The 2012 "Election" thread

[Usrename]

To be fair, he really is a war criminal. Same as every other American president of the post-war era, with the possible exceptions of....

Let me reiterate this one more time for emphasis. War criminal has a specific meaning. Under US law it means a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It is an actual criminal charge that is made against a person under the War Crimes Act.

I believe that it is generally construed that violation of the Nuremberg Principles is also a war crime under international law.

Do you know what these things mean? Do you know what a war criminal is? Can you cite any behavior that would make any president, other than either of the Bush presidents, a war criminal? (Or perhaps Reagan, although you'd have to believe that he even knew what was going on.) I'm telling you that I believe this is a NEW development that we are not prepared to deal with. We've never had to deal with it before. Remember, at the time of our founding we operated under the Law of Nations; it was a different legal framework than what we have now.

Look, I'm all for upholding the law. The closest that I can get to calling Obama a war criminal is to note that he has NOT investigated credible accusations of torture, which he has a duty to do under the UN Convention Against Torture. The convention makes it it's own crime for failure to prosecute, which might be construed as a violation of the Nuremberg Principles if you read them generously, which I do.

But even if you were to make such a case against him I would want to know why, for God's sake, you would do that. You have to know that if any kind of torture case comes before this Robert's court that they are just chomping at the bit to make it legal. Right?!!!

So tell me, wtf is anyone (and I include Nancy Pelosi in this because as speaker under Bush she could have complied with requirement herself, she had the authority and she shirked it, which under the convention makes her just as complaisant as everyone else) supposed to do?

Anyone?

Well. None, that I can think of, on the non-war-criminal side. But relatively speaking, he's more on the Ford/Carter/Clinton side of the scale than the Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Bush/Bush-Cheney side. I can't decide where to put Reagan.

Anyway. While it's not at all true that his presidency has been unusually distinguished by the kind or amount of war crimes committed by his administration, it has committed them. And that is a difference. Because he's definitely not really a communist.

Well, that's just it, isn't it. Why can we re-define him as a war criminal but not as a communist?

A very arbitrary way of communicating, if you ask me.




on edit> changed caps to italics

[Rory]

.

To be fair, he really is a war criminal. Same as every other American president of the post-war era, with the possible exceptions of....

....

Well. None, that I can think of, on the non-war-criminal side.

Just wanted to re-emphasize that crucial piece of information in C2W's response.

It's one thing to make an argument in favor of a vote for Obama as a "lesser" of 2 evils [or any variant justification], but to come to this board and make any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.

Go try that elsewhere.

[This is NOT directed at C2W/JR, of course, to avoid any potential confusion].

Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'

It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.

[barracuda]

My only response is that creating this fantastic alternate reality where Obama is a war criminal is no different in practice than what the right wing does in creating their alternate reality where Obama is a communist.

The follow-up drone strikes are, in all probability, prosecutable as offenses under the Geneva Conventions treaty, particularly the Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3, to wit:

...the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,

So a bomb aimed at those retrieving wounded from a previous strike would fall under this category, as well as provisions under the first Convention:

the protection of civilians providing aid to the wounded

The continuing internment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay likely violates a number of provisions of the Third Convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners.

The killings of Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen were illegal under both U.S. law and the provisions of a variety of international treaties.

There are more, but it gets old fast.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'

It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.

I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.

No caps this time.

[Rory]

.

Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'

It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.

I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.

No caps this time.

The old: 'my argument is out there somewhere, but it is up to you to find it for me', line of defense? Nice. Hard to debate that kind of 'logic'

I have never said that Obama is a saint, or that he is separate from the crimes of the executive. (Which Barracuda has kindly pointed out that every president has committed - some worse than others, but with Obama no where near top of the crime list.)

My only point in this thread is that Romney will be worse. Guaranteed. Like Obama, killing babies, but off the hook. And, with the added bonus of social programs and devolved-to-state government that will make life much much harder for non-white, wealthy males.

So please do your part to ensure that, while not the romanticized ideal of a Democratic president, Obama represents the only sane choice. To not participate as a eligible voter, or to vote third party (bar the solidly blue states) is to vote Romney by default.

Please do your part to ensure Romney is not president in 10 days

[Belligerent Savant]

.

The old: 'my argument is out there somewhere, but it is up to you to find it for me', line of defense? Nice. Hard to debate that kind of 'logic'

There's nothing to debate. Clearly.

So please do your part to ensure that, while not the romanticized ideal of a Democratic president, Obama represents the only sane choice. To not participate as a eligible voter, or to vote third party (bar the solidly blue states) is to vote Romney by default.

Please do your part to ensure Romney is not president in 10 days

Do my part huh? How, pray tell, would I do that, being that I live in NY?

And even if I didn't, your response suggests that votes are counted fairly in national elections.

They are not.

Particularly given how "close" this election is purported to be, the likelihood of fraud is quite likely, if not certain.

I'd love to believe any one of us have any influence whatsoever in the outcome of this election. But that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Of course, as I've already indicated in prior replies, that should never stop any one of us from proceeding as we deem fit, following our convictions as far as they may take us -- or as reality allows.

[Rory]

.

The old: 'my argument is out there somewhere, but it is up to you to find it for me', line of defense? Nice. Hard to debate that kind of 'logic'

There's nothing to debate. Clearly.

So please do your part to ensure that, while not the romanticized ideal of a Democratic president, Obama represents the only sane choice. To not participate as a eligible voter, or to vote third party (bar the solidly blue states) is to vote Romney by default.

Please do your part to ensure Romney is not president in 10 days

Do my part huh? How, pray tell, would I do that, being that I live in NY?

And even if I didn't, your response suggests that votes are counted fairly in national elections.

They are not.

Particularly given how "close" this election is purported to be, the likelihood of fraud is quite likely, if not certain.

I'd love to believe any one of us have any influence whatsoever in the outcome of this election. But that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Of course, as I've already indicated in prior replies, that should never stop any one of us from proceeding as we deem fit, following our convictions as far as they may take us -- or as reality allows.

Voter fraud is hardest to perpetrate when the vote count is not close. There should be enough people to see Obama win on a landslide - even without the massive number of illegally disenfranchised voters across the US. But 'leftists' buying into GOP propaganda to divide and dissolve electoral resolve is something we can genuinely fight. Be angry but for the right reasons, and at the right people.

And good for you in NY. Sorry about the storm but you have (as do Californians) the luxury to know that there will be a solid Obama vote regardless.

Romney is unthinkable.

[Rory]

Well, that's just it, isn't it. Why can we re-define him as a war criminal but not as a communist?

A very arbitrary way of communicating, if you ask me.




on edit> changed caps to italics

It is black propaganda. The people I first started to see using it were from the libertarian//conspiracy mindset - gullible idiots, the lot of them. This idea that Obama is a baby killer (and worse) started disseminating with them. The GOP would not openly use such a line of attack because of the inherent ridiculous hypocrisy it would entail to do so.

And none of the debate is about Romney. The 'Fuck Romney', thread has dropped like a stone. The only debate is about how bad/not so bad, Obama is. All the big media outlets are having the same debate. He is a bad president, Libya, economy, etc.. Nothing much about Romney except to say that he represents an alternative. Credit is due to their campaign - all of the heat is on Obama.

[8bitagent]

I was taken aback, but not surprised, how Alex Jones(yes, like a moron I was curious to see his take on the election) is saying Obama is a thousand times worse than Romney. It's like a mirror of this. Because Romney represents right wing conservatism, AJ is calling him the lesser of two evils. So bizarre.

At any rate, the only thing I'd be able to agree with Alex Jones is that the hurricane may have an impact on the election: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... paign?lite

[8bitagent]

Well, that's just it, isn't it. Why can we re-define him as a war criminal but not as a communist?

A very arbitrary way of communicating, if you ask me.




on edit> changed caps to italics

It is black propaganda. The people I first started to see using it were from the libertarian//conspiracy mindset - gullible idiots, the lot of them. This idea that Obama is a baby killer (and worse) started disseminating with them. The GOP would not openly use such a line of attack because of the inherent ridiculous hypocrisy it would entail to do so.

And none of the debate is about Romney. The 'Fuck Romney', thread has dropped like a stone. The only debate is about how bad/not so bad, Obama is. All the big media outlets are having the same debate. He is a bad president, Libya, economy, etc.. Nothing much about Romney except to say that he represents an alternative. Credit is due to their campaign - all of the heat is on Obama.

So why doesnt the GOP love Obama? If Obama does all the things the leftists didn't like about Bush, then why isn't in turn the GOP loving him? The neocons, aside from grumpy Dick, sure support him.
His bin Laden raid especially.

So are Cornell West, Greenwald, etc shilling for the GOP?

Were Republican strategists behind the left hating LBJ? The only place where criticism toward Obama on REAL issues, not fake bullshit(hes a "communist/socialist/muslim/non American born")
is from the left.

[8bitagent]

Also, PS:
None of us here support or like anything related to the GOP. In fact my hate of the right wing has gotten to the point where it's hard for me to stomach even right leaning parapolitical shows, even if its Libertarian/patriot/etc stuff(sometimes thats worse than mainstream GOP) So can we stop with the insinuating people here are somehow Fox News/Republican stooges? Obama isnt 1/100th the horror show Romney would be.

My only response is that creating this fantastic alternate reality where Obama is a war criminal is no different in practice than what the right wing does in creating their alternate reality where Obama is a communist.

Do you see a difference? If you do, please point it out.

And if what you're hinting about is a "Lincoln/Kennedy solution," then I can't agree with you more. That's a reality-based concern. REALITY!!!!!

Absolutely...the racial hatred against Obama by some on the fringe is so intense, and we've seen how asleep the Secret Service can be. That sort of scenario would be similar to a nuke going off.
While the Trayvon Martin event was a random spontaneous event, we saw how the media was able to turn it into this huge racial divide spectacle.

[8bitagent]

WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?

Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better? (One that they haven't got from the GOP sewer - yes, Nordic - you and Michelle Malkin: Who'd of thunk it? Comrades in hyperbole, eh?)

Good lord no man. I think we're all hoping Obama slides through and the wheels of insanity are stalled. I just want Obama to be more progressive is all. I do believe the double tap drone procedures are pretty close to war criminal, but obviously its nothing compared to the horror show Bush and Cheney brought to the world. I dont even wanna know how many Afghans, Iraqis, etc were blown to smithereens between 2001-2003. Yes, I did quip that as a 'civic lesson' itd be interesting if Romney won to wake up the left. Noone here can truly predict what will go down. I do expect some vote fraud, especially with Ohio being called for Romney by the governor and others. The hurricane may have a huge impact either way on voter turnout as well.

I will say this: Had Obama NOT come out strongly in favor of gay rights, and or stuck with his traditional definition BS of before, a lot of liberals I know would not be too enthusiastic about him. So thankfully he's not one of *those* sort of Christian politicians.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I think it's quite clear [or is it?] no one on this board is advocating for Romney; far from it.

We're collectively frustrated by the choices presented to us, and venting about it on this board.

Ultimately however, politicians are merely a by-product of our society, our culture, our race. We live in a world where the few greedy/power-hungry among us continue to call the shots [and install their representatives] while the majority remain largely indifferent or relatively passive.

That trend will continue unless there is a shift in collective groupthink or a major/global calamity occurs -- or perhaps both.

Until then, we can quibble amongst ourselves to our hearts' content. Or each of us can do whatever we can to affect any change any way we can, locally or otherwise. If each member of "the majority" acted in such a fashion, we'd likely be in a different situation collectively.

Though of course I'm just stating the obvious.

[Usrename]

The follow-up drone strikes are, in all probability, prosecutable as offenses under the Geneva Conventions treaty, particularly the Fourth Convention, Part 1, Article 3, to wit: ...

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I mean it. Some folks don't ever answer a direct question.

Yes, the follow-up drone strikes are an act of terror and they are a war crime. The problem with prosecuting Obama for them is that I doubt that he was responsible for them. He may have been behind them, but he certainly hasn't admitted it or anything. I have a hard time coming up with a scenario where he would want to launch terror attacks on the Pakistanis, but I can't imagine every situation either. In the link you provided, the UN is investigating these. They may uncover the war criminal who is behind those specific attacks, and I'll bet it won't be Obama. Why do you think it was him?

The killings of Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen were illegal under both U.S. law and the provisions of a variety of international treaties.

I have no doubt that Obama is behind this. My hope is that he will have the opportunity to shut down this whole global war on terror. If that's what he's up to, I can't think of anyone else more qualified. This is definitely a crime, but I can't see it being a war crime. This kind of thing is generally considered an act of war, and if it leads to unprovoked war, then that might make it a war crime, but I don't see that happening.

As an aside, I've thought about this one a great deal. I believe the killings in this case are lesser crimes than was the violation of their rights. That's just the way I look at things now.

There are more, but it gets old fast.

It never gets old. I still haven't gotten over our use of napalm in Viet Nam.

[JackRiddler]

Did you know that we here are not directly responsible as decision makers in any of this?

Did you know that there is no contradiction in preferring Obama win the election, given the alternative and for various strategic reasons (which I consider moral reasons also), while still also understanding that he and the entire machinery of US imperialism dating back to Hiroshima and Wounded Knee are criminal?

(Meanwhile, here comes hurricane! Hooray! Ack! Oop!)