one more step towads the abyss

[aarf]

who needs Guantanamo, who need law courts when you have lethal drones by the thousands. hey PaulBx1 you better not plan on any overseas holidays.
[quote]CIA Drone Strike in Yemen Silences al-Qaeda’s Most-Effective English Voice
By John Walcott - Oct 2, 2011 1:56 AM GMT+0800

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a serious terrorist threat even after the drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki eliminated one of the group’s most persuasive recruiters and propagandists.

While President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials hailed Anwar al-Awlaki’s death yesterday as “a major blow

[disciple]

killing American citizens without judicial process.

Isn't this what they've always done - "wanted, dead or alive".

[Sit Heel Speak]

A good analysis of the distinctions between what Obama has just committed, and all previous killings by the U.S. government:

http://rense.com/general94/ofut.htm

Anyone in Oz or EnZed need a gardener? Africa is beginning to look good...

[aarf]

A good analysis of the distinctions between what Obama has just committed, and all previous killings by the U.S. government:

http://rense.com/general94/ofut.htm

Anyone in Oz or EnZed need a gardener? Africa is beginning to look good...

reading analysis now.
Singapore is do-able if you want to work, other south east asia if you want to play.
Tanzania is livable. uganda is dandy.

oh Paulbx1,

Homeland Security has declared that the vast federal police bureaucracy has shifted its focus from terrorists to "domestic extremists."

they'll be droning barbarians in barbarian land very soon.

[Sit Heel Speak]

Heh. It's getting better. According to his brother, he's still alive.

Now if only he can hire Robert Shapiro or some other high-profile attorney, to file a civil lawsuit charging assault with intent to kill, against Barry Soetero...

[disciple]

A good analysis of the distinctions between what Obama has just committed, and all previous killings by the U.S. government:

http://rense.com/general94/ofut.htm

Anyone in Oz or EnZed need a gardener? Africa is beginning to look good...

1. So are all those "wanted, dead or alive" posters in the Westerns completely fictional?
2. !

Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism

3. I don't quite see how this fits with blaming everything on "conservatives":

Voting has no effect. President "Change" is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is "the most disastrous president in our history."

Obama sure isn't a conservative... unless you have a different definition of conservative over there. Sounds to me more like they're trying to create a leftist police state, anyway.

[aarf]

1. So are all those "wanted, dead or alive" posters in the Westerns completely fictional?
.

cant see that this was a blanket license to slaughter the whole village in the off chance that the wanted person was there. if he wasnt, oh well, next try better luck, with no recourse or recriminations. this is current drone attack policy

[Sit Heel Speak]

A good analysis of the distinctions between what Obama has just committed, and all previous killings by the U.S. government:

http://rense.com/general94/ofut.htm

Anyone in Oz or EnZed need a gardener? Africa is beginning to look good...

1. So are all those "wanted, dead or alive" posters in the Westerns completely fictional?
2. !

Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism

No, not at all fictional.

But even in the Old West it was done "all nice and legal-like." In other words, one or more charges were filed with a court by a prosecutor, pursuant to a complaint, made by a citizen to the prosecutor, of a specific instance of criminal behavior. The charge had been presented to a grand jury. Weighing the evidence, the grand jury had returned an indictment. The indictment had been presented to a judge or the equivalent, a territorial governor (in Billy the Kid's case). To enforce the indictment, the judge had issued a warrant for the suspect's arrest. And, upon issuance of the warrant, the judge ordered such posters to be printed and distributed as to notify local law enforcement officers to make the arrest. For especially egregious wanted suspects, posters were put up in public, including the offer of such bounty money as would incentivize bolder members of the populace to make a citizen's arrest, or at least to provide information. Bounties are offered even to this day. For example, the $1 million bounty on the unknown murderer, here in Seattle ten years ago, of Tom Wales.

But if you are out to collect the bounty on Billy the Kid, Jesse James, or Butch and Sundance,there is likely to be a gunfight. No point in discouraging the bounty hunter by telling him that if he wins the gunfight he loses the reward. That would be absurd, especially in an era when everyone carried a Colt on the hip and a Winchester on the saddle.

To review, proper procedure, both back then and to this day, goes like this:

1. Complaint is made by citizen to prosecutor, alleging crime.
2. Prosecutor convenes grand jury (the rules of evidence are looser for a grand jury than for a petit jury, the one which tries the case).
3. Grand jury, if evidence suggests possible guilt, writes up an indictment. Foreman of jury hands indictment to clerk of court, clerk places indictment on desk of judge.
4. Pursuant to indictment, judge issues warrant for arrest.
5. Suspect is arrested, usually by police. But it is entirely legal for any citizen to make an arrest. It is even legal to kill for resisting arrest. But better be sure; if the suspect you arrest is found innocent, he can sue you bigtime for false arrest. Even if you are a cop.
6. Suspect either is held in jail or is released after posting bail set by a judge. Unless the prosecutor drops the charge, or suspect pleads guilty or cuts a deal (e.g. to inform on others, or gets the charges reduced to something punishable only by a fine) suspect gets trial by jury.
7. Prosecuting and defense attorneys present evidence at trial.
8. Jury determines not only guilt or innocence, but also whether the law itself is worthy of being observed, e.g. is in keeping with the Constitution, or is to be struck down (nullified).
9. If convicted, only then does suspect (now a "convict") suffer the punishment prescribed by the statute which codifies the relevant law.

This is the "due process of law" without which no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property." So says Amendment 5 to the U.S. Constitution. Supreme law of the land since 1788. Accept no substitutes.

Note that there is nothing in there about "The President, or illegal immigrant impersonating a President, who by not going after the true perpetrators of 911 is an accomplice-after-the-fact to that mass-murder, thereby himself a felon...really, an international war criminal, for the two wars under false pretenses he continues to pursue in Afghanistan and Iraq...has his appointee the Attorney General declare you to be a threat, and having put you on a list of people whom this felon calls threats orders the U.S. military and/or CIA to blow you to smithereens with a missile fired from a drone, and meanwhile he declares as state secret the legal reasoning and evidence, weighing which he decided to name you as a threat."

This is the first time in history that an American President has not only dared to assert he has the unaccountable right to murder an American citizen without due process of law, but has in fact actually done so.

That the audience to whom he boasted the murder cheered him --as Roberts writes, "the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution" ...deeply saddens and angers me.

It is the duty of the U.S. House of Representatives to bring a formal bill of impeachment, and of the U.S. Senate to try the case and, by convicting Obama, eject him from office.

But it is also the right of any Secret Service agent, U.S. Marine guard, or in fact any citizen, to arrest Obama --I would even say "the duty." And if he resists, it is entirely legal to kill him. Killing a felon in the immediate aftermath of a violent felony, especially when the felon has openly boasted before a large audience of the crime, is not usually something a jury will bring a guilty verdict for.

[disciple]

But it is also the right of any Secret Service agent, U.S. Marine guard, or in fact any citizen, to arrest Obama --I would even say "the duty." And if he resists, it is entirely legal to kill him. Killing a felon in the immediate aftermath of a violent felony, especially when the felon has openly boasted before a large audience of the crime, is not usually something a jury will bring a guilty verdict for.

I think they might in this case

[Sit Heel Speak]

Well, at least that's how it was, back in the good old days. Since there evidently is no more patriotic idealism, which manifested back when I was with the U.S. Army (twenty years ago) as a respect for law, serving as glue to hold the U.S. military's officer corps together, I expect the United States to dissolve into multipartite civil war divided along racial and ethnic lines, very shortly.

On a lighter note:

http://blogs.herald.com/

and scroll down to

"BORN TO BE WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILD"

Incidentally, the Tesla massively-parallel GPU's API, CUDA, is addressable in Linux via a Python front-end interface. But there is no Bash interface (ctrl-F the linked Wikipedia article for "bash" --it ain't there). Perhaps that answers the question in your sig. Puppy's next frontier, no doubt.

[gcmartin]

Prior US administration is directly responsible with the Killing of every University Professor with a Masters Degree or Higher that could be found in IRAQ. This evidence was turned up in 2007. Does anyone know the numbers....staggering.

US seemingly is pulling out.

But, there seems to be mounting evidence going all the way back to the Cheney shutdown of the commision to study World Trade Center attacks as they were on to "something".

Yeah that was a dark time that led into the economic woes of your nation and the world because of the misguided behavior existing and affecting all of us.

Many may want to help the Europeans who want GWB brought to trial in the Hague. Maybe someday it will happen

I think you should go after the criminal which started it all instead of the guy who's trying to fix it.

Consider it.

[disciple]

I think you're probably giving the US government credit for a lot more than it is actually capable of.

[Galbi]

I expect the United States to dissolve into multipartite civil war divided along racial and ethnic lines, very shortly..

I agree with that.

I´ve some faith in the #occupywallstreet movement, but, who knows, perhaps the US people awakes and can stop it´s own govermment which has become out of law and coopted by the industrial-militar-financial complex.
But they wil have to face the truth that the american dream has gone (and it will be very hard to bring it back, if ever, due to the Peak Oil).

[puppyluvr]

Hello,
From living in the heart of the oil industry, I have to say....
The US has enough oil, within our own borders, to supply our own needs..
Not to mention enough natural gas to do the same...

Its not about OIL, its not about Politics, its not about Religion...OK maybe a bit.. They are EVIL..
But, it IS about CONTROL....
Control thru finances at first..
Then the food supply..
Then electricity/water..

When they open the camps, how many will run in, saying Help me...???
This is really scary, serious shit...
Follow the links..
Read...
Listen......
Freedom has become an obsolete ideal, to those whom we intrust our freedom... Not just the US... This is a global problem...

But hey, Im just a fearmonger/nut/conspiracy theorist/non patriot/ etc...

I assume their search engines have long ago flagged me...
(So they know, I approve of non violent, citizen derived, change... )
If enough people SEE it... WE THE PEOPLE...Remember that???
I just advise preparation, survival skills, and remembering that..
It is just one world...
WE THE PEOPLE....
"Queensryche"
"There`s a revolution calling....
There`s a revolution calling....YOU..."
Dont worry, it will come to you... ready..???

[Dewbie]

disciple wrote:

Obama sure isn't a conservative... unless you have a different definition of conservative over there. Sounds to me more like they're trying to create a leftist police state, anyway.

Are Kiwi conservatives to the right of U.S. "conservatives"?

[aarf]

I expect the United States to dissolve into multipartite civil war divided along racial and ethnic lines, very shortly.

for an outsider care to draw the boundaries on a map and mark which are the whites, commie whites , america red indians, american blacks, africans, hispanic, asian, south asian, east asian, mixed. am i even close? are there more or fewer sub groupings? who is battling who the most ferociously, who are collaborators? i just have no idea of the lie of the ground.
do religions get a look in, that would be the most fun ha haha.

[disciple]

disciple wrote:

Obama sure isn't a conservative... unless you have a different definition of conservative over there. Sounds to me more like they're trying to create a leftist police state, anyway.

Are Kiwi conservatives to the right of U.S. "conservatives"?

There isn't really any right in NZ. There is Centre, Left and Further Left, although the left did adopt extreme free-market / free-trade policies and privatise everything in the 80's.
Basically they abandoned leftist economics and the "right" abandoned any sort of conservative social policy, as well as the extreme protectionism they had previously maintained.

Now, according to my dictionary, a political conservative is someone who "favors decentralization of political power and disfavors activist foreign policy". That is the exact opposite of what people are complaining about Obama here.

Likewise, my dictionary says a social conservative is someone who "favors social policies based on a particular reading of Judeo-Christian values, generally in favor of public prayer, and opposed to abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the teaching of evolution in public schools". That also seems to be the exact opposite of what Obama stands for.
Like seemingly every US politician, Obama claims to be a Christian.
But he states that he believes in evolution, and that it and no alternatives should be taught in schools.
He likes to present himself as not really being in favour of same-sex marriage anymore, but the left seem convinced that he still is.
Your pro abortion organisations like to rave about how great Obama is, and your anti-abortion people say he's the most pro-abortion politician you've ever had, and that even your NARAL is more conservative than him.

So what type of conservative is Obama? I can only assume he is an imaginary conservative.

[Dewbie]

disciple wrote:

in NZ...the left did adopt extreme free-market / free-trade policies and privatise everything in the 80's

Which is exactly what the right does in the States.

the "right" abandoned any sort of conservative social policy, as well as the extreme protectionism they had previously maintained.

In the States, the left would more likely favor liberal social policy and increased protectionism.
That the definitions are somewhat inverse makes perfect sense.
(Kiwis drive on the other side of the road, too. )

Like seemingly every US politician, Obama claims to be a Christian...He likes to present himself as not really being in favour of same-sex marriage anymore

He has to pander to the same voters with the same hangups.
It's a matter of political survival.

Your pro abortion organisations

Pro-choice.
They want abortion to be available, not mandatory.
Big difference.

So what type of conservative is Obama?

The definition is different depending on the era.

Before Obama took office, New Yorker magazine writer George Packer predicted his policies would be similar to those of the first President Bush (a Republican).
He nailed it.

Obama is very much like a 1970s-era moderate-to-conservative Republican.
Compared to some of the more left-leaning members of the current House and Senate, Obama would appear conservative.
The definitions of conservative and liberal are so amorphous nowadays that they no longer mean a damned thing.

[disciple]

That the definitions are somewhat inverse makes perfect sense.

They're not really inverse - just the left here abandoned its economics and the right abandoned its morals. Apart from believing in free trade no one really has any conservative aspects, and they all like to pour money into various money-wasting or wealth-redistribution activities as election bribes, which is why I can't call any of them the "right" now.

Pro-choice.

But no choice for the baby of course.

Compared to some of the more left-leaning members of the current House and Senate, Obama would appear conservative.
The definitions of conservative and liberal are so amorphous nowadays that they no longer mean a damned thing.

Right... you can't point out anything specific about him that is either politically or socially conservative, therefore the terms "conservative" and "liberal" must be amorphous.
Perhaps if people didn't misapply words like conservative the language would actually retain some meaning and we could even have a discussion that makes sense.

[disciple]

Its not about OIL, its not about Politics, its not about Religion...OK maybe a bit.. They are EVIL..
But, it IS about CONTROL....

I think you're right on, there.

"There`s a revolution calling....
There`s a revolution calling....YOU..."
Dont worry, it will come to you... ready..???

I hope you're all out on the streets ushering in the revolution... it can be the "American autumn".