti Communist propaganda/hysteria. Replace "communist threat" with "Islamic extremist threat" or "Muslim terrorists"... it all goes back to Goebbels.

                  "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                  by Superpole on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Just about all air strikes in wars are outside... (0+ / 0-)

                zones of ground combat.  Think of the bombing of the ball bearing plants in Germany, or the air fields in Iraq.

                No, you do not need to be "pretty sure he is shooting at you" to fire on someone in a war.  There has never been a requirement that you give the enemy the chance to shoot at you first.

                Your claim about only going to war with a nation-state: where, exactly, is that from?  There is certainly no such limitation in the U.S. Constitution, or in any international treaty we've signed.  The "Confederate States of America" were not a nation-state.

                You seem to be making up rules that never existed before, as you go along.  "International terrorism is not" - never, under any circumstances - "an act of war?"  What the heck are you talking about?  A group of people coming into your territory to slaughter your people is just about the text-book definition of an act of war.

                None of the claims you're making have the slightest support in any American or international legal context.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:57:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  This is the Wasthington game (26+ / 0-)
          Obama did not get to pick and choose which part of it he would sign, He had to sign it all, or veto it in its entirety.

          Congress (including Democrats) likewise raised the obstacles that prevented the closure of Guantanamo.

          One body gives another cover to excuse behavior.
          Congress did it! I had not choice!
          My hands were tied!
          It was the blue dogs!
          Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

          Hence the term Kabuki theater. Whichever group or body with the least to lose politically in any particular legislation comes forward to give cover to the rest. But the overall pattern becomes clear over time.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Soooooo.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen

            when it comes to certain major policies, there's little to no difference between the "two" political parties.

            "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:25:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  thank you - better said that my posts! nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  bullsh*t, and you know it. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  i hope people read the article to (0+ / 0-)

        see for themselves the misrepresentation you have made.

    •  this diarist continually writes "grudge" pieces. (8+ / 1-)

      she never loses an opportunity to attack obama - and it taints everything/every point she tries to make.

      when any individual holds any and all actions to be the responsibility of only one person, that individual borders on the delusional.  frankly, if obama HAD that much power, our nation would be a very different one right now - we would have people working, no citizens united, gays would be able to be wed, women wouldn't be under attack and more.

      however, since our system is not run by a king, monarch, dictator, emperor, etc., we have to deal with a divided government with many issues at stake - radack, unfortunately, sees the government in a myopic view.

      i am really sorry to see this vendetta against the president instead of working to change policies and to examine why those policies are still in effect.

      i can't help but wonder how she would like a romney presidency.  this diary is sad.  really sad.  and non-productive, as she distorts what carter was saying and tries to put words in his mouth.  

      •  This diary is about President Carter's (34+ / 0-)

        criticisms of Obama, not mine.

        My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:14:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What if (20+ / 0-)

        situation and circumstances were all the same, but McCain was President instead of Obama? Would you still say the same thing about the diarist? Look - policy cannot substitute for law constitutionally in the US, yet Executive Branch treats its own policy in these matters as de facto law.

        "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - George Orwell

        by Thomas Drake on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  HR for ad hominem callout against the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mickT, gooderservice

        diarist.

        •  kurt, i suggest you read my comment again (0+ / 0-)

          - i am calling out the inaccuracies of the writing - there is no ad hominem.

          my statement here, you will note, does NOT say that ms. radack is delusional, rather i state the following:

          when any individual holds any and all actions to be the responsibility of only one person, that individual borders on the delusional.
          as ms. radack (among others) places the full responsibility on the back of one individual, president obama, instead of the congress, the courts, etc (as president carter has done in his op-ed)., AND since we do not live in a dictatorship, monarchy, etc., that is the basis for my comment.
          •  Your comment attacks the diarist. (5+ / 0-)

            You start with the title, "this diarist continually writes grudge pieces" and proceed to characterize her complete posting history:

            she never loses an opportunity to attack obama - and it taints everything/every point she tries to make.

            when any individual holds any and all actions to be the responsibility of only one person, that individual borders on the delusional. (emphasis added)

            Now you try to back away by claiming that individual could mean anyone? The diarist wasn't the one you were calling borderline delusional?

            Uh-huh.

            How is that not ad hominem?

          •  Disingenuous nonsense (4+ / 0-)

            You not only said Ms. Radack is delusional but you accused her of being motivated by a personal grudge. Kindly quit lowering the level of discourse and stop playing innocent.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:07:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  please copy for me where i stated that ms. radack (0+ / 0-)

              is delusional - and, while you are at it, please copy for me where president carter states in his op-ed piece that president obama is to be blamed for what the legislature and courts have done.

      •  I don't think she has a 'vendetta' against the (8+ / 0-)

        President specifically as you imply.  I think she is extremely critical of executive branch usages of power, but I don't think it's specific to President Obama, just whoever happens to be in office and using (or misusing)  executive powers, for instance, to seek to prosecute whistleblowers, rather than to back them up for uncovering fraud and criminal activities within the government's spheres of operation.

        •  fyi - a very interesting perspective on this is (0+ / 0-)

          here...

          the questions asked on MJ are balanced and fair - well worth the read, imho.

          •  Read it, and got to say (4+ / 0-)

            the Bush administration, or folks in it screwed her over bigtime, totally destroyed what would have been her career path.  No wonder she started working to help other whistleblowers being screwed over.

            •  erich, the bush admin didn't order that she be (0+ / 0-)

              investigated.  the judge who sealed the original file that contained the emails she turned over to newsweek ordered that investigation.

              there are serious questions raised in several articles i've read regarding radack.  among those questions lies the heart of her troubles:  the breach of the confidentiality agreement by which she was bound as an attorney.  her client was the DOJ.  she didn't turn over emails that she assumed were "not given to the courts" to the prosecutor or the judge (in the lindh case), rather she gave them to issakof (sp?).  because of her actions, she was investigated by the trial judge - and since then, she has been on a campaign to criticize the DOJ in both the bush and obama administrations.  her criticisms are based on her own interpretation of events and are colored by her anger at the government for whom she worked.  she violated her oath as an attorney by her actions and was held accountable for it.  the information she turned over turned out to be not "hidden" but sealed by the trial judge - that is what landed her in hot water.

              also, other law firms may justifiably have been cautious to hire someone who violated the lawyer's confidentiality clause.  i know i would be.

              this isn't as simplistic as ms radack would like us to believe - her anger at the government executive branch or the op-ed piece by president carter.  i wish life really was that simple - but it isn't.  do some more research on radack.  she is a public figure so you aren't "outing" anything - check the comments of her classmates from brown on this issue - they stand on BOTH sides of the issue.  read a bit.  it is quite interesting and puts her writing in perspective.

              that writing is what i challenge and question... the point of origin for her opinions - and what i found makes me question her motivation for misrepresenting (or, in kinder words, her interpretation) of events.

              •  here is an interesting back and forth from (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stellaluna

                brown university alum magazine

                and, if anyone asks why i am linking these articles - it is simple.  it is about credibility.  when one makes strong statements then those statements deserve proper scrutiny from all angles.

                one angle is this:  does ms radack harbor a grudge toward the u.s. doj and executive branch?

                you decide.

              •  I dunno, the very piece you linked in the first (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kurt, lotlizard, gooderservice

                cooment doesn't seem to leave me with the same impressions it does you, and includes lines like

                What's unmistakable, however, is that Radack's boss wanted to get rid of her, and, once the emails became public, DOJ hounded her out of her private-sector job.
                And the 'boss wanting to get rid of her' part seems to have started before the leaked emails, so you can't really claim it was a result of the leaking.  It's much more plausibly tied to the fact that she was upset over somebody removing paperwork from files kept for evidence.
                •  my point here is that there are multiple ways to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stellaluna

                  look at radack - that affects her credibility.  if you read the brown link, it turns out the papers were not "missing", rather they were sealed by the judge.

                  radack's inexperience is pointed out in the brown article.  it isn't a sin to be inexperienced - and it isn't illegal.  what IS questionable is her turning the emails that she was expressly told to not take over to the media instead of the natural recipient, the prosecutor or the judge.  had she followed the proper protocol, she would have learned that the emails were not "missing", but were indeed included in the trial paperwork and evidence - but were sealed.  she was from the ethics division, not a part of the criminal case trying lindh - and her actions interfered with that trial by involving the media with unfounded accusations of misconduct (of hiding or removing emails that were a part of the trial).  in short, she leapt to the wrong conclusions and her words and accusations were erroneous.

                  that gives me pause to question what she writes here - again, she has leapt to the wrong conclusion regarding president carter's words in his op-ed and misdirected what was said to a different target.

                  understanding her role then (which, btw, her opinion was wrong legally at that time), helps define the accuracy of what she writes now, don't you think?

                  •  Boy, you really don't want to address the content (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nada Lemming

                    of the diary.  I can understand why.

                    •  i have addressed the "content" of the diary. (0+ / 0-)

                      i have pointed out that the diarist bases her "premise" on a distortion and misrepresentation of the op-ed piece, therefore, her premise is invalid and inaccurate.

                      i cannot state that FACT in any other way.  that is as clear as it gets.

                      •  You have addressed... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kurt, Nada Lemming, Demeter Rising

                        the fact that Obama's name was technically never mentioned in the Op-Ed.  

                        What you haven't addressed is that many of the policies Carter attacks in the Op-Ed (drones, assassinations) are solely under the control of the Executive Branch and thus fall squarely on Obama's shoulders.

                        You have also gone off the deep end and started to attack the diarist personally in an effort to distract from her writing.  In addition to claiming that the diarist has a vendetta against Obama, you have even gone so far as to suggest that the diarist acted improperly during the Lindh affair and thus she should not be trusted.

                        Quite frankly, your behavior in this diary has been disgraceful.

                        •  when you get back on the subject: (0+ / 0-)

                          the inaccuracies in this diary, then we can discuss something.  as long as you continue to try to divert attention from those inaccuracies toward me, a blogger, then we have nothing to discuss.

                          perhaps you are unable to recognize a "personal attack" when you  see one.  if you have not yet learned to do so, then re-read your post above.

                          as for your stating that i have suggested that radack acted improperly during the lindh affair, then perhaps you should read the comments in the brown alum magazine i linked earlier where her own classmates (lawyers from brown) clearly explain how she acted improperly (violating the ETHICAL requirement of lawyer/client confidentiality, claiming that emails UNDER SEAL BY THE TRIAL JUDGE were somehow "missing" because she was not "privileged" to see what was UNDER SEAL); turning confidential material over to the press (isakoff - sp?) instead of to the prosecutor or judge in that trial IF she had been accurate that the emails which were under seal by the trial judge INSTEAD of being actually missing; her incorrect legal "assumption" that because lindh's family had hired a lawyer, he was improperly questioned without that lawyer present (scotus already ruled against this one, btw); how the DOJ never ordered her to be investigated - rather the trial judge ordered the investigation, how she was not a participant in the criminal trial because she was in the ethics division (where she proffered her inaccurate assessment that was dismissed by her bosses), etc.

                          but don't let facts get in the way here. go ahead.  attack me for bringing these uncomfortable issues to the foreground because they DO go to the credibility of this diarist.  these facts are directly relevant to her truthfulness, intent, ability to interpret law, ethics, legality of actions, her ability to present factual information that is to be believed, etc.

                          personally, i like to verify my sources before i become passionate about what they say.  it's called "fact-checking".

                          now if you can produce information to the contrary of what i have written, i will be happy to entertain your views.  but if you are only interested in attacking me personally for doing what EVERY person on this site should be doing (i.e., fact-checking), then you, too, lack credibility in what you write.

              •  So you're doubling down on attacking (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, Nada Lemming

                the diarist.

                President Carter criticized President Obama, and Radack drew our attention to it, so she must be prosecuted in a little DK kangaroo court.

                You're laying out the evidence against her. Because if you don't, Romney might win. Got it.

                •  perhaps developing a more critical (0+ / 0-)

                  analysis of what one reads and who writes it would benefit everyone.

                  a kangaroo court, btw, is one based on false information.  you are not addressing what i have presented as legitimate reasons to question the veracity of this diarist.  why?

                  is it more important to hold to your original view that somehow everything is the fault of one person who should be "shamed" (a somewhat juvenile presentation and conclusion, imho) OR is it more important that information be accurately presented and factual.

                  again, i will address my reason for challenging this diarist:

                  the op-ed piece that she uses to attack president obama is based on an inaccurate interpretation/reading/presentation of what president carter actually wrote.  NO amount of twisting words will change the FACT that president carter was placing major criticism on the legislature and the courts and NOT the president in that article.  

                  it is the distorted misrepresentation of fact that ms radack also did when she took emails to newsweek's isakoff (sp?) and claimed the government had "hidden" them or "destroyed" them, when those emails had been SEALED by the trial judge.

                  one doesn't get to pick and choose untruths and then claim those to be factual without risking someone challenging their veracity.

                  why have none of the posters intent on claiming that i am "personally attacking" radack not addressing this valid issue that i raise?  the information that i posted is publicly available and accessible.  my postings can readily be fact checked - yet, instead of addressing these legitimate questions, invective is hurled toward me (and every one else who dares to challenge inaccurate information) with silly accusations that it is about "obama" or "romney".

                  i challenge because the information presented is blatantly false and biased.  i challenge because i would do the exact same thing if the information is presented by ANY person posting misrepresentations.  i loathe distortions and bias and untruths.  such distortions and bias are equally as destructive from both the left AND the right.  we are nothing if not truthful - we are NOTHING if we are not open to discussion and we are NOTHING if we cannot back up our views with facts - actual facts!

                  i have done that and not one single critic of what i have said here has offered any explanation to the contrary on those facts.  

      •  Get a grip... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice, kurt

        this is about President Carter criticizing Obama and his continual killing machine, i.e. innocent folk who are getting killed or my bad, "they in the way, too bad, so sad"..  Carter has every right to criticize Obama.

    •  Perhaps you and others (8+ / 0-)

      consistently stress the flaws of one branch of government to obscure the flaws in another.

      •  I tend to see all three branches of govt (9+ / 0-)

        As well as the not inconsiderable effect of the American people as a whole. In most issues there is a complex interplay between all of four of those elements. The diarist's ouvre seems to be to focus on one, to the exclusion of the others. If she could apply a wider view to see the various moving parts she would be a more effective activist for her issues (assuming those are actually her issues), and I and others would have less opportunity to have to remind her.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:07:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spot on (5+ / 0-)

          although I would add the media as well.  The people are only as informed as the media lets them be and many don't have the time or awareness to constantly seek out new sources of news.

          I actually like what the diarist does at DKos, but this and the last one I read are so myopic.  It's so damned convenient to stick everything to The Prez - whether that is Obama, was Dubya or was others.  But ultimately it's lazy and incomplete.  It's really unnecessary for what she seems to want to say.

          I'm not convinced that Carter had Obama exclusively in mind as the diarist strongly implies.  I think Carter knows very well how badly Obama was set up by the previous administration.  I also think Carter has some handle on how other elements (as you say) have a hand in this.  Judicial and congressional forces have weighed heavily and the media has provoked the show making antics.

          I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

          by Satya1 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:40:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought about mentioning the media (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Satya1, edrie, sethtriggs

            Probably should have. They not only influence the information the public gets, but they play with (and are played by) the politicians.

            As for Carter's intention - he says legislation, legislative, Congress, etc. in his piece enough times for me to conclude he places a lot of the blame on that branch.

            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

            by Catte Nappe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:03:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Carter got chewed up and spit out (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie, Catte Nappe, sethtriggs, kurt

            by the folks that screwed over whoever came after GWB....it was easier for the power brokers that it was a dem, but even McSame would have had a helluva time.  Carter knows exactly who they are and how they roll.

            David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

            by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:23:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  OMG... Here we go again!!! (0+ / 0-)
            The people are only as informed as the media lets them be and many don't have the time or awareness to constantly seek out new sources of news.
            This is the best!!! thank you!

            you've just proven yet another of my major points!

            The media is in control of how informed I am?!! I am not responsible for educating myself, the media is! well, that just makes life so much easier, eh?

            Massive.Load.of.Sophomoric.Baloney.

            "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:44:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  a thousand rec's for this! thank you! (0+ / 0-)

          does anyone think i it is "fun" to stand against the statements of someone who has such a following?  am i not doing the very thing that radack professes to do?

          we both ask for truth - for fairness - for accuracy.

        •  There's Three Branches of Govt?? (0+ / 0-)

          You'd never know that by being a regular participant here.

          For years I've been pointing out how the deadbeat lifer incumbents in Congress are a big problem... and it's a problem when nearly half of our senators are millionaires, and I get mostly the dull bovine stare as a result.

          "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:38:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  glenn greenwald has a long column today on this (46+ / 0-)

    two articles in NY times today

    MONDAY, JUN 25, 2012 07:01 AM EDT
    Collapsing U.S. credibility:
    Condemning foreign governments for abusive acts while ignoring one's own is easy. But the U.S. leads the way

    Even more depressing was the democracynow.org segment on the Rio+20 conference. Long interview with David Suzuki, a leading Canadian environmentalist.

    20 years and corporate coup d'etat moving the world down the drain

  •  how much complaining (11+ / 0-)

    did Carter do about Bush - - Iraq - - torture?

    I'll never forget the image Carter smiling with his wife at side at 1/20/2001 inauguration of George W.....

    he should have stayed away and written an op-ed in the NYTimes about the SCOTUS deciding the election for president;

    Effort by House Republicans to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress is really about his efforts in oppose GOP-backed voting laws considered voter suppression. - Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

    by anyname on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:28:38 AM PDT

  •  But it was not only thinkable, it was doable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miscanthus, Catte Nappe

    in PREVIOUS TIMES.

    Millions of deaths are statistics, one is a tragedy.

    Perhaps now that we have reduced war to tragedy, it will be no more.  The power rests not with Carter and Obama, the power rests with the people.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:31:53 AM PDT

  •  Thank you Pres. Carter! (45+ / 0-)

    As a humanist, a civil rights advocate, and a man of unimpeachable integrity, Pres. Carter has few peers in American public life.  Pres. Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending 40 years of war between Egypt and Israeli.

    Though Pres. Obama has also received the Nobel Peace Prize, his feet turn out to be made of soft and slimy clay.  Obama has poised himself somewhere to the right of GW Bush on matters of human rights and the basic principles of justice.  The "Obama Doctrine" of bombing civilians has been cheered by democratic partisans, who only a few short years ago cried out that Bush should be tried as a war criminal   A policy that is wrong when carried out by republicans is still wrong when it is carried out by democrats.

    Sadly, Pres. Carter can expect more public disapproval for speaking out against this wrong-headed policy.  I would like to thank Pres Carter for his strong stand for human rights.

    And I thank you, J. Radack for writing about this.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:33:37 AM PDT

  •  I agree with President Obama's policies (16+ / 0-)

    much of the time, but definitely not this one. President Carter has written an excellent editorial.  For me, it comes down to the complete injustice of indefinite detention, lack of due process, ignoring that the rule of law should apply to all God's children, not just some Americans living in the U.S., and the careless attitude many seem to have concerning "collateral damage." I find it hard to believe that we would all be as silent if in the pursuit of terrorists and other criminals on our soil, hundreds of innocent men, women and children were also routinely killed.  President Obama still has my vote for many other reasons, but the fact that he has chosen to listen to what I believe will prove in the long run to be terrible advice on these matters is heartbreaking to me.

  •  The United States was NEVER the (15+ / 0-)

    world's champion of human rights.

    Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, women, gays and transgenders are human, too. We had to fight for ours. When blacks, for example, won the right to be regarded as human in the south in the MIDDLE OF THE 20th century, the govt. decides to then, crank up a war on drugs.

    Therefore, in the 80s, I grew up in world where I expected my rights to be violated by cops and courts. Not feared. EXPECTED.

    I love you, Jimmy Carter. You're absolutely right but your total assessment of humans and rights seems a bit off today.

    "It's not enough to acknowledge privilege. You have to resist." -soothsayer

    by GenXangster on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:17:03 AM PDT

    •  and our reaction to this constant myopia (6+ / 0-)

      our reaction to the way this argument is even FRAMED is written off as a quibble.. an attempt to derail.

      I'm fuckin sick of it, Twinner.  seriously.

      and to the rest of you:  understand that when something leads with a statement like that... you've already lost a whole lot of people who will automatically roll their eyes at the bullshit.  the greater point will be lost.  yes, pres. carter... I'm talking to you too, sir.

      I'm SERIOUS.  this isn't piefight stuff this is real.

      This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

      by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:43:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So since the US never (10+ / 0-)

      was a champion for human rights that means it's okay to codify and legalize our flagrant abuses? I find this argument for defending this administration's disregard for human and civil rights and it's destruction of our laws the great writ, to be one of the most illogical and immoral. It's two legs better and double speak/think.

      Everybody does it never worked when I as a kid tried to justify my bad behavior. How this is pragmatic or acceptable is beyond me. Especially as this bogus war on terra is endless and anyone can be called terrorist or a potential terrorist.  EXPECTED does not make it right or inevitable we should not expect our human rights to be taken away. .

      These rights are old rights, they took centuries to evolve, they are inalienable and universal. They certainly supersede partisan politics. Flawed as our country is it did have laws that protected us. Now ? not so much and the rest of the world should just expect this as they are the enemy might kill yer family.      

      •  hold the phone. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hayate Yagami, GenXangster, ozsea1
        So since the US never (0+ / 0-)
        was a champion for human rights that means it's okay to codify and legalize our flagrant abuses?
        this, as a response to:
        I love you, Jimmy Carter. You're absolutely right but your total assessment of humans and rights seems a bit off today.
        you can't read?

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:52:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no. (6+ / 0-)

        We should speak out against the drone strikes, just like Jimmy Carter has done.

        But to say that the US used to be "a champion of Global human rights" or whatever Carter said is a complete and total falsehood, and a standard that NO sitting US prez in history could ever live up to.

        So while almost all on this thread recognize the importance of the criticism of the drone strikes, some people have also taken issue (me included) with the standard that Carter is using to compare Obama. Some of us believe that that standard is a myth, and was never a political fact.

        Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

        by rexymeteorite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:02:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, pot, kurt

          politics in no way mitigates the destruction of our laws or international law. Deflecting the issue by focusing on the 'political facts' Carter supposedly ignored, doesn't in any way make the standard any different. Measuring civil and human rights by the standards of American politics and geopolitics does not mean that our inalienable human rights are a myth.

          There is no such thing as a political 'fact' that is an oxymoron. The flaws in our political implementation of human rights does not negate the law's and the standard. This is why Jefferson said we are a nation of laws not men. Comparing which pol in our bloody history was worse or better is irrelevant  and a deflection of the issue. We may have a history of abuses of peoples rights but now we don't even have the laws or checks and balances to restrain those that use political power for an anti-democratic, immoral, lawless agenda globally.                  

          •  no deflection (2+ / 0-)

            just historical context, which you chose to accept or ignore.

            Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

            by rexymeteorite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:35:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Historical context (5+ / 0-)

              is important but it does not in any way mitigate or excuse the damage this administration is doing to our laws and our civil and human rights. How does historical context in any way shape or form make the codification/legalizing of abuses of power which the Bushies instigated illegally make this administration's policy excusable? Obama is not king, I keep hearing people say but his administration has expanded the unitary executive power via the courts and our laws.

              The law is no longer king and pleading that it never has been does not make it okay even on a political level. Political and historical facts do not trump the laws of humanity. Why does what Carter said about human rights have to comply to a history that lets Obama off the hook.

              At least Carter's administration for all it's human right abuses especially in regards to our nasty history with  Iran, did not destroy the great writ and declare the world a battlefield where no one had rights. Now it is up to the spooks and the president to decide who is a terrorist or enemy of the state and can be killed or held indefinitely with out charges.    

              •  The foreign policy of the United States is to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade
                declare the world a battlefield where no one had rights.

                Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

                by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:51:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Make that 'has rights' (0+ / 0-)

                  the legalization of the Bushies abuses is not nuanced this battlefield has been declared official. The only nuance going on here is the hair line differences between the right wing and this administration. These Vichy Dems have taken what the Bushies did to the next level and made it law. What the fuck is nuanced about that fact none of us globally have human or civil rights according to this bogus reinterpretation of our great writ. Welcome to Orwell's nightmare fantasy. Endless war and an enemy that is anyone who opposes the state.

                  •  whoops! hooked this reply (0+ / 0-)

                    to the wrong response. This was in response to Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN. I plead I'm so tired from gardening that I mixed them up! Your right this is and has been our foriegn policy but this administration has taken our 'foriegn policy' to new heights of illegality and immorality. Quite the feat considering what has gone 'historically' before under both parties 'watch'. Democratic? No way. Pretty hard to face for people of good spirit? Yes. But in the end there is no way to rationalized this as it has slopped over from foreign policy to include any one including American's who don't buy this shit.  

              •  I don't think rexy is saying it does. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                He's just adding a bit of realistic nuance, not 'excusing or mitigating'.

  •  Jimmy Carter earned his Nobel Prize. (27+ / 0-)

    Unlike some others in recent memory.

    This is an astounding piece, considering who wrote it.

    It is so good to see that people of conscience still exist, and are willing to take the heat of speaking out.

    Thank you Jesselyn.

    Thank you, President Jimmy Carter.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:18:35 AM PDT

  •  Thank goodness (35+ / 0-)

    there are some on the Left who still view drones and torture as a bad thing.

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix

    by Damnit Janet on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:28:04 AM PDT

  •  The Moral Authority of the U.S. (7+ / 0-)

    is right up there with American Exceptionalism.

    But we still have motherhood and apple pie, right?

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Why Does President Carter want Romney to win? (25+ / 0-)

    Clearly Carter is a right wing troll, who is desperately trying to get us to either vote for Romney or stay home from the polls entirely.

    This criticism is outside the acceptable fifteen minutes immediately after the election when it is acceptable to talk about policies we disagree with!  

    We have to keep our powder dry while playing 99th dimensional Fizzbin and concentrating on the huge amounts of success this president has had.

    Otherwise the Supreme court will declare Sharia, uh, I mean ultra right wing religious law the instant Romney is elected.

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:33:44 AM PDT

  •  Motherhood has gone out of favor - too many (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo, Bisbonian

    non-whites being born now.

  •  I respect President Carter a great deal. (22+ / 0-)

    but I'm fucking sick and tired of people's memory problems, myopia, and lack of historical perspective.

    this country was never the fucking "global champion of human rights" and I wish people stop using that lie as a club against this president.

    I'm highly disappointed in pres. carter for that rhetorical device which I see used so much on this site, and makes me want to puke every single time), though I do understand where he's coming from.

    signed,

    a descendant of slaves and Indians.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:34:23 AM PDT

    •  any excuse - that's the problem. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, JBL55, reginahny, stellaluna

      high and mighty is low and stupid, imho, and i doubt that carter was discussing president obama - it is just the latest distortion by this diarist to try to slam obama yet again.

      something tells me someone has a little problem... or a big problem, but it is still HER problem.

      i refuse to blame carter for her distorted version of what he said.  if you ask carter directly if he was slamming obama, i bet his jaw would hit the floor before you could finish the sentence!

      easy, isn't it, how words can be manipulated to push a preconceived belief like radack promulgates around here.

      frankly, i'm sick of it and sick of her diaries.  mostly i just skip them.

      •  mostly, I do too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JBL55, edrie

        but it's clear to me that pres. carter is attacking the policies of this admin, and we know where the buck stops in that regard.  I can't agree with you that this diarist made the 'shaming the president' angle up from whole cloth, though I do agree with your general take on her diaries.

        I just read the op-ed again and got angrier at the former president.  he begins his third paragraph:

        While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past.
        NO!  NO IT HASN'T!  he references the UDHR of '48.  THINK about what this country was like for a whole lot of people in that time.

        ugh.  this really gets my goat.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:09:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i agree with you about the problem with this op-ed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna, Fogiv, reginahny

          and here is why i object to radack's misinterpretation of that piece.  carter CLEARLY states that the problem is legislation here.

          Recent legislation has made legal the president’s right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or “associated forces,” a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress (the law is currently being blocked by a federal judge). This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration.

          In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.

          and here, he also refers to the congress and laws - NOT the individual who sits in the white house:
          Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.” Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

          At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

          As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.

          he has stated that "top officials" have targeted - yet he did NOT say "president obama" - because that is NOT what has happened:
          Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.
          indeed, in the article linked by carter,  president obama has held in check the drone strikes by demanding to know if children are present and he has required prior notice and his "approval" before any strike at a target can be made (according to that article).

          what we really have here is the conundrum of war.  whether or not we "approve" or disapprove of war, we are engaged in a military action in afghanistan (whether we like it or not).

          to end that confrontation, military actions are being taken.  (whether we agree with the "war" or not).

          president obama has ended the military engagement in iraq and is working to end it in afghanistan.  contrary to the opinion of those who demand we just "stop", we can't.  if we walked away today, the vacuum left would be catestrophic.  we are, like in viet nam, in a losing position.  however, leaving the weapons on the ground and "walking away" would result in far greater loss of life than trying to stop those who are working to keep the violence alive.

          when i see simplistic approaches to a complicated issue like afghanistan, i refuse to stay quiet.  radack has no comprehension of how to end the conflict.  it cannot be done by claiming falsely that president carter "shamed" president obama.  that type of juvenile assessment makes me wonder if that is why she was initially ignored when she tried to warn the last administration of what she saw.

          to be taken seriously, one must have credibility - and when facts are distorted or misrepresented, one loses one's credibility very quickly.

          mally, sorry this was such a long post to your reply - you triggered why i am so disturbed by radack's ravings and those who support her without questioning the validity of what she writes.  

          reading carter's op-ed, i see a very different warning - and, in some areas, i totally agree with him.  in others, i don't think that his approach would be effective.  i respect carter immensely - and if the rest of the world held his values, there is no doubt in my mind that the universe would be a much better place.  sadly, those who don't share his views still are trying to do damage to those who do share them.

          the bad guys aren't all on our side - too bad radack can't or won't see that.

          •  It is the nuance of the issue that makes many (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie, Fogiv

            of the criticisms unfair. Most particularly the refusal to address the issue of what should be done about terrorism. If the answer of the diarist or any commenter is that we shouldn't do anything about terrorism I can accept that even though I disagree. It's just intellectually lazy to criticize without offering an alternative. It is very easy to take the moral high ground when you don't have the same reality restraints that the target of your criticism has.

            “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

            by stellaluna on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:15:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  why not always skip them, edrie? They (14+ / 0-)

        seem to upset you so much.

        When I am sick of a diarist, I just stay out of their diaries.

        So change mostly to always and you don't have to get sick about them.

        Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

        by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  someone has to set the record straight for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mallyroyal

          those who are uninitiated in her vendetta.  that is why i stop by quickly then leave.

          leaving unchallenged posts that are, imho, somewhat (if not entirely) dishonest gives the impression to others that the diarist speaks for more than just her own bias.

          mine is a dissenting view on her "interpretation" and the reason why i object.

          i wish more would speak out to challenge this type of bias.

          •  As one who reads and recced her diaries, you are (17+ / 0-)

            talking to the wrong person.

            If you want to appoint yourself as someone qualified to "set the record straight" about Jesselyn's "vendetta" well you will keep making yourself sick.

            You have so many "code words" in your comment..

            So you object, you dissent, you challenge, etc. etc. etc.

            Noted.

            But your sole purpose seems to be to disrupt the diary. And you attack the diarist personally.

            In less kind words, you're just being a dick, (using Markos's words).

            Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

            by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:17:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i am one of MANY who "object" and who (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mallyroyal, reginahny

              "dissent" and who "challenge".

              sorry, this isn't about me  - it is about radack and her distorted presentation of this (and other) topics.

              we disagree.  you and i.

              we are on opposite sides of this debate - and that is what it is:  a debate.

              you don't get to decide who does and doesn't get to hold differing views - and neither does radack when she posts on a public forum.

              post and be prepared for what follows.

              i am.

              i don't tell you to be quiet.  i disagree with your position.  the same goes for radack.  and i will tell you WHY i disagree.

              that is how a discussion works.  if you object to that, then you object to opening your mind to the possibility that your perspective might be based on limited facts.

              •  It is about you, edrie. You were attacking the (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, pot, icebergslim

                diarist.

                sorry, this isn't about me  - it is about radack and her distorted presentation of this (and other) topics.
                You do not like her, you have reminded us all of that again.

                Why keep on attacking her personally?

                Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

                by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:08:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you are not reading what i have written... (0+ / 0-)

                  and neither is jessecw.

                  i am challenging her misrepresentation of an op-ed piece along with her bias in what she writes.

                  i have not attacked her personally.  i don't know anything about her personally other than what i have read today in the media.

                  for example, the mother jones article is well worth reading to get a clearer picture of radack and others who are "whistleblowers" (one of whom i know personally and respect greatly - and have written about on this site).

                  my discussion is and always WILL be about the issue.  i do not know the person, have never met her, will likely never do so - but if i did, i am sure we would find things in common to discuss.

                  however, it is her writing on this site that i challenge - and, unless you feel there is no room to challenge ideas or statements with which you hold disagreement on this site - your criticism of my criticism is unwarranted.

                  i do recall many here who are leveling personal attacks and insults toward me, the human being behind this screen, to be somewhat amazing - since there is no shortage of criticism from those same people over ideas with which they disagree.

                  dialogue is two ways - either defend the position and the policy or statements or disagree with those statements.

                  leave the personal out of it - it is a distraction at a time when NONE of us should allow ourselves to be distracted from what is at stake!

                  •  Why don't you start with explaining what you (0+ / 0-)

                    mean about Jesslyn's vendetta?

                    Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

                    by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:39:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  have you not recognized that each of her diaries (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      reginahny

                      place the blame on president obama instead of congress, the courts, etc.?

                      you say have read her prior diaries.  if you have, then you wouldn't/shouldn't be asking me this question.

                      her total collection of writings explain themselves.  it isn't necessary for me to do so.  go re-read them without bias and you will find that much of what is written misplaces blame, hurls accusations (such as "assassinations", etc.) and more directly at president obama when she is writing from a biased point of view.

                      before you leap off the chair, MOST of us write with a "biased point of view" - we have made decisions and formed opinions  based on what we read and our own personal experiences.  to remove personal bias is difficult - it requires us to set aside our own personal views and to look objectively at both sides (or all sides, more accurately) to try to understand the larger picture.

                      ms radack is passionate about her own point of view to the point of having tunnel vision when she expresses those passions.  in narrowing her perspective, she inaccurately portrays a situation through her own bias - as do  you, as do many more, including myself.  it is up to EACH of us to be willing to look at the "other" side of an issue to re-evaluate our opinions.

                      when someone demands that only HIS/HER opinion be the accepted one and will not entertain any room for error, then therein lies the problem.

                      •  So Jesslyn's vendetta is to place blame on Obama (0+ / 0-)

                        That is what you meant? That is her vendetta?

                        Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

                        by allenjo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:22:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  This is like your 30th post in this fucking diary (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BradyB, mickT, Demeter Rising, icebergslim

                        yet you claim you ignore them. You are clearing spamming this diary and hurling personal insults as well. You've now implied the diarist is childish in one comment ("grow up!"), border line delusional in another, claimed they have an axe to grind among other dog whistle insults favored by die hard supporters of the President. Yet it is clear YOU ARE THE ONE with an axe to grind as evidenced by your almost 30 posts in this single diary. Any other user would have been HRed into oblivion for diary hijacking, spamming and being dickish.

                        And yet your last sentence in your post applies perfectly to you.

                        when someone demands that only HIS/HER opinion be the accepted one and will not entertain any room for error, then therein lies the problem.

                        "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

                        by pot on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:35:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  "Set straight" = facts, not hectoring (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, allenjo, PhilJD

              That commenter may have "set straight" confused with "scared straight".   I try to be charitable, but that's the best I can do.

              "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

              by LucyandByron on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  When you add one bit of facts to your postings (8+ / 0-)

            you can claim to set the record straight.  

            •  okie dokie... please show me where president (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              allenjo

              carter uses the words "president obama".

              then we can talk.

              •  isn't Obama a "top official" & in charge of (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, pot

                the Kill List ?

                Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:13:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  why do you attack me personally instead of (0+ / 0-)

          debating the issue?

      •  Carter was obviously talking about Obama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        420 forever, mickT

        Or every commenter on the internet got it but you.

        I'm not a Republican, but I'm saving up to be one. - Emo Phillips

        by GenXWho on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:52:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When does the skipping commence, again? n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bisbonian, kurt, pot

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:56:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a country, we often act like a prostitute ... (3+ / 0-)

      ... with amnesia who thinks she must be a virgin. And who then gets indignant when others with better memories call us on the misdeeds of our past.

      I stopped believing in our nation's innocence a long time ago (after all, my alma mater is Kent State). IMHO, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to live up to our highest ideals, but it does require us to have a certain amount of humility about just how much we are entitled to lecture others on the world stage.

      By all means, we can still criticize our leaders. But doing so means we must be honest with ourselves and admit to our own failures as well. For my part, I believe Obama deserves much of the criticism directed his way with regard to human rights. I also think he can take it just fine. Whether every action he takes and decision he makes is worth hyperventilating about is another question.

      •  nobody here can name a president with a stellar (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        philimus, edrie, kurt

        record on human rights, is my point.  not even carter fits that bill, as shown by other commenters in this section.

        but even so, I respect him greatly, as I said.  my problem is with his framing, moreso than the fact that he has problems with the policies.

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:52:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Carter is one of the very few (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, allenjo, JVolvo, Bisbonian, kurt

    recent US politicians I actually respect.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:39:57 AM PDT

  •  seems like we got along just fine without (8+ / 0-)

    raining down robot-controlled death from the skies, what has really improved since its introduction? I have yet to hear a good argument in support of trading our basic morality for these very messy actions.

  •  Leaving asides the merits.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mallyroyal, JBL55, kurt

    ...it does strike me that a former President can't very well shame a current one.  To paraphrase Trotsky, if ex-Presidents are so powerful, why is Carter living on a peach farm and Obama is in the White House?

    Returning briefly to the merits, I have the highest regard for Carter and anyone else who raises questions and objections about what our government does.  I think the government has a pretty strong case on the particular issues Carter is raising, including a strong historical case.  But I am more sympathetic to Carter than anyone else who'd complain, because Carter operated under the most constrained guidelines in US history as a result of Watergate, the defeat in Vietnam, and just where our society was going in general.  Compared to 1978 today's executive power does look pretty hog-wild.

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:14:55 AM PDT

    •  "why is Carter living on a peach farm and Obama is (0+ / 0-)

      in the White House?"

      I don't know about you, but I'd sure as hell rather live on a peach farm.

      When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

      by Bisbonian on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:38:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eh? (0+ / 0-)
      To paraphrase Trotsky, if ex-Presidents are so powerful, why is Carter living on a peach farm and Obama is in the White House?
      Give Obama another 4 years or so and he'll be on his peach farm equivalent too.  Carter's on a peach farm because A) presidents in the US are term limited, and B) because Reagan was a slick liar.  Hopefully slicker than Romney.

      The fact that Carter no longer holds the office says nothing about the two men's relative powers while in office or when each is out of office, merely about the way in which our government is structured.

      Of course a sitting President, during his time in office is 'more powerful' than the vast majority of other citizens.  The only sad part about our government is that those with enough wealth can be nearly as powerful, or even more powerful than a sitting President if they're willing to spend enough on a given issue.

  •  Carter never mentions Obama. (9+ / 0-)

    "We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington."

    Who are the highest authorities?

    From this N.Y. Times article from May 29 of this year:

    "Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical."

    Carter doesn't have to mention Obama by name.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:26:07 AM PDT

  •  was Carter that pure as President? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mallyroyal, kurt

    The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.perhaps America once was a champion of human rights but I can't remember when. Wasn't the "School of the Americas" operating during the Carter administration? They were training assasins and torture teams to serve dictators in South America.

    In fact they served as the drones of their day against the native population of any country in the Americas who dared challenge American hegemoney. Hundreds of thousands died as collateral damage as our human drones struck in country after country. I took just one bio from SoA Watch site because it seemed to coincide with Carters term in office... my question is whether it's better to use drones or use guys like this to do our dirty work? Was this when America was a champion of humans rights?

    ARGENTINA
     Name: Naval Officer Emilio Massera (Deceased), Commander-in-chief of the Navy, 1973 - 1978 , Military Junta Leader 1976 – 1978
    Country: Argentina
    Dates/courses: Attended the School of the Americas in Panama*
    Info: In May 1976, Massera, then head of the Navy, undertook a military coup against Perón, together with General Jorge Videla (see below), and the army commander, and Brigadier Ramón Agostin, the commander of the air force. Sought out by the US government for his opposition to communisum, he attended the SOA, then located in Panama, and installed an interrogation and torture centre in the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA. Here, around 30,000 “enemies of the state” where held as prisoners, and tortured, killed, and routinely taken on “death flights” where they would be dropped from airplanes into the river plate. The newborn babies from women who gave birth while in captivity where sold and/or given away to military families and members of the police force.
    Assisting the US with the development of Plan Cóndor, too coordinate the terrorism efforts of South American military dictatorships at the time, he also supported the US backed military dictatorships in Central America. In August 1978, he was ultimately forced to retire. In 1999 an international arrest warrant for him was issued but Argentina refused to extradite him to Spain.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:33:38 AM PDT

    •  I guess we'll have to wait for a pure peer (13+ / 0-)

      of the Chief Executive to come along before we can listen to his criticism, then.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:38:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Carter was the first to take on the generals (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billmosby, Bisbonian, kurt, mickT

        ... of Latin America, and his championing of human rights and democracy in this hemisphere is one reason why Latin America is largely democratic today, while before Carter it mostly was ruled by military dictatorships.  It is certainly the case that Carter backed some bad people, but before Carter any thug who was anti-communist was entirely immune from criticism.

        An American president is not a king, and often does not stand up to forces in the permanent government that resist change. Carter couldn't shut down the School of the Americas, just as Obama couldn't close Gitmo. But the issue is which direction we are moving: in the direction of human rights and democracy (as we were under Carter) or in the opposite direction (as we are today).

        •  I doubt Carter is the reason (5+ / 0-)
          his championing of human rights and democracy in this hemisphere is one reason why Latin America is largely democratic today, while before Carter it mostly was ruled by military dictatorships.
          I remember that South America was still ruled by dictators trained at his "School of the Americas" well after Carter left office. Reagan and North had their Iran contra affair well after Carter. The CIA and their accolytes still killed and murdered across the continent on behalf of the USA well after Carter.

          No, the reason democracy has prevailed in a few places is because of the blood and sacrifices of their people. Carter and any other USA president had next to zero to do with it. I find it amazing how naive and gullible Americans are to repeat bs like that.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:24:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, or at least one with clean hands (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mallyroyal

        Hell, I'm still waiting for the "champion of human rights" phase in American politicians and/or foreign policy. But it does seem like a person with a lot of blood on their hands would restrain themselves a bit before criticizing others. It sounds like Nixon telling someone not to lie.

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:11:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Carter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt

      took office in 1976, after this guy went through.  Nice try.

      I'm not a Republican, but I'm saving up to be one. - Emo Phillips

      by GenXWho on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? (0+ / 0-)

        Not to be flippant, but looking at the dates, Carter was sworn in 4 months before the coup.  If (and I say if because I haven't read up on that time frame in any depth) the administration supported his coup, they would have done so knowing he had gone through the SotA.  They wouldn't be responsible for him 'going through', but for choosing to back someone who had.

        Or am I misunderstanding where your comment was heading?

    •  He tried is about all you can say . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      I would point out his decision to support the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets turns out in hindsight to have been monstrously ill-advised, as it created both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

      We would be better off had we supported Soviet efforts to drag Islamic extremists into the 20th century.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even without the foresight to see the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard, bobdevo

        obvious potential for blowback, starting a war in Afghanistan in order to "give them their Vietnam" with no concern at all for the civilian death toll that was certain to result was a disgusting and profoundly immoral choice.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:57:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't know if I'd say "starting a war".... (0+ / 0-)

          but certainly fed the fire and jumped in for the sole purpose - as you duly noted - to "give them their Vietnam" . . . ignoring the Soviets long time relationship Afghanistan

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 02:28:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We started funding the Jihadis six months (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobdevo, kurt

            before the Soviets deployed troops.

            At that time, they were nothing but a few hundred assholes pissed off that someone was teaching girls to read.  They had nothing but a few rifles.

            Carter started a war that has raged for 30 years, which has claimed somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million human lives, and which has turned more than 5 million people into refugees.

            If he's apologized, I haven't seen it yet.

            Sadly, he's still got the lowest body count of any American President in over 100 years.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 02:32:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Not to diminish the overall criticism (5+ / 0-)

    about drone strikes, but we have been just as bad as any oppressing foreign nation as anyone. We kill and oppress people all over the globe, and we have for many years before Obama ever became president.

    So I am going to echo the criticism of Carters criticism: I love ya dude but you are way off on this. We were NEVER the "global rights leader". Never. We have never been concerned with the rights of poor people. In fact, if a country is going through turmoil trying to cast off a dictator, we wont do ANYTHING unless its in our strategic, tactical, or monetary favor. We have never been interested in protecting the poor, innocent and downtrodden. In fact, our corporations and government to this day oppresses people all over the globe to keep labor cheap.

    In short, our leaders have NEVER been interested in global human rights, so why is Jimmy Carter holding Prez Barack Obama to a different standard than, say, EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY??

    Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

    by rexymeteorite on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:54:45 AM PDT

    •  Nice try. Beg to differ. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass, Bisbonian, kurt

      Simple answer to simple question:

      The US has never been very moral, but it has tried to play it on TV, and before that, radio and print.   State Dept. often calls out North Korea, et al. for human rights.   Bill Clinton and Albright said Bosnia was about human rights.  

      Point?  Let's stop pretending.  Moral capital from the Marshall Plan and Berlin airlift was used up long, long ago.  

      Just because it's been done for decades doesn't mean Americans and the world can't hope that the US might change.   Yes, we can.

      One more thing: I think some older people may have hoped for the second coming of MLK, Jr., and they got a technocrat.  Given the times, what could they realistically expect?  Unless you are over fifty, it's hard to imagine what the loss of Dr. King meant to all Americans, even whites like my in-laws and Asians like my family.

      "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

      by LucyandByron on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:14:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why do you imagine this is? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna, ozsea1, sviscusi
        I think some older people may have hoped for the second coming of MLK, Jr.
        one was a preacher who gave his life fighting injustice... the other was a gifted politician making a meteoric rise.

        what did these men have in common that someone would mistake one for the other?

        hmmmm....

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:58:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's no MLK. (0+ / 0-)

        And MLK never had to run a country.

        If he did, he probably would have been just as successful as Carter.

        "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

        by Bush Bites on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:16:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I see--so "hope" and "change" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, quince

      meant "more of the same," and those who believed otherwise were fools.

      Instead of attempting to reverse, he would simply continue the consolidation of the military-industrial complex, giving the American war machine a 21st-century twist by thoroughly modernizing it, making it leaner, meaner, more computerized, and more secretive, so that future presidents can use it for undreamed-of atrocities?

      So you knew all this from the beginning--knew that he would do nothing more than continue the status quo while neutralizing liberal resistance with his smoothness--that's why you were so jazzed about the guy in 2008?

      He ran on a public option without mandates; we got mandates without a public option. He ran on opposing the Korean and Columbian free trade deals. Now he's rammed both of them through Congress. He promised to close Gitmo, and it's still open.

      This is what you signed on for, and cheered so loudly for?

      Bull. Shit.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:58:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are we reading the same comment? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bush Bites, rexymeteorite

        I agree with rexy, but don't think rexy's comment at all implied anything about the MIC, the status quo, or cheerleading.

        Only that, as a matter of historical fact, Carter was largely wearing rosy glasses if he ever thought the US had been any sort of unalloyed moral beacon.

        We've had ideals, we've had good policies here and there, but we've always had dark stains right alongside.  We raise up one group while at the same time oppressing another.  We struggle, we try, we slowly improve on some fronts, but in hundreds of years, we've still clung to a number of the expressions of our worse natures.

        Does Obama have faults tied to some of the things you listed?  Certainly.  Does rexy deny that in his comment?  No, I don't think he does.

        •  there is a common defense (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quince, kurt

          to the effect that what Obama is doing is no big deal because it is simply a logical continuation of developments that have been going on for decades (if not since the beginning of the US), so get off his back already.

          That's what remarks like this:

          why is Jimmy Carter holding Prez Barack Obama to a different standard than, say, EVERY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
          boil down to.

          Obama is not being held to a "higher standard." No president in history has set up a worldwide network of robotic killing machines that he uses to summarily execute anyone he chooses.

          No president in history has ever claimed that the Fifth Amendment's requirement for due process can be satisfied by the president's say-so.

          If one accepts that"different standard" argument as valid, then nothing Bush did should bother anyone here. After all, torture, illegal spying, indefinite detention without charge, and preemptive war on trumped-up grounds have been going on in one form or another for a very long time.

          So what was the big honking deal about what Bush did? Why did the Democrats hold him to a "different standard"?

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:47:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see (0+ / 0-)

    Will President Carter be accused of intentionally sabotaging President Obama the way President Clinton was for not agreeing 100% with everything Pres Obama does?  Or is that just reserved for those named Clinton?

  •  It seems the world sees us as a Rogue Nation, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipmo, Dem Beans, angel d, kurt, mickT

    at least the part of the world that is not allied with us through NATO. Thus we have nations throughout the non-European world making trade pacts which specifically exclude the US from membership, switching to trade in non-dollar currencies, ... in short doing whatever they can to undermine the US in the longer term.

    There's a bunch of mid-east autocrats who don't mind us that much either, as we certainly don't have officials praising their rebellious populations. But even they are thinking of how to switch their currencies to something other than dollars, I guess the writing on the wall not being all that hard to read.

    Funny, or maybe just sad, how our officials are quick to support restive populations in nations we see as enemies, and to decry abuses of authorities, while not one freakin' peep has been heard about the beatings, gassing, tasering-to-death, etc by our own armed agents in the US. Not a peep about that.

    Our political establishment has clearly gone insane. Not "insane" as a pejorative, but in a technical sense such as a body expecting ants to sing opera.


    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:15:16 AM PDT

  •  Martin Luther King took a stand against president (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LucyandByron, TimmyB, kurt, lotlizard
    Moral courage is rare. Still rarer is the courage to oppose a president who has helped your cause and the consensus of a party that has supported your cause. But in April 1967, King had reached a point where he knew that "silence is betrayal," and he knew that he had to act. He saw that conformity to the dogma of anti-communism had muffled free discussion in the United States; that the excuse of ideology had blinded Americans of all colors to the infectiousness of the violence we practiced. King's greatness, at that moment, did not take the form of simple civic courage, the performing of a public duty you have come to expect of yourself. Rather, his was that "more lonely courage" William James once spoke of – courage which shows itself in leaving a secure post and taking up one more exposed, because the time and place require your presence.
    http://antiwar.com/...

    get little attention to his stand on issues like this which probably is why he was killed

  •  The faulty premises in criticizing drone strikes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Satya1, TooFolkGR

    Faulty premise #1 -- We are not fighting a war.

    In fact, we are. It has many battlefronts, not unlike the Second World War.

    Faulty premise #2 -- Targeted strikes are more like assassinations than legitimate military strikes.

    For the first time in history, a military can engage in very precise attacks, even from a distance. This allows a military to strike its intended targets, with considerably fewer collateral damage and casualties than ever before. In fact, the difference is so pronounced that this doesn't even look like war most of the time. We don't see carpet bombings. We don't see infantry assaults that virtually flatten cities as happened in Fallujah. We don't see massive numbers of refugees fleeing wildly indiscriminate fighting and wide-scale destruction.

    Does that make the new form of warfare worse, or better? Less in line with the laws of war and human rights' principles, or less so?

    Just because we can do a better job of targeting our real enemies -- even if it's a political leadership -- doesn't make it illegal. It's already a cliched line of reasoning, but it's also wholly accurate:  If we could have targeted the Nazi hierarchy without the fire-bombing of Dresden -- without the carpet bombing that was kinda sorta aimed at industrial targets -- without the regular bombing of Berlin and other German cities for years -- we could have ended the war without the incredible suffering that Europe went through in the final years of the war.

    The supposed prohibition against targeting political leadership during wartime is anachronistic, at best. I think that those who fall back on this custom are out of touch with the realities of modern warfare and misunderstanding the legalities involved.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:00:10 PM PDT

    •  Again, it's not the current use (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, JesseCW, mickT

      of the technologies and the procedures that are the main worry. It's the precedent of killing U.S. citizens without due process, and on little more than conjecture and supposition that they pose a threat to us. It's not much of a leap from that to using them here to target, for example, higher-ups in the illegal drug trade. If that sounds far-fetched, just give it time.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pinter's (2005) Nobel Prize Speech (6+ / 0-)

    is right on. Americans should listen.

    Pinter talks about the US record on (international) human rights, just in the brief period since the end of WW II (so we're not even talking about the domestic human rights violations that have been perpetrated since the country's founding)....

    here is a link to the full video

    Here just a couple of snippets.

    Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

    But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.

    Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the same thing - and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

    The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

    The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

    The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

    The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
    But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

    The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

    Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

    It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

    I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

    Americans--former Prez's like Jimmy Carter included--need to get a damn grip on the reality of their own miserable human rights record.

    Ugh.

  •  Further comparison: FISA (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever, NonnyO, aliasalias, allenjo, kurt

    While President Obama has been content to allow the NSA and the government to trash FISA protections, compare and contrast with President Carter's signing statement when he signed FISA into law:

    The bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies the Executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic surveillance in the United States...And it will protect the privacy of the American people.

    In short, the act helps to solidify the relationship of trust between the American people and their Government. It provides a basis for the trust of the American people in the fact that the activities of their intelligence agencies are both effective and lawful.

    BWA-HA-HA-HA how quaint such concerns and protections of the American people now sound..... if we had an Attorney General who enforced the laws of the land, admitted warrantless wiretappers Bush & Cheney would be serving 5 years in prison and paying a $10,000.00 fine for each illegal wiretap.  Why bother passing laws if the DoJ refuses to enforce them?  It's mere window dressing . . .

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:07:05 PM PDT

  •  I miss Something The Dog Said. That is all. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR
  •  in order to avoid the thorny complications, (9+ / 0-)

    moral, legal, and logistical, that come with detaining people indefinitely in dungeons, this administration is opting to simply kill them outright.

    The category of "terrorist" is (by design) nebulous, and it always expands.

    There will always be new circumstances, a radical new threat to the national security, that require the president to "reluctantly" broaden the definition of terrorist (on his sole recognizance, of course). Until pretty soon almost everyone counts as a terrorist and they're raining death down everywhere.

    And at this point, we have really gone down the rabbit hole, for they are defining any adult male in the vicinity of a drone strike as a "militant." We have a remarkable new legal philosophy here: the fact that someone was sentenced to death is now considered proof of his/her guilt.

    It's a new doctrine of infallibility, this one secular rather than religious: if the president summarily executes someone, he is preserved from the possibility of error!

    Unbelievably, this administration has asserted that the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process may be satisfied by "internal deliberations in the executive branch."

    In other words: "the courts are now unnecessary. The president may judge a person and condemn him to death on his sole authority."

    They're claiming unilateral power such as the emperors of Rome possessed.

    More, actually. Those emperors may have had legions, but our Emperor-President has a fleet of robots that he can send out to kill anyone virtually anywhere in the world within hours.

    This is the moral quagmire our Nobel Prize-winning, constitutional-law-professor president has landed America in: he's created a global network of killing machines, under the sole control of the president.

    And far from trying to avoid the blame for this, he brags proudly about it, claims full responsibility for it, and is using it as a campaign issue, daring the Republicans to call him soft and weak!

    Where have we gone? And whither are we going?

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:42:10 PM PDT

  •  I know the following exchange is not real...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser

    .....but, for me, it captures the essence of what a President should feel when making a decision that involves "collateral damage." It's a brief exchange that happens in "The American President", an otherwise schmaltzy account of a President's personal life,  when Pres. Andrew Shepard's aides praise his "decisive leadership" in making a military response to a bombing in Libya.  I fervently hope Obama's self-reflections when ordering drone strikes in some small way mirrors what Pres. Shepard expressed in this brief exchange:            

    President Andrew Shepherd: What I did tonight was not about political gain.
    Leon Kodak: Yes sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
    President Andrew Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.

    I wonder if thoughts like this ever cross any of our decider's minds?

  •  One thing I'll say: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian, NonnyO, angel d, mickT

    Don't expect this President or any other Dem President - not even a President Kucinich (not that it's likely to happen) - to voluntarily give up the powers they are currently excercising. They didn't seek the power of the highest office in the land to give any of it up once they got it.

    If we want to see the Executive's ability to do these things curbed, it will be up to Congress to do it and that's where our protests about this should go. Obviouslym some Congresscritters will be more open to the argument than others. Republicans have traditionally liked having a strong Exec more than the Dems, but you may notice that during the 2 years Dems had almost complete control there was little, if any, legisaltion introduced to scale back Pres. Obama's power to do what Shrub (Cheney) was doing.

     

    2012 is looking better and better!

    by Erik the Red on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:55:28 PM PDT

  •  My reaction when I read Carter's Op/Ed (4+ / 0-)

    was, “When the f*** was America ever the global champion of human rights” ???

    This is a total straw man. It could certainly be argued that we should be the global champion of human rights, but it's completely ridiculous to say that we ever actually have been.

  •  obviously Jimmy Carter is a purity troll, and if (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradyB, mickT

    we lose the election in November, it will be all his fault.

    /snark

  •  President Carter doesn't really offer (0+ / 0-)

    a theory as to what distinguishes a human rights violation from merely a policy with which he disagrees; much less posits an alternative that would be consistent with security goals re drones.  As for legislation, he discusses what could (in his reckoning) happen but in a discussion of a "record," which usually is what is happened.  Re Gitmo, no disagreement.  But I'm not entirely clear on why he wrote it, especially now, and talking in terms of "America's" human rights record contributes to a false equivalence between the parties.  The republicans blocked the closure of Guantanamo, and their solution was to invade and occupy wholly unrelated countries, not merely target specific individuals (as much as is ever feasible).  There is a regrettable loss of individual lives, but so would there be by other means of engaging Al Qaeda, and by not doing so.  Either way, an empirical criticism would require more specifics and different rhetoric from a moral one.  Where was the morality in losing to Reagan?

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:51:53 PM PDT

  •  Why are drones any worse than conventional bombs? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, edrie, sviscusi

    Whenever a disruptive technology enters circulation- a lot of old timers will wring their hands and say it's the end of the world.  I fail to see how drones are qualitatively different from the bombs and bullets that we're used to seeing. Are you telling me there weren't any civillian casualties when wars were fought with bombs and bullets? That's clearly nonsense.

    In another sense- I sort of understand the difference- in drone warfare, the drone-sending nation doesnt' have to risk any of its own skin, while the party being bombed gets to suffer all the casualties. It's completely one-sided. It's like fishing with dynamite or hunting deers with a flashlight. It's not sporting, and thus violates our sense of fair-play. But guess what, war is not a sport. This is assymetrical warfare. It's never going to be fair. It wasn't fair when the terrorists crashed airplanes into the WTC, and it's not fair when we use drones on terrorists. That is the nature of war- each side seeks to maximize its own advantages and minimize its own exposure.

    •  Nice Republican talking points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Claudius Bombarnac

      Was it fair when we sent B-52 bombers to pulverize Vietnam?

      The whole drone concept is a band-aid on a serious problem the U.S. faces.

         First, it tells the world we don't really believe in those quaint things like the rule of law, separation of powers, etc. One man can decide whether a bunch of people live or die. No system exists to even ensure the decision was accurate, much less legal.

        Second, it is all done without political risk. As has been stated,  Democratic party no longer even pays lip service to the anti-war left. There are no checks and balances to this program whatsoever. (Not unlike Congress trading stocks on decisions they have input on.)

         Meanwhile:

      The poll shows foreigners feel let down by Obama on a range of policies. When he came to power, nearly half of non-Americans thought the new US president would seek international approval for the to use of military force. Just 29% believe he has fulfilled that hope. He was also expected to "be fair with the Israelis and Palestinians" and to confront climate change. Large majorities feel let down on those issues.
      Guardian...drone policy supported in US, hated everywhere else

         

  •  When was this noble past, Jimmy? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    swansong50

    This country has always used the weapons it had in hand, including the nuclear bomb, to kill its enemies and those around them.

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:12:31 PM PDT

  •  Carter & Obama may both have won.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Claudius Bombarnac

    .... the Peace Prize, but only one of them DESERVED it. I don't think there's a precedent for withdrawing one, but if it could be done, I'm pretty sure the Nobel Committee would take Obama's back.

    But back to Carter, anyone remember the "School of the Americas"? It was basically a training program for helping our buddies from other countries learn how to kill, kidnap, assassinate, terrorize our/their enemies... whether that be men, women, kids. That program ran from the 60s to around 10 years ago.... aside from a short 4-year period when (at least part of it) was shut down. Guess when those 4 years were?

    The SOA has now transformed into something supposedly different, under a different name. At least it's good to know it's no longer being used for evil purposes. Yeah.... right.

    "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

    by ratmach on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:05:29 PM PDT

    •  There are Nobel Peace Prize winners and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratmach

      then there are meritorious Nobel Peace Prize winners. We have to admit that Obama wasn't exactly the latter.

      BTW, Carter initiated Operation Cyclone - which arguably culminated in the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and the current sorry state of America's rights and freedoms.

      •  Yeah, Carter was.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Claudius Bombarnac

        ... a product of the Cold War just like the rest of us. If Operation Cyclone is what I think, it's where they helped the Mujahadeen (sp?) fight against the USSR? Stupid. Not as bad as what some other presidents did during that time, but still...

        And yeah, that helped lead to what we have now. Of course we can go back even further, but anyway, I get your point. A big difference though, is I think if Jimmy knew it was gonna lead to bad stuff down the road, he'd change his mind. While others (Bush, Reagan, even Obama) couldn't care less the problems their actions lead to.

        "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

        by ratmach on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:19:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Operation Cyclone was the largest and most (0+ / 0-)

          expensive covert CIA operation the US ever created. The blow-back from this has cost Americans grievously -  not only in lives and treasure but also their freedoms and rights. It may yet destroy the country.

          The CIA's "OperationCyclone" - Stirring The Hornet'sNest Of Islamic Unrest

          Zbigniew Brzezinski not long ago revealed that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the American public and Congress, President Jimmy Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and "de-stabilise" the Soviet Union...
          The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means "student").
          ...
          The result, quipped Brzezinski, was "a few stirred up Muslims" - meaning the Taliban.

          The Wall Street Journal declared: "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they were crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources."

          So, this is what all the death and destruction in Afghanistan boils down to - oil/gas.
          Running on empty
          June 15, 2012
          ...
          Just consider the major pipelines, that is, the second and third options, for now. Each of them has its peculiar advantages, and each one presents huge geopolitical risks.

          A pipeline from Iran has the advantage of being close by. According to the Iranians, a large part of the infrastructure required to operate this pipeline has already been built on their side of the border.
          ...
          The Iran-Pakistan pipeline project can only become viable once Iran’s growing isolation from the western world is halted and reversed.
          ...
          The other pipeline project – TAPI – is better positioned in some respects because it enjoys the enthusiastic backing of the United States.

  •  I won't stick around, just got to say BOOOOOOO (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Its the Supreme Court Stupid
    Hidden by:
    BradyB, jo fish

    People like you make me sick, because this site is for Democrats, and you are clearly in the wrong place.

    That's all.

    Someone please get me out of this alternate reality...I can't take it any more!

    by Cinnamon Rollover on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:48:24 PM PDT

  •  Heh - too funny President Carter (0+ / 0-)
    The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.
    COMPLETE list of countries NOT yet ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):

    Holy See
    Iran (Islamic Republic of)
    Nauru
    Palau
    Somalia
    Sudan
    Tonga
    United States of America

    Can't really be a "global" champion of human rights when you forget to ratify the treaties that govern the human rights of more than 50% of the human population on the planet.

    Oh yeah, there's the historical record. Slavery, slaughtering natives, that kind of thing. Torture. Not pretty. And the part about us being one of the world's major arms exporters.

    All in all, not exactly a glorious record. Unless you're big on Naked Emperors.

    The United States never was and never will be a global champion of human rights.

    Of course Obama doesn't deserve a peace prize any more than Henry Kissinger did.

  •  What? Criticism of the leader on the rec list? (0+ / 0-)

    For mere torture and assassination?  But that'a a good thing isn't it?  I mean he's only killing Muslims, right??  That's what the Democratic Party is all about.  

    (That, and protecting banks and insurance companies.)

  •  IOKIYAO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    You don't need to firebomb Dresden to prove that you can fly the plane.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:21:44 AM PDT

  •  Of all the problems I have with President (0+ / 0-)

    Obama, foreign policies is not one of them. Leave it to Jimmy Carter who was perceived as one of the weakest Presidents in foreign policy to criticize President Obama. If he really wanted to make a statement he should be talking about his failings domestically.

  •  Jimmy Carter was the first president I voted for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    and he was my first Active-duty Commander in Chief.  I always liked and respected him, both in and out of office.  He's right as far as I'm concerned in his criticism of Obama, we have lost our moral high ground by our actions recently.  So much for the "shining city on the hill" eh?  

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:52:56 AM PDT

  •  ALL US Presidents since FDR have engaged (0+ / 0-)

    in policies that violate the UDHR.  We should not forget that Carter's unfailing support for the Shah of Iran was one cause of the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent detention of American hostages there.  

    How I wish that President Obama had reversed the heinous policies put in place by the Bush administration (the policies about which Carter complains).  But I think that a cogent and properly contextualized discussion of these issues, particularly the issue of the US position as "the global champion of human rights" ought to include historical context of the many ways in which the US had previously abandoned that role.

    Moreover, any discussion of the issue ought also to include a discussion of the Congressional abrogation of their Constitutional authority to declare war.  Finally, discussion of the issue ought also to include an evaluation of the indefensible fear-mongering and political posturing that resulted in the Congressional ban on holding terrorist trials in US courts.  

    If former President Carter were to write a truly cogent Op-Ed, he would have included the issues I mention above.  

    One more observation:  Since when in American history has America ever acted as the "global champion of human rights?"  At the same time we were fighting the Nazis in Europe (the one event which so many believe we acted as such), Japanese Americans were interred in concentration camps and had their property confiscated without benefit of Due Process.  FDR ordered the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto without a judicial finding of his guilt for Pearl Harbor or a death sentence handed down by a US court.  

    In addition to his unwavering support for the Shah of Iran even with knowledge that the Shah was engaging in atrocities against his own people, President Carter supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa during a time in which there was brutal repression of African activists.  

    I hardly think former President Carter qualifies as a judge of the current President's actions.  That former President Carter has become known as a champion of Human Rights is based on his conduct after he left office--not while he was the President.  

    Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

    by Tchrldy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:12:28 AM PDT

  •  Ending the Bush Dictatorship (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    President Carter is right. The Obama Administration is quite comfortable with the Bush dictatorship. They have done nothing to end it, which is their duty as Americans to do.

    It's really appalling, and hardly what we'd expect from a Democrat. You expect the Republicans to be hostile to democracy and ready to sell out the republic for whatever dollars they can rake in. But you expect Democrats to have a bit of moral fiber. You expect them to do what's right for the country--or at least follow the rule of law.

    In a dictatorship, they can scoop you up off the street, throw you in jail, and never give you a trial. In the U.S. they can scoop you up off the street, throw you in jail, and never give you a trial.

    President Obama needs to explain to the American people how he justifies continuing things that are so plainly unconstitutional. And a Congress that not only has been AWOL on this issue but actively encouraging the Bush dictatorship should simply resign and let the American people replace them with people that take their oath of office seriously.

    I don't expect Obama to put one of the Bush war criminals on trial. It would look like he was pandering to the American people if he did that now. He should have done that at the beginning of his term. But I do need assurance that he's going to put a stop to this unlawful behavior before he leaves office.

    You need to put your own pressure on the White House to change. Nothing you value will ever be accomplished if we give up democracy, because you can only accomplish those political goals within that framework. We only have until the end of the Obama Administration to roll back the damage done by Bush. After that, anything that hasn't been addressed will have the imprimatur of a Democratic President.

    So, I think we should thank President Carter for raising the issue. This is the most important issue of our time because everything else depends on its outcome.

Egg, Pat K California, GainesT1958, Alumbrados, paradox, Superskepticalman, cslewis, jo fish, Athena, Sean Robertson, Chi, filkertom, itsbenj, BrooklynJohnny, Liberal Thinking, Detlef, native, SaveDemocracy, mickT, Gooserock, emal, pelican, Shockwave, Andrew C White, CleverNickName, liz, OLinda, Aspe4, Romberry, LeftHandedMan, RFK Lives, expatjourno, hubcap, davelf2, madhaus, Gustogirl, Zinman, TracieLynn, BlackSheep1, mint julep, whenwego, Agathena, chuckvw, fishwars, farmerhunt, roses, taonow, ovals49, Ignacio Magaloni, larryrant, ornerydad, Boxers, Nate Roberts, Eddie C, recontext, tidalwave1, psnyder, minorityusa, sockpuppet, Dallasdoc, Dr Colossus, DeadB0y, 2laneIA, duncanidaho, Damnit Janet, The Walrus, Brian82, fritzrth, Oaktown Girl, JayBat, ybruti, randallt, lyvwyr101, Emmy, vacantlook, Josiah Bartlett, Gorestro, rapala, nailbender, Skennet Boch, joanneleon, bobdevo, Simian, NoMoreLies, tle, denise b, ichibon, LakeSuperior, m16eib, subtropolis, Independent Musings, grimjc, ccasas, ChemBob, owlbear1, Dem Beans, Burned, Kayakbiker, lotlizard, skyounkin, markdd, babatunde, Sandino, LucyandByron, Tool, rb608, techno, brentut5, WisePiper, Shotput8, Ginny in CO, Lisa Lockwood, snoopydawg, bunsk, bookwoman, peacestpete, SocioSam, Indiana Bob, xaxnar, Jim R, CJnyc, Jim P, berko, SoulCatcher, Denny in Seattle, martini, Knucklehead, esquimaux, Sanuk, detroitmechworks, Keone Michaels, Medium Head Boy, rcbowman, Kingsmeg, cybersaur, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, Russgirl, Yellow Canary, The Wizard, VictorLaszlo, Son of a Cat, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, Blue Wind, triv33, MJ via Chicago, eglantine, HairyTrueMan, gooderservice, thegood thebad thedumb, PapaChach, JVolvo, joe shikspack, Preston S, ZombyWoof, bumbi, CA Nana, profh, James Hepburn, doingbusinessas, suspiciousmind, kurt, shaharazade, bstotts, Temmoku, Little, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, krwheaton, seabos84, tegrat, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, fisheye, bluicebank, DorothyT, high coup haiku, pfiore8, Haningchadus14, SpecialKinFlag, Debs2, LSophia, terryhallinan, Nespolo, david mizner, operculum, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, suejazz, aliasalias, bnasley, artisan, HCKAD, jedennis, bobswern, CT Hank, leonard145b, cloudbustingkid, Don midwest, Terra Mystica, rmonroe, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, gundyj, TruthFreedomKindness, davidseth, fuzzyguy, wayoutinthestix, zerone, poligirl, Alexandre, limpidglass, Involuntary Exile, Laughing Vergil, filby, treesrock, wagdog, Sharon Wraight, Lujane, MrJayTee, dewley notid, icebergslim, pickandshovel, ashowboat, LaEscapee, doppler effect, MarkVA71, emidesu, SteveS Austin, priceman, Nica24, protectspice, dzog, CIndyCasella, ZhenRen, Bule Betawi, Rhysling, Old Iowa Liberal, George Hier, Rick Aucoin, aufklaerer, ceebee7, greengemini, BigAlinWashSt, The Dead Man, ewmorr, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, Nebraskablue, dark daze, maryabein, socal altvibe, shopkeeper, mkor7, JesseCW, dRefractor, petral, UnaSpenser, dskoe, Dark UltraValia, histOries Marko, strangedemocracy, angel d, montecristo, ratmach, commonmass, confitesprit, NMDad, Mokurai, roadbear, David Harris Gershon, UTvoter, Crabby Abbey, sunny skies, TimmyB, Eddie L, gulfgal98, samanthab, Lady Libertine, Mariken, albrt, ffour, Funkygal, Johnny Q, 4kedtongue, Betty Pinson, elengul, MsGrin, USHomeopath, Nada Lemming, tgrshark13, redlum jak, Bluefin, allenjo, zooecium, StateofEuphoria, Jazzenterprises, jm214, m00finsan, southernmapper, Alice Olson, trumpeter, Claudius Bombarnac, KVoimakas, Musial, MRA NY, nogo postal, PhilJD, diffrntdrummr, Hayate Yagami, Sunspots, imlpdx, DRo, Kathleen McClellan, Mentatmark, annecros, Bea Edwards, No one gets out alive, OutcastsAndCastoffs, DawnN, absdoggy, Only Needs a Beat, jeopardydd, WhistleblowerAdvocate, mwcjim, anodnhajo, Flying Goat, hardhatmama, oldhippie, greenbastard, Citizenpower, 420 forever, This old man, chipmo, peachcreek, pot, Spirit Dancer, radical simplicity, lunachickie, FrY10cK, GAladybug, Artandscience, Bisbonian, John Kelly, BradyB, ShoshannaD, CalBearMom, BobTheHappyDinosaur, Hugh Jim Bissell, Blue Dream, atana, Janetrhodes, Saint Jimmy, TheMeansAreTheEnd, AmericanAnt, quince, glorificus, Thornrose, dear occupant, goodpractice, entrelac, Ree Zen, Jollie Ollie Orange, Icicle68, Thomas Drake, xulon, Demeter Rising, Kat123, Opieo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site