Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments Whoa. Not guilty. Good for her??? I’m still utterly confused about this whole situation. I’ll leave it to my wife to sort it out for me. » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 12:56 pm Amanda Knox live feed. Why I care? Not sure. http://www.kirotv.com/video/29374200/index.html » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 12:42 pm How many people are employed by the solar industry? 100,237 How many people are employed by the coal industry? 81,000 Can we please FINALLY get some more effective lobbying for the real job creators in our country????? » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 10:56 am Kes, I truly truly feel for anyone living in Ohio right now. You guys got jobbed. Only state to have it worse is maybe Florida or Michigan. Unlike them, I love the response to his doucheteabaggery. You all are going to make him eat some of his worst policy decisions. » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 10:56 am Predictions: Good news: Private sector job growth UP 100k+ for the month of September. Bad news: No clue how bad public sector job losses are going to be. » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 10:19 am Murph, most days I can barely remember how to get home after work. 🙂 I am glad that you eventually found your way here. I have found your contributions on HP to be very valuable and am glad my “recruiting” bore some fruit. » Posted By funksands On October 3, 2011 @ 9:58 am Murph, no problem at all. I’ve only been here since this spring, so I consider myself a newbie. I still post occasionally on HP, when the stench of despair is downwind. My posting time is limited by my amount of energy I have left after my kids and my business. 🙂 » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 5:52 pm Murph, you have to be a little sneaky on HP when mentioning the Planet. Using bit.ly to link it is a good start. The Time Out for O/T button is located just above the recent comments section. I would talk/email Bito and see what he has already done to promote the site, perhaps you can build on it. The shortcut to comments that you have made is (to the best of my knowledge) not available. This could be on purpose, a limitation of the site, or something else, but it would be handy. I would pose that question in the HELP section. I would certainly like that feature. Generally, the easiest way to make someone aware that you have replied to them is to use their handle as the first word in your post, so they can see it in the recent comments area. Hope some of this helpful. » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 2:34 pm I am shocked, shocked to my core that predators like the Koch brothers would be involved in such shenanigans. Bito, like you I am really hopeful this has some legs.. » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 2:26 pm That was really interesting. Thanks Khirad! » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 2:11 pm Murph, weekends here I have found to be a bit slow, but your point is valid. Its a great site that needs more participation and exposure. It’s a challenge that the site’s founders take seriously and wrestle with the best way to accomplish. » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 2:09 pm Murph, the GOP likes this guy because he’s an asshole with a tough-guy veneer. Unfortunately, most of his positions are pretty similar to Romney. The establishment GOP would LOVE Romney if he hadn’t pased RomneyCare and wasn’t a Mormon. Christie fits both bills. Like Romney, Christie will be forced into faking his right-wing nut bonafides until the end of the primaries. In the genral, ultra-conservative voters wont like his positions on guns, choice, and muslims. He better stick with his origial assessment that he wasn’t ready, because Obama would eat hm alive in a debate both on substance and simple personal contast. » Posted By funksands On October 2, 2011 @ 8:19 am Bito the only think I’ll add to this conversation is the question is what the Judge asked the government attorneys during the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of al-aluaqi’s father. “The judge allowed the government to start but challenged their position immediately. How is it, the judge asked, that surveillance of a U.S. citizen overseas requires review by a judge; seizure of overseas property of a U.S. citizen can be challenged in front of a judge; but killing a U.S. citizen overseas cannot be reviewed by a judge?” I think that is a fair question for this or any other situation. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 7:25 pm X2. Thanks for a very lively debate KT. I wish it was under different circumstances. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 7:22 pm No offense, but I heard that line a lot with the Bush Administration also. This guy was a grade-A scumbag. A dangerous one too. Some estimate that he helped plan the bombing attempt in Detroit and according to the Fort Hood shooter and the failed NY bomber, they were inspired by him. Then CHARGE him with something. John Brennan, Obama’s top terrorism advisor thinks that citizenship should be no barrier. “…If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms.” Mr. Brennan added, “To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States. What we need to do is to apply the appropriate tool and the appropriate response.” According to the administration, there are “dozens” of other US citizens on the kill list. Why? Who are they? What did they do? There is no way to review the administration’s decisions or intent or reasoning under this process. We just have to take their word for it. I have no reason to doubt their word, but that isn’t sufficient for me. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 6:17 pm KT, you of course are right about Obama, I meant that this is MORE about the executive branch authority than it is about any one President, but of course it involves Obama. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 6:04 pm I keep saying without review, because the kill list (that are citizens) has, according the administration, “dozens” of people on it. We don’t know who they are, why they are on the list, what the standard of being on the list is, or what else we’ve done to deal with these people other than target them for death. Do you find that acceptable? Just to take this or any other administrations word that these un-named people simply deserve to die and telling you why would be a breach of national security? » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:44 pm KT, I think he was the worst of the worst. It doesn’t matter what I think of the guy or whether I believe the administration when they say the guy deserved to die. He probably did. Should the executive branch be able to kill anyone it likes, without review, in the war on terror? » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:32 pm Ad, absolutely right. This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with tomorrow forward. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:29 pm KT, if I’m not mistaken, the Patriot Act allows broad latitude in the area of surveillance, seizure of records, and detention, not killing. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:25 pm I think the question is pretty simple: “Does the president has an unreviewable license to kill U.S. citizens in the war on terror?” » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:19 pm He’s a US citizen who has never been charged with anything and was put on a long-term kill list of which the composition of and the standards for membership is completely secret. The argument that Bush made and that now the Obama administration is making is that anyone anywhere is an acceptable target as long as they meet the requirement of the secret undisclosed standard of threat. Judge Jaffer summed up by saying that “the Executive branch of the government claimed the right to execute U.S. citizens without any review by any court as long as they made a secret determination that the person was a terrorist.” » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:17 pm (This was during the argument in front of the judge from the case above) “The government officially asserted a state secrets privilege which protects them from disclosing the information that they have on al Aulaqi and whether he is being targeted for extrajudicial killing. Disclosure of this information, even to the lawyers who are trying to stop the government from executing him, is not allowed under their argument. Disclosure, they argue, would result in “significant harm to the national security of the U.S.” This argument is odd, CCR and ACLU lawyers argued, for several reasons. First, because it is government officials who have broadcast by leaks the fact that Al-Aulaqi is on a “kill list” apparently because release of the information suited their purposes at that time. Second, the government assures us they have secret evidence that Al-Aulaqi has committed serious crimes. But if the government actually prosecuted him instead of just killing him, they would have to disclose all the information they claim is secret. So they argue they can execute him without trial based on secret information that they would have to disclose if they prosecuted him at a trial. If they win on their “trust us” theory, the government can avoid all judicial scrutiny by bypassing trial in favor of summary execution.” » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 5:00 pm That’s the point. No one knows. There is no oversight, there is no charge, there is no transparency, standard for being put on the list, no effort to capture him, just drone strike after drone strike in a country that we are not at war with, against a US citizen. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:58 pm I guess the second-worst US citizen scumbag better start watching his back. And number three I’m lookin’ at you next buddy. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:46 pm Additionally, under international human rights laws during peacetime you can’t target someone without there being threat of imminent attack. Plus, lethal force has to be the last option. If this guy has been on a kill list since early 2010, I think that can safely be classified as “not imminent” » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:45 pm You have to charge him first before you try him. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:36 pm KT, That’s only if there is threat of imminent attack. This guy has been on the kill list for over a year at least. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:32 pm “On August 30, 2010, CCR and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Dr. Nasser Al-Aulaqi against President Obama, CIA Director Panetta, and Defense Secretary Gates, challenging their decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, in violation of the Constitution and international law.” The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. “CCR and the ACLU filed suit against the Department of Treasury and OFAC on August 3, 2010 and filed suit on behalf of Nasser Al-Aulaqi against President Obama, CIA Director Panetta, and Defense Secretary Gates, on August 30, 2010. Both cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On December 7, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Bates dismissed the suit of Al-Aulaqi v. Obama on grounds that Nasser Al-Aulaqi did not have legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son, and that the case raised “political questions” not subject to court review. The court did not rule on the merits of the case.” http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings I think the best point that the lawsuit makes is that while authorizing the use of force outside of the judiciary is allowed, the establishment of a list through secret deliberation and then leaving someone on that list indefinitely when there is no threat of imminent attack is way outside the bounds of the Constitution. » Posted By funksands On September 30, 2011 @ 4:30 pm Fly-by of Planet Earth: Very Cool [img]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdDEpC0uHWI&feature=player_embedded#![/img] » Posted By funksands On September 25, 2011 @ 3:41 pmComments Posted By funksands
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats