Obama called war criminal & hypocrite of the century in Irish Parlament

[Ryantology]

There are more than two parties in the American electoral system. As soon as you guys realize this, you might get some decent politicians in office. They do exist; you just don't often find them in the Democratic and Republican parties.

More parties is no guarantee of superior politicians. Weimar Germany had 40 parties represented in the Reichstag throughout its existence, and we all know what sort of politician that situation produced.

I have problems with the Democratic Party, but I won't vote for a third party because weakening an insufficiently progressive party paves the way for a proudly regressive party to re-assert supremacy. Slow progress is better than going backwards. Though, it may not be far off when the Republican party fractures. We might see a three party system again when that happens, if it doesn't lose too much of its margins to either of its competitors. I'd rather wait for them to break first.

[popeyespappy]

Who was the last U.S. president who wasn't a war criminal?

Hoover?

---

promising transparency and then expanding illegal wiretapping programs

What illegal wiretapping programs?

[Walking Void]

promising transparency and then expanding illegal wiretapping programs

What illegal wiretapping programs?

For further explanation, Google search "Obama wiretapping".

[popeyespappy]

If that video was supposed to informative it failed miserably. I got about 3 and half minutes in before I had enough listening to fat boys rant about his fantasies of other people stroking his cock before I gave up.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is a law that makes it legal for the US government to monitor the telephone calls and email of non US citizens without a warrant. The NSA obtained a warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for the metadata obtained from Verizon and other carriers as required by FISA. There was nothing illegal about it.

While I'm not a big fan of FISA, FISC or Obama, I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence of illegal wiretapping.

[Tiberius]

What illegal wiretapping programs?

Ben Swann did a nice report on it: http://benswann.com/nsas-criminal-activity/

The Verizon data is not really an issue anymore. That was the tip of the iceberg. The fact that the NSA have backdoor access (allegedly) to a number of computer systems run by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. is the illegal bit. Those companies have denied such access; but they are required not to disclose access by law.

It's also the fact that a government like the one running the US is supposed to be bound by a constitution. They can't just enact laws that say "we can do this now; it's legal". That's why you'll find plenty of these articles online: NSA surveillance may be legal — but it’s unconstitutional.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Is that why Obama has called to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force?

He also said he would close down Gitmo but nothing has happened on that front. He's made a lot of promises and most of them he has not kept. And those he has kept have turned out to be fairly inconsequential. If there is one thing I have learned, especially with 2nd term Obama, it's that talk is cheap. When Obama actually starts doing what he promises and what his constituents voted him in for, then I'll give him some praise.

And he has been very happy about using the AUMF, it's basically what his drone war is based off of. He also said that he wanted to refine and then ultimately repeal the AUMF, refine being the key word there. To me that means that parts of the AUMF will end up being placed permanently into legislation, so that by the time the bill is actually repealed it is a largely symbolic gesture. Think about it....why would you need to refine legislation if you plan on repealing it anyways?

---

Honestly I think the best thing we can do right now is vote third party. You don't have just two choices! Third parties until we can get a publicly funded no party system.

He also said he would not sign anything to further extend the AUMF. But if you dismiss that because his "talk is cheap", dismiss everything else that you said he said too.

I've voted third party for the past three elections. I live in New York anyway. My vote doesn't count for shit.

[popeyespappy]

What illegal wiretapping programs?

Ben Swann did a nice report on it: http://benswann.com/nsas-criminal-activity/

The Verizon data is not really an issue anymore. That was the tip of the iceberg. The fact that the NSA have backdoor access (allegedly) to a number of computer systems run by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. is the illegal bit. Those companies have denied such access; but they are required not to disclose access by law.

Alleged backdoor access and the companies have denied granting such access. I think it is important to note in this case that the companies have denied it and not just refused to comment on it. The later being more likely if indeed they had granted such access.

It's also the fact that a government like the one running the US is supposed to be bound by a constitution. They can't just enact laws that say "we can do this now; it's legal". That's why you'll find plenty of these articles online: NSA surveillance may be legal — but it’s unconstitutional.

Article 1 section 1 of the US Constitution reads, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” In other words the Constitution grants the power to write laws to congress.

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 reads, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” So congress has the power, indeed an obligation, to provide for common defense and general welfare of the citizens of the US.

Article 1, section 8, clause 18 of the United States Constitution is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause. It reads, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This particular clause has long been controversial as many thought it could be interpreted to give the government nearly unlimited power.

Madison defended the clause in the Federalist Papers when he wrote, "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." Madison would soon regret writing those words as it wasn't long before Hamilton, who was initially opposed to the clause, used the clause and Madison's defense of it to justify the government's power to establish a national bank. Something that Madison opposed. Clause 18 gives congress a very broad power to act.

Article 2 of the Constitution grants executive power to the office of the President. Executive power includes the responsibility for executing the law. The NSA falls under the executive branch.

Article 3 section 1 vests the judicial powers of the government in the courts. Section 2 defines those powers. It reads, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Finally the Fourth Amendment offers protection from unreasonable search and seizure. It reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So the Constitution says congress has the power to write laws. They are obligated to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people and were given broad powers to do so. Congress used the powers granted to them to produce FISA. It was written with the common defense and general welfare in mind. FISA requires warrants before obtaining the information of US citizens, i.e. The People. As such it does not in and of itself conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

FISA is a tool used by the executive branch to fulfill the obligations levied on them by the Constitution. The NSA is using it to do exactly that. If one believes the stories that the metadata obtained from various businesses has been instrumental in thwarting 50 terrorists attacks.

The courts have the power under the Constitution to issue warrants and interpret laws. This includes deciding if laws conflict with other laws Including the Constitution. If there is a failure with the way the government has handled this situation this is where it is. The courts have had a couple of opportunities to examine the constitutionality of FISA already. To date they have not ruled the law unconstitutional. I believe this is correct. There is nothing wrong with the law itself.

The problem here, if there is one, is that the law was applied ultra vires by the courts when they issued such a broad warrant. It is beyond the authority of the law to allow for such broad reaching search and seizure. It conflicts with the fourth amendment which takes president. Unfortunately under our Constitution the only entity with the authority to decide if the courts have acted outside the authority granted to them under the law are the courts themselves. And the courts have an abysmal record of policing themselves.

[DeistPaladin]

Who was the last U.S. president who wasn't a war criminal?

Jimmy Carter

[paulpablo]

Clare Daly in Irish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly)
The video is published on 21 June 2013

This woman is on fire.

[DeistPaladin]

Sometimes I want him impeached just because he frequently and spinelessly caves into GOP pressure when there is no reason to do so.

History will have to judge whether Obama was a spineless wimp who lacked any courage of his convictions, a delusional visionary who dreamed of a bipartisan utopia or a clever sell-out who suckered most of America.

His recent world tour was kind of a flop. He seemed to get a cool reception everywhere he went. Maybe he do what he did in 2010 with liberals here in America: He should tell the world to "buck up" and "stop whining". Then the Obots can come along to wag their fingers at the world and lecture them on how wonderful Obama is and if he ever fails, it's only because we just didn't support him enough.