Quote:

---

Remember several weeks ago when we took a look at all the wonderful civil liberties promises the Democrats made in their 2008 platform, back when hope was coursing through everyone’s veins and the era of George W. Bush‘s post-9/11 war-fest had supposedly come to a close? And remember how the party has clearly failed to follow through on nearly all those promises?

Looks like the Democrats want you to forget those promises ever happened.

Based on their 2012 platform, it seems they would prefer we forget they ever made such overtures towards pesky things like “protecting civil liberties” and “closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay.”

Mother Jones reports that the party that was once eager to paint itself as leading the fight to end the post-9/11 national security state has now largely retreated from its promises, with several planks of the civil liberties platform being entirely erased from the record.

On indefinite detention, in 2008 the Democrats wrote: “We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus.”

But in 2012, the platform says nothing about it. That’s not surprising, given how the Obama administration has continued the practice and even signed the National Defense Authorization which gave his executive branch the right to indefinite detention.

And remember the PATRIOT Act, that knee-jerk post-9/11 civil liberties trainwreck that liberals cited for eight years as a prime example of Bush’s malfeasance? In 2008, the Democrats were gung-ho about reforming the law and protecting civilians from its abuses: “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. [...] We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. [...] We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”

Since then, President Obama signed a PATRIOT Act extension, which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) lamented “does not include a single improvement or reform.” And now the 2012 DNC platform says… nothing. Taken literally, the platform indicates the Democrats no longer have a problem with illegal surveillance and executive overreach now that they are in power.

In 2008, the party platform promised to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, or as they called it, “the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.” But as everyone now knows, that promise has not been delivered.

So what do the Dems say about Gitmo in 2012? “We remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.” So basically: “Most of our party voted against funding to close it, but we are definitely working to get it closed!”

And what about the use of torture? In 2008, the party was terse in their position: “We reject torture,” the platform read.

Today the platform contains a meek passage that tip-toes its way to justifying the administration’s policies: “Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office.”

But as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer notes: “Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody. It does not appear as though anyone will face charges over the Bush administration’s torture program.”

Of course, the Democrats could have saved themselves from all this criticism if only they had made those 2008 civil liberties promises with a disclaimer at the end: “…Unless there’s a Democrat in the White House.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How can this be? I'm assured by conservatives that there's been no torture in this country, only a few "hazing pranks".

---

Quote:

---

Sort'a like Obama's stepped up and done almost 6 times as many drone strikes as Bush (in half the time), with way more children and civilians killed.

---

Quote:

---

Looks like the Obama administration took the ball and ran with it, raising the stakes from what you agree was just 'hazing' to full-fledged torture, based on reports by those Americans who've been tortured

---

Quote:

---

Four more years?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Four more years?

---

Is Romney offering a better alternative?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How can this be? I'm assured by conservatives that there's been no torture in this country, only a few "hazing pranks".

---

The hazing was just during the Bush administration. Looks like the Obama administration took the ball and ran with it, raising the stakes from what you agree was just 'hazing' to full-fledged torture, based on reports by those Americans who've been tortured. Sort'a like Obama's stepped up and done almost 6 times as many drone strikes as Bush (in half the time), with way more children and civilians killed. Four more years?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So where exactly did I agree it was "just hazing"?

---

Quote:

---

And do you have any cites for that claim about "Americans who've been tortured"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm sorry, is there somewhere in the article that says we're currently waterboarding people? That detainees say they've "been abused" doesn't necessarily mean Geneva Convention violations. Shoving folk against the wall is abuse, but it happens every day and twice on Sundays in this country. Just lookin' for clarification: if Obama is signing off on waterboarding I'd like to know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
C'mon Geezer, let's put things in perspective. Drone strikes are terrible, but they're far less lethal (overall) than the "shock and awe" campaign and the invasion of Iraq which caused anywhere from an estimated 100,000 - 600,000 direct war deaths, up to 1,000,000,000 deaths overall as a result of the invasion.

---

Quote:

---

I know you're trying to sound clever, but you're not really achieving your goal. Bush had people tortured, here and in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram AFB, and it went beyond waterboarding all the way to death. And when he REALLY wanted to get serious he sent people to dark sites in Poland, Egypt, the 'Stans, and yes- even Syria. What Obama does is torture, but certainly no worse than Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And frankly, I am sick of fighting this same goddamn fight every two years,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So where exactly did I agree it was "just hazing"?

---

You profess shock ("How can this be?") that there is alleged torture because you've been assured that it's "just hazing". If you didn't believe that it was "just hazing", why would you be shocked?

Then again, you might be lying.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And do you have any cites for that claim about "Americans who've been tortured"?

---

From the article posted at the top of the thread.

"But as Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer notes: “Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody.""

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

But Mike tells us he was assured it was 'just hazing'. Or maybe he's the one trying to be clever. I'm aware that Bush had folks tortured, and that Obama does as well. Explain that to Mike.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Oh BTW CTS - this is no news to us 'libruls'. Us 'libruls' have been posting about this and criticizing it for some time now - even the article you posted was from a 'librul' publication. Meanwhile 'cornservatives' seem to criticize Obama for his birth certificate, his mannerisms, his (falling) jobless rate, and pretty much everything but his civil liberties record.

Odd that - us 'libruls' criticized infringement on civil liberties under both Bush and Obama, while 'cornservatives' remained silent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, this sickens me. Reinforced the thing about what one President puts into place, another will continue (and/or make it WORSE!). One of the big shames of the Democratic party, in my opinion--that and the drone strikes. I decry them both loudly.

It's probably too much to hope Obama would reverse some of the more abhorrent things Dubya did, but I'd like to have thought it possible. And the increased use of drones; I get that the idea is to save American lives, but it's no damned excuse.

---

Quote:

---

I hear Gitmo is set to close any day now...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CTS, FREM: I don't know why you think you're going all holier-than-thou. Most of the librul peeps you think you're talking to are voting third party anyway, and the right-wing is voting for Mittens. (see above) My position is still the same: If I lived in a swing state, I would hold my nose and vote for Obama. Since I don't, I can- and will- vote my conscience. Are you suggesting any other option?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER: Yep, a few too many zeroes! Still, my point remains: If you're criticizing Obama for this, then you should have even LESS inclination to vote for Romney. So, are you advocating a vote for Gary Johnson then? Are you going to vote third-party yourself? Or are you criticizing something that you'll just wind up voting for anyway? (in other words, being a hypocrite)

---

Quote:

---

Geezer: The drones are still flying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Seems they were flying in Benghazi, too. Only Barry opted to NOT kill any militant Muslims that night. He had to jet off to Vegas the next day, ya see...

Drones were circling above U.S. consulate during Libya attack but officials decided NOT to mount a rescue mission

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department for additional security personnel

Republicans say the Obama administration denied the request for political reasons
The White House says it had no role in procuring security detail for Stevens

By HAYLEY PETERSON and JILL REILLY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

First, it has been pointed out that the Security he was talking about was a very small group of people that they had had for awhile. It is unlikely they would have been with him during the attack. Even if they had, they would have also been killed. At no time was Stevens requesting the type of security that would have atopped this attack.

---

Quote:

---

I also wonder how you would mount a rescue mission with drones?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The body guard who was assigned to Stevens wasn't a US soldier. He was a Libyan, who not only bugged out when the attackers showed up, but in fact, he was the one who informed the attackers WHERE Stevens et al were in the 1st place.

---

Quote:

---

Trying, would have been a good start. My guess is that the drone wasn't armed, but only a recon drone. But that still is a very valuable asset. Call the friendly Libyan forces ( assuming we had any ) to come assist, and send in what ever the hell support you can spare at the time.

But what did Barack do ? Went to bed. Seems he had to jet off to Vegas the next day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, actually I am planning on voting for Johnson.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

I see you haven’t answered Kwicko. Just pointing that out.

---

Quote:

---

Oh btw, while I looked without success through your old posts to find even ONE objection you posted , I did find many howlers where you criticized the people who said there were no WMDs, where you supported the invasion and sundry other topics. For some reason this one really stuck out as especially funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Ah, yes, here comes the precious Gitmo bullshit once again. As with so many other things, our righties just adore to lay that at Obama's feet as a "failure", while having Romnesia about the fact that their beloved leaders have done everything humanly possible to keep Obama from doing ANYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I have to say it's amazing that Obama couldn't do anything in 2009-10 when his party had both houses of Congress, but Bush was able to do, according to the liberal minds here, all sorts of bad stuff in 2007-08 when the Democrats had practical control of both houses of Congress. You sure you want to re-elect such an ineffective President?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.

---

Give me a solid citation for both of what you just said.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53233

See in this thread you posted and article that explains that the 16 man team Stevens was talking about was based in Tripoli. So had the extension been granted it would have changed nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Too bad that after doing all that research you didn't include a link to the thread."

Your problem Geezer is that you're a very small thinker. Why would you think I only looked through one thread, or found things in only one thread? As for the quote that I posted - google know all.

---

Quote:

---

Oh btw, while I looked without success through your old posts to find even ONE objection you posted , I did find many howlers where you criticized the people who said there were no WMDs, where you supported the invasion and sundry other topics. For some reason this one really stuck out as especially funny- Kiki

[In response to civilians slaughtered in a church]

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"? -Geezer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
See - google is that easy to use.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?

---

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?

Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?

If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?

If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?

If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?

I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.

There aren't just two points on the line:

Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist

With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.

Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.

I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
We don't try and blame Obama for the failings of the party.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...In context that doesn't look very good either, Geezer.

In a war that involves winning over public opinion, it's not as simple as which side can be the most brutal. If you field an undisciplined team in a difficult, frustrating situation and they then go on to commit mass murder, I can guarantee you're not going to win that fight either. You're not going to win public support there, and you're going to lose public support here.

There are some who think we could have won Vietnam if we were more ruthless, committed more forces, didn't hold back on account of civilians. We lost Vietnam, because the American people disapproved of our actions and demanded we pull out. Do you think the American people would have stood for WORSE behaviour? Or do you think the American military does not answer to the American people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Why not? It's his party. In 2009-10 when he had a bigger majority in both the House and Senate than Bush ever had, surely he should have been able to reverse stuff Bush got passed with smaller majorities. Maybe his leadership and administrative skills aren't up to the level of his oratorical ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Once again..

An American guard would not have sold Stevens out, and told the terrorists where the safe house was in the first place. That info doesn't get transmitted, here's no NEED for an armed platoon of soldiers.

Obama knew that Stevens was missing, and upon getting that info, he went to bed, not knowing the fate of the US Ambassador.

---

Give me a solid citation for both of what you just said.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53233

See in this thread you posted and article that explains that the 16 man team Stevens was talking about was based in Tripoli. So had the extension been granted it would have changed nothing.

---

Ahh yes. Keyword being " solid " citation. That it's been mass reported, is only good enough for some things, like bashing conservatives, ( " it's just a damn piece of paper! " - W on the US Constitution , or " frothy " Santorum. )


http://www.bing.com/search?q=obama+went+to+bed+benghazi&FORM=AWRE

First and foremost, security requests were inexplicably denied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57536524/before-death-amb-steven
s-warned-of-violent-libya-landscape/

And as for the 'local' security ...

According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-
in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
...In context that doesn't look very good either, Geezer.

In a war that involves winning over public opinion, it's not as simple as which side can be the most brutal. If you field an undisciplined team in a difficult, frustrating situation and they then go on to commit mass murder, I can guarantee you're not going to win that fight either. You're not going to win public support there, and you're going to lose public support here.

There are some who think we could have won Vietnam if we were more ruthless, committed more forces, didn't hold back on account of civilians. We lost Vietnam, because the American people disapproved of our actions and demanded we pull out. Do you think the American people would have stood for WORSE behaviour? Or do you think the American military does not answer to the American people?

---

Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just let your preconceptions take over again?

---