Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/daniel-ellsberg-other-whistleblowers-want-obama-transparency-award-174113732.html

What are your thoughts?

I think it is people who want the President to be their puppet or act the way they think they would act if they were President complaining that he is neither of those things. I imagine unless he literally opens the Pentagons classified records to the public he would be just a terrible person who hates freedom.

It did seem a funny award in the first place. I mean, love Obama or hate him, I wouldn't call his government particularly transparent.

Obama, transparent?

If Obama was transparent people would have seen he had no stones and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Either could have negatively effected his election prospects.

AvatarForm wrote:http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/daniel-ellsberg-other-whistleblowers-want-obama-transparency-award-174113732.html

What are your thoughts?

ONE
Term
President

President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.

Jesus, and I thought our government was bad

Toastedandy wrote:

President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.

Jesus, and I thought our government was bad

Ahh...this sounds like George W. Bush was elected for a third time...just with bigger ears now.

President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.

I noticed reliable sources on these so called secrets wasn't part of the letter. It's easy to make accusations. Frazzled actually has a secret program to kidnap weiner dogs and turn them all into pudding. His love of wiener dogs is a front for his love of wiener pudding. Wait, that sounds suspect.

Ahtman wrote:

President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.

I noticed reliable sources on these so called secrets wasn't part of the letter. It's easy to make accusations. Frazzled actually has a secret program to kidnap weiner dogs and turn them all into pudding. His love of wiener dogs is a front for his love of wiener pudding. Wait, that sounds suspect.

Blasphemer! The holy fire of wiener dog bad breath shall cleanse thee of thine impertinance!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order. This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
The Obama administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juries in order to target journalists and news publishers.


I noticed reliable sources on these so called secrets wasn't part of the letter. It's easy to make accusations. Frazzled actually has a secret program to kidnap weiner dogs and turn them all into pudding. His love of wiener dogs is a front for his love of wiener pudding. Wait, that sounds suspect.

In Obama's defense (yes you read that right) I'll note this:
"President Obama has initiated a secret assassination programme,"
***Its not secret. Hippy tree huggers have been hand ringing about this for some time. Destroying enemy assets is time honored world and US tradition, since we had snipers shooting at British officers. This is no different. Would you have put a bullet into hitler's brain pan if you could? If yes then shut the up.

has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
***Only those acting as officers of enemy powers. Anwar Owmyfooty is a(the) leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Again, put out the whole story or else you're just a whining girly boy.

President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalised the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order.
***You mean capture enemy combatants? You're right and its perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention. You're also right in that it shows he a y by not putting them against the wall, but you can't have everything.

This also means the power to secretly imprison. There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.
***Here's a hint - when captured trying to kill American GIs and not acting as unifromed soldiers of a foreign power bad things might happen to you. See the above against the wall thing.

Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

Karon wrote:Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

While not relevant to the topic: Yes I am sure you: 1) watched the debate; and 2) seriously thought about voting Republican. Wait, don't you have company internet systems to break into so you can spill their personal information on the internet for ID thieves to hack? It must have been a great sacrifice of your valuable hacking time to watch the debate.

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

While not relevant to the topic: Yes I am sure you: 1) watched the debate; and 2) seriously thought about voting Republican. Wait, don't you have company internet systems to break into so you can spill their personal information on the internet for ID thieves to hack? It must have been a great sacrifice of your valuable hacking time to watch the debate.

I did indeed watch the debate, no I didn't seriously think about voting Republican.

Karon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

While not relevant to the topic: Yes I am sure you: 1) watched the debate; and 2) seriously thought about voting Republican. Wait, don't you have company internet systems to break into so you can spill their personal information on the internet for ID thieves to hack? It must have been a great sacrifice of your valuable hacking time to watch the debate.

I did indeed watch the debate, no I didn't seriously think about voting Republican.

Of course you didn't. Obama is a disgrace, but this article is just further left wing people whinging about things that any president would have done. Hand wringing about killing Osama? Seriously? I mean.... SERIOUSLY?

Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Karon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

While not relevant to the topic: Yes I am sure you: 1) watched the debate; and 2) seriously thought about voting Republican. Wait, don't you have company internet systems to break into so you can spill their personal information on the internet for ID thieves to hack? It must have been a great sacrifice of your valuable hacking time to watch the debate.

I did indeed watch the debate, no I didn't seriously think about voting Republican.

Of course you didn't. Obama is a disgrace, but this article is just further left wing people whinging about things that any president would have done. Hand wringing about killing Osama? Seriously? I mean.... SERIOUSLY?

Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

I think the decision to kill Osama was a bit more complicated than you are making it out to be.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

So were the founding fathers....

Phototoxin wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

So were the founding fathers....

Touche. I think.


Not really?

Is this Manning fellow starting up his own country?

Karon wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Karon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:Its kind of funny, because Obama will win a second term. I can't take anyone at that Republican debate seriously, except maybe Mitt Romney.

Y'all see Pawlenty getting the "Watch your mouth or I'll fething kill you" from Romney when the commentator asked him about Robamacare or whatever? FUNNY AS HELL. Never seen so much backpedaling.

While not relevant to the topic: Yes I am sure you: 1) watched the debate; and 2) seriously thought about voting Republican. Wait, don't you have company internet systems to break into so you can spill their personal information on the internet for ID thieves to hack? It must have been a great sacrifice of your valuable hacking time to watch the debate.

I did indeed watch the debate, no I didn't seriously think about voting Republican.

Of course you didn't. Obama is a disgrace, but this article is just further left wing people whinging about things that any president would have done. Hand wringing about killing Osama? Seriously? I mean.... SERIOUSLY?

Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

I think the decision to kill Osama was a bit more complicated than you are making it out to be.

You think wrong, but that is not unusual. But enough time away from your supporting of criminal hackers, back to monitor. There's a day care that needs cracking into and pronto!

Lol, Frazzled is the biggest troll on Dakka.

"You think different from me so I'll try to defame you in every one of my posts!"

WTF do hackers have anything to do with this? Do you even know what a hacker is?

Karon wrote:Lol, Frazzled is the biggest troll on Dakka.

"You think different from me so I'll try to defame you in every one of my posts!"

Thats alsmost sig worthy . However Team Wienie finds the use of cat pics..offensive...

Frazzled wrote: has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
***Only those acting as officers of enemy powers. Anwar Owmyfooty is a(the) leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Again, put out the whole story or else you're just a whining girly boy.

People seem to have really weird ideas about how wars work. If someone is an officer in an army (or armed forced that aren't quite an army like Al Qaeda) that's at war with or in open hostilities with the US, the Army will generally shoot them. This has never been a controversial position, and you don't get any additional protection by not renouncing your US citizenship before joining a hostile army. In fact, by remaining a US citizen you make your position worse, because if you're captured the US can try and execute you for treason instead of having to follow any other protocol.

When these guys freak out about the fact that Lincoln ordered 289,000 assassinations of American Citizens in the Civil War, they'll at least be consistent, but claiming that the President engaging in military action against forces hostile to the US who happen to include some people who did not renounce their citizenship is some sort of secret assassination plot is still nuts.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Frazzled wrote: has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Awlaki.
***Only those acting as officers of enemy powers. Anwar Owmyfooty is a(the) leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Again, put out the whole story or else you're just a whining girly boy.

People seem to have really weird ideas about how wars work. If someone is an officer in an army (or armed forced that aren't quite an army like Al Qaeda) that's at war with or in open hostilities with the US, the Army will generally shoot them. This has never been a controversial position, and you don't get any additional protection by not renouncing your US citizenship before joining a hostile army. In fact, by remaining a US citizen you make your position worse, because if you're captured the US can try and execute you for treason instead of having to follow any other protocol.

When these guys freak out about the fact that Lincoln ordered 289,000 assassinations of American Citizens in the Civil War, they'll at least be consistent, but claiming that the President engaging in military action against forces hostile to the US who happen to include some people who did not renounce their citizenship is some sort of secret assassination plot is still nuts.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that an assassination was different to combat engagements.

Orlanth wrote:Obama, transparent?

If Obama was transparent people would have seen he had no stones and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Either could have negatively effected his election prospects.

I don't know, it seems to me that apparently "slapping the UK in the face" (to paraphrase) might indicate stones.

It also seems to me that having "stones" is essentially the same as having a "chip" on one's "shoulder".

Unless of course by "stones" you mean "mass in Earth gravity", in which case I'm surprised at your preference for obese Presidents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Karon wrote:Lol, Frazzled is the biggest troll on Dakka.

"You think different from me so I'll try to defame you in every one of my posts!"

Thats alsmost sig worthy . However Team Wienie finds the use of cat pics..offensive...

The single most accurate summation of Frazzled I have ever seen.

Frazzled for President.

Frazzled wrote:You're also right in that it shows he a y by not putting them against the wall, but you can't have everything.

It also shows that he adheres to components of international law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Also, what's with this Bradley Manning crap? The man is a criminal and a traitor.

So were the founding fathers....

His problem is merely that there aren't enough people willing to kill those people that want him dead.

Well, "merely" is a sort of joke, its about the biggest and most important problem any person can have.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Forgive me, but I was under the impression that an assassination was different to combat engagements.

Like I said, people seem to have really ideas about how wars work. Telling your armed forces to target an officer in armed forces that you're in open hostilities with is simply a form of combat engagement, even if your armed forces use stealth. Being an officer doesn't mean that the other side can't shoot at you. Being a citizen of the other side's country doesn't mean they can't shoot at you, and in fact means you're in a worse situation if you're captured.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Like I said, people seem to have really ideas about how wars work. Telling your armed forces to target an officer in armed forces that you're in open hostilities with is simply a form of combat engagement, even if your armed forces use stealth. Being an officer doesn't mean that the other side can't shoot at you. Being a citizen of the other side's country doesn't mean they can't shoot at you, and in fact means you're in a worse situation if you're captured.

As "The War Against Terror" (acronyms are fun) shows, not being engaged in open hostilities doesn't mean you can't be shot either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
ONE
Term
President

If that's what you think, then you have no basis for doing so, as none of the relevant data (approval ratings, incumbent advantage, etc.) agree with such an assessment.

But, since its you, I suspect its a matter of confusing what you think, with what you want.

dogma wrote:As "The War Against Terror" (acronyms are fun) shows, not being engaged in open hostilities doesn't mean you can't be shot either.

That's not even close to being something unique to the war on terror. It's still unfortunate, but it's nothing new.

Hordini wrote:

dogma wrote:As "The War Against Terror" (acronyms are fun) shows, not being engaged in open hostilities doesn't mean you can't be shot either.

That's not even close to being something unique to the war on terror. It's still unfortunate, but it's nothing new.

I wasn't so much talking about incidental casualties, which as you noted are common to all wars (and really all violence), so much as the killing random Pakistani (among others) citizens while chasing terrorists.

The key difference being that we're not at war with Pakistan, and that's before considering the sense of declaring war on a concept.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:

dogma wrote:As "The War Against Terror" (acronyms are fun) shows, not being engaged in open hostilities doesn't mean you can't be shot either.

That's not even close to being something unique to the war on terror. It's still unfortunate, but it's nothing new.

I wasn't so much talking about incidental casualties, which as you noted are common to all wars (and really all violence), so much as the killing random Pakistani (among others) citizens while chasing terrorists.

The key difference being that we're not at war with Pakistan, and that's before considering the sense of declaring war on a concept.

Yes, but we're not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq either, and similar things have happened there as well.


To clarify, you're not talking about innocent people who get caught in a crossfire or an explosion during a fight with or an attack on insurgents/terrorists, but rather innocent people who are mistakenly identified as terrorists and because of that, intentionally targeted and killed?