thoughtsreadunspoken: Oh god, all the little Ron Paul fangirls and fanboys are reblogging my ‘weep for humanity’ Obama-supporting post and amending it so it suits them. I’m not someone who blindly follows a person or a cause without asking questions (see: Kony 2012). Yes, I am aware of…

Evil Teabagger: thoughtsreadunspoken: Oh god, all the little Ron Paul fangirls and…

Libertarians, stop trying to play the pacifist card. You are not pacifists.

logicallypositive:

squashed:

libertarians-and-stoya responded to my support for Obama on the grounds that he’s competently kept the ship afloat and pointed it in the right direction by writing:

Forgot “mass murder of Muslim men, women and children”. Seems pretty boring to me.

The Cheeky Libertarian has been doing the same thing. There’s a war. The U.S. is part of it. Therefore, they argue, everything that happens in the war is directly attributable to Obama.

I have a profound respect for a principled pacifism and for anybody whose desire to avoid war at all costs is coupled with a robust peace-making agenda. There are valid and important criticisms of U.S. actions and motivations abroad from people who loathe war and are willing to work to stop it.

But that’s not what the libertarians are doing. They’re not pacifists. They’re non-interventionists. They offer a stomach-turning false pacifism that only pretends to care about “Muslim men, women and children” for long enough to advance isolationist policy goals. Their willingness so stand against any particular war ends the moment the U.S. disentangles itself. Their mantra isn’t “Peace now.” It’s “We can’t be fucked to care about other countries.”

When you believe in peace for the sake of peace, we’ll talk. Until then, let’s not bullshit each other.

no just no

My position is far more consistent with pacifism than any government interventionist attempt to ‘create’ peace (I will never understand how one brings peace with predator drones or armoured tanks, but that’s the claim a lot of people seem to be making by supporting interventionism). I believe in peace for the sake of peace, but insofar as one can only control his or herself, the principle of non-aggression, and therefore anti-interventionism, is the most effective advocacy through which peace can be achieved. It makes absolutely no sense to attempt to control others in an effort to bring about peace, as control requires force, which not only perpetuates conflict, but also expands it to comprise more actors and, in turn, more victims.

We are not going to solve the coltan conflict in the DRC or the Israel-Palestine conflict with violence and the United Nation’s involvement in the Rwandan genocide has shown us that international involvement, in particular, often exacerbates these conflicts to result in more harm to the victims (not to mention that the Hutu-Tutsi conflict resulted exclusively as a result of ethnic tensions created by the preferential treatment (and after independence, power) given to the Tutsis by the Belgians for their slender physical features). Similarly, La Violencia in Colombia (as well as the ongoing drug wars, particularly involving the FARC, but those include the US, so I guess I can’t mention them), the violence (and sheer fear) of the Shining Path in Peru, the violent rise of Pinochet’s military regime in Chile, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian genocide, Apartheid in South Africa, and the almost daily hate crimes against Turkish immigrants in Germany, as well as so many other atrocities that have happened and are happening, are indescribably terrible.

My heart truly goes out to those who suffer and have suffered. But it is one thing to be a bystander who attempts diplomacy (which I am a huge advocate for) and quite another to be the aggressor (even if mistakenly). Obama, as Commander in Chief, is entirely responsible for the initiation and/or perpetuation of violence by our military, abroad and at home, because that is the one thing he has essentially complete control over. He also personally ordered the assassination of Anwar Al-awlaki and his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki—the latter was killed in a drone strike while trying to find his father (as in, not incidentally, but as a result of an independently orchestrated attack), who had already been killed (when he was killed, he was eating with his friends, none of whom survived the attack).

Just because the US seems to be involved in most conflicts these days, in one way or another, that doesn’t mean you are in any position to claim that my (yes, me personally, as you seem to single me out) vocal opposition to US imperialism and violence somehow implies apathy regarding other atrocities. It is precisely because I care about minimizing suffering that I don’t encourage American politicization of atrocities abroad. It is precisely because of efforts, such as ‘Kony 2012’—which has reawakened serious trauma in many victims, who otherwise had left the terror behind them, for a completely misguided guerilla marketing campaign which can only result in more funding for the Ugandan government, who is partially responsible for the very atrocities IC claims to decry—which cause more harm than good, that I focus on the atrocities which the US government initiates and can easily cease, rather than those for which my efforts can do little, if any, good.

And even if there are libertarians who fall under your criticisms, I will remind you that any peace is good peace. ‘Liberaler than thou’ criticisms don’t work, socially, politically, or morally, especially when you’re supporting Bush 2.0.

George Takei at Rohwer Camp in Arkansas, where he and his family were imprisoned during World War II. More info.

Playing loosely with reality

squashed:

thecheekylibertarian feels that Obama is a fascist because:

[He] didn’t repeal DADT on the first day (he could have easily repealed it, but waited for it to happen, instead—people were dishonorably discharged for innocuous characteristics of their sexuality while he took no action)”

and

has failed to close Guantanamo (which he promised to do).

So respecting a balance of powers, even when you don’t want to, is not a fascist thing to do. You might be able to make a case for spineless, if you really stretched it. But not fascist. When Congress passes a bill with a sufficient majority to override a veto, it’s not fascism to sign the bill into law. She’s also upset that Obama has:

DADT was put in place as an executive order and could have been repealed with an executive order. He could have also excused those soldiers who were affected by DADT of their ‘crimes’. Obama plays the constitutionality card when it’s convenient, but the claim that he respects the balance of powers becomes increasingly ludicrous, as he puts the US’ military intervention into over-drive.

Obama had the political capital to move mountains when it comes to healthcare reform; if Guantanamo were an important issue to him, it’s difficult for me to believe he couldn’t lobby Congress enough to get it closed. He only brought the issue up once in his first two years in office. When he took office, there was bipartisan support for closing Guantanamo and the . The initial executive order was ambiguous about the treatment of detainees and didn’t rule out military commissions; the administrations subsequent treatment of the issue was ambivalent and after halting everything over a single congressman’s objection to transfers to Virgina, did very little to help establish any sort of specific action plan, besides ‘reevaluation’ of the cases and a five-pronged approach, which included indefinite detention. He has also prevented the transfer of detainees to other prisons, which only makes the situation worse. When told by the AG that they’d be returning Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s case to the Department of Defense, rather than trying him in federal court, Obama not only failed to object, but he also called it a ‘pragmatic decision’. Obama was told no more than 36 of the detainees could be tried, because “in many cases, the intelligence gathered on the men was not court-worthy evidence.” Why was there no pardon? Sure, Congress voted overwhelmingly against funding $80 million to close Guantanamo, but the administration should have mentioned that keeping Guantanamo open easily outpaces that figure (which, frankly seems ridiculous in the first place): each prisoner costs them approximately $800,000 per year. Last year, Obama signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention for Guantanamo detainees. There’s nothing to indicate that he’s done anything but embrace the Bush Administration’s unconstitutional policies (which completely violate the 5th Amendment).

.has maintained the troops in Iraq

If by “maintained” you mean “drawn down in a steady but controlled manner.”

We’re still there, we’re still armed, we’re still not welcome, and we probably won’t ever leave (see: US occupation in Germany, over 50 years after WWII ended)

signed the NDAA which allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, which hasn’t been ordered since the Civil War

I know we’re more worried about FASCISM than we are about truth—but we ought to at least tip our hat to truth before we trample it. We detained American citizens without trial in World War II. The Bush administration made a practice of it. We detain people indefinitely any time we’re scared about things. Yes, the NDAA has some terrible provisions in it. But there’s no need to make things up to highlight them.

The NDAA codifies it into law, which has institutionalized these human rights abuses. Obama has also exercised the rights the Bush administration reserved, but didn’t actually implement, by ordering the assassinations of two American citizens, one of which was 16; if that isn’t an abuse of power, I don’t know what is.

has started war in Afghanistan

This one always bothers me. Obama embraced, but didn’t start, the war in Afghanistan. There was a war in Afghanistan long before we got there. The facts are bad enough. We can stick to them.

That was an error, on my part (though he did start sending drones to Libya and Iran, which is a whole other story); I meant he’s amped up the number of troops there. We’ve been in Afghanistan for over a decade and with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilians, it’s clear that our presence there is accomplishing nothing positive and Obama’s expansion of our military presence in the area, aside from being immoral, makes absolutely no tactical sense.

detained whistleblower Private Bradley Manning for exposing war crimes (even though during his campaign, Obama claimed to support the role of whistleblowers in keeping institutions honest and accountable).

Being a whistleblower generally means you blow the whistle on specific illegal activity. Manning has been accused of leaking an epic quantity of classified documents. While some of those documents doubtlessly contained some incidental evidence of illegal activity, Manning is hardly in a position to claim “whistleblower” status. He (allegedly) decided that his issue was sufficiently important that he could disregard all sorts of laws regarding handling of classified information. They’re cool and valuable documents, even if they didn’t reveal a whole lot we didn’t already know.

I don’t like war. I don’t like the human rights abuses that inevitably accompany it. It’s worth being angry about. But the reality of war is terrible enough that there is no need to distort it to get the point across.

You said it yourself; he exposed illegal activity. Whistleblowers are not whistleblowers unless the information has been illegitimately concealed, which is precisely what the military did. Legality does not equate to morality; the crimes Private Manning exposed were wrong, were not appropriately punished, and were in complete violation with this administration’s claims to ‘transparency’. 

The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, intended by the performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to bring about one or more of the agent’s political goals.

Terrorism defined by Per Bauhn

Confirmed: The US government is the most powerful terrorist in the world.

Y’all know what this means, don’t you?

coeus:

disobey:

Army private Bradley Manning, who provided classified military documents to WikiLeaks, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

(Photo: Patrick Semansky / AP via the New York Daily News)

If anyone deserves it, this man does. How great would it be if a Nobel Peace Prize recipient was being wrongfully held for years in solitary confinement, in federal prison, by another Nobel Peace Prize recipient?

Brilliant.

He’s far more deserving than Obama. This is truly the only chance the Nobel Committee has to redeem themselves.

Honestly, even if Bradley Manning wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I wouldn’t be entirely convinced that the whole thing isn’t a big fat farce. While Manning definitely did do something good (and it’s shameful that he has to suffer in prison for it), I wonder just how much peace it brought about? Not much, really. The US is still in its multiple wars, with troops all over the planet, and still hellbent on locking up people who go against its government. I understand that the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t meant to be given to those who actually bring about peace, but those who have attempted to, or who have bettered human relations in some way (that’s my understanding of it anyway). Manning hasn’t done this, and even though giving WIkileaks classified government documents is certainly honourable, I don’t think the actions have brought about any sort of change for the better at all. 

Just my two cents on that. 

I disagree. Bradley Manning exposed war crimes the US military commits frequently and without even a slap on the wrist, bringing awareness to the cruel nature of US occupation abroad. Bradley Manning’s extremely inhumane incarceration highlighted the human rights abuses the government undertakes against nonviolent protest under the guise of ‘national security’—those documents were unclassified and Manning’s actions served only to disseminate the information, which I believe is defended under not only free speech itself, but SCOTUS precedent on information privacy. Nonviolent acts of protest like Manning’s send some of the most powerful shocks to the system, as defiance itself as well as bringing awareness to the issues at hand, and while I wouldn’t compare him to any of the great nonviolent leaders of the 20th century, Manning is currently one of the most prominent individuals who was punished for serving honorably by the military industrial complex and his story resonates with both the left and the (non-neocon) right. I would also say that he also gave victims of those war crimes the most justice they could possibly get under the current conditions, given the stronghold the US military has on the ‘rule of law’ of the regions in which those seriously disturbed soldiers choose to rape and pillage.

I think the more important issue it the fact that Obama received the prize by virtue of a well-executed election campaign (over Manning, who was nominated that year, as well), which invalidates the fundamental integrity of the award, so I couldn’t care less about who gets the damn thing.

(Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/bradley-manning-u-s-soldier-accused-leaking-material-wikileaks-nominated-nobel-peace-prize-article-1.1029156)

Higher education is not a luxury. It’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

President Obama speaking in Michigan today about his plans to make college more affordable (via barackobama)

Well I think it would be super if everyone could have their very own human rights acknowledged, but we don’t all get what we want, now, do we?

Sort of reminds me of how all unattended rights have gone to the Oval Office.

…and subsequently been destroyed.

Sadly, you don’t get to listen to David Bowie in Guantanamo.

(Source: http://fuck-yeah-funny-shit.tumblr.com/)

Clearly, Congress is high school and these committees are The Plastics from Mean Girls. 

…which presumably makes Ron Paul the captain of the debate team. I guess Rick Perry can be captain of the cheerleading team, even though he isn’t in the federal government.

Seriously, think about the children. Imagine how screwed up the moral foundations of the generation growing up with laws like this would be.

Is piracy really 25% more deplorable than murder?