WH wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secret

[Lord Zentei]

Linka

A federal judge issued a 75-page ruling on Wednesday that declares that the US Justice Department does not have a legal obligation to explain the rationale behind killing Americans with targeted drone strikes.

United States District Court Judge Colleen McMahon wrote in her finding this week that the Obama administration was largely in the right by rejecting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for materials pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to execute three US citizens abroad in late 2011 [pdf].

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US nationals with alleged ties to al-Qaeda, were killed on September 30 of that year using drone aircraft; days later, al-Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was executed in the same manner. Although the Obama administration has remained largely quiet about the killings in the year since, a handful of statements made from senior White House officials, including Pres. Barack Obama himself, have provided some but little insight into the Executive Branch’s insistence that the killings were all justified and constitutionally-sound. Attempts from the ACLU and the Times via FOIA requests to find out more have been unfruitful, though, which spawned a federal lawsuit that has only now been decided in court.

Siding with the defendants in what can easily be considered as cloaked in skepticism, Judge McMahon writes that the Obama White House has been correct in refusing the FOIA requests filed by the plaintiffs.

"There are indeed legitimate reasons, historical and legal, to question the legality of killings unilaterally authorized by the Executive that take place otherwise than on a 'hot' field of battle," McMahon writes in her ruling. Because her decision must only weigh whether or not the Obama administration has been right in rejecting the FOIA requests, though, her ruling cannot take into consideration what sort of questions — be it historical, legal, ethical or moral — are raised by the ongoing practice of using remote-controlled drones to kill insurgents and, in these instances, US citizens.

"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22,” she writes. “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.”

Throughout her ruling, Judge McMahon cites speeches from both Pres. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in which the al-Awlaki killings are vaguely discussed, but appear to do little more than excuse the administration’s behavior with their own secretive explanations.

“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential — but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a US citizen,” McMahon quotes Mr. Holder as saying during a March 2012 address at Chicago’s Northwestern University. “Holder did not identify which recent court decisions so held,” the judge replies, “Nor did he explain exactly what process was given to the victims of targeted killings at locations far from ‘hot’ battlefields…”

And while both Mr. Holder and Pres. Obama have discussed the killings in public, including one appearance by the president on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, the Justice Department insists that going further by releasing any legal evidence that supports the executions would be detrimental to national security.

While Judge McMahon ends up agreeing with the White House, she does so by making known her own weariness over how the Obama administration has forced the court to rely on their own insistence that information about the attacks simply cannot be discussed.

“As they gathered to draft a Constitution for their newly liberated country, the Founders — fresh from a war of independence from the rule of a King they styled a tyrant — were fearful of concentrating power in the hands of any single person or institution, and most particular in the executive,” McMahon writes.

Responding to the decision on Wednesday, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer issued a statement condemning the White House’s just-won ability to relieve itself from any fair and honest explanation as to the justification of Americans.

“This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of US citizens and also effectively green-lights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures,” Jameel writes. “As the judge acknowledges, the targeted killing program raises profound questions about the appropriate limits on government power in our constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know more about the circumstances in which the government believes it can lawfully kill people, including US citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime.”

The ACLU says they plan to appeal Judge McMahon’s decision and are currently awaiting news regarding a separate lawsuit filed alongside the Center for Constitutional Rights that directly challenges the constitutionality of the targeted kills.

“The government has argued that case should also be dismissed,” the ACLU notes.

In a Wednesday afternoon statement from the Times, assistant general counsel David McCraw says the paper will appeal the ruling as well.

"We began this litigation because we believed our readers deserved to know more about the US government's legal position on the use of targeted killings against persons having ties to terrorism, including US citizens," McCraw says.

Although she ruled against the plaintiffs, Judge McMahon, says McCraw, explained "eloquently … why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully."

[Thanas]

This ruling pretty much shows the judge having no spine. Despite clearly stating she is uncomfortable with the whole process she still simply says "trust the President". For god's sake women, if you have no evidence to back the tale one party is spinning, then toss it out as unsubstantiated bullcrap. That one party just happens to be the government is especially damning since I know of no criminal case where the Government's word is considered sufficient, or even evidence at all.

[Lord Zentei]

There's more where that came from. I came across the following article earlier, and thought it had been posted here, but on quick review, apparently not.

Remember all the brouhaha over how the NDAA authorized the government to indefinitely detain people (including citizens) without charge or due process? It was struck down in court, and the government appealed. Now, the appeals judge has buckled under pressure from Obama and reinstated the law. America is arguably under martial law now, citizens can be "disappeared" at the president's whim:

Linka

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.

With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to “pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”

Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.

"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."

Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Within only hours of Afran’s statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the day’s actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."

Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.

So: indefinite detentions, no due process, assassinations without explanation; and from that earlier thread... torture of citizens, and of children.

It's a sad day when Alex Jones doesn't seem quite so crazy any more.

[Thanas]

Hey, remember when people decided that they better vote Obama because the GOP is so very interested in killing their freedom? Pay no attention to Obama granting himself the power to do far worse things in individual cases than Bush ever did.


Fuck, this sounds just like Putin's playbook. Oh wait, people actually get trials in Russia before they are disappeared.

In Patriotic America, freedom imprisons you.

[Ralin]

Hey, remember when people decided that they better vote Obama because the GOP is so very interested in killing their freedom? Pay no attention to Obama granting himself the power to do far worse things in individual cases than Bush ever did.


Fuck, this sounds just like Putin's playbook. Oh wait, people actually get trials in Russia before they are disappeared.

In Patriotic America, freedom imprisons you.

Still waiting for your explanation of why letting Romney win would have been in any way better.

[Thanas]

Still waiting for your explanation of why letting Romney win would have been in any way better.

Still waiting for you to realize that I never said that.

[Ralin]

Still waiting for you to realize that I never said that.

No, but you're certainly implying it. When you're faced with a choice between bad and worse you pick the bad option, and I don't see any reason to think Romney wouldn't have been worse.

Seriously dude, what is your point? This was a David Dukes vs Edwin Edwards situation. You take what you can get and you try to make sure there's a better choice next time. What the hell else did you expect John Q Obama voter to do? Vote for someone else and increase the odds of Romney winning? Stay home?

[Thanas]

No, but you're certainly implying it.

Only if you want to see it. I am arguing against members of the board who said the republicans will do all Obama does and even be worse than he is and based on that hypothetical argue to vote for Romney. I have in the past argued for voting third party and that has not changed.

Seriously dude, what is your point? This was a David Dukes vs Edwin Edwards situation. You take what you can get and you try to make sure there's a better choice next time. What the hell else did you expect John Q Obama voter to do? Vote for someone else and increase the odds of Romney winning? Stay home?

I expect the voter to do what he can justify with his conscience. If he thinks he can vote for somebody who advocates for unchecked assassination, disappearing and torture power then he can certainly do so. It would make him a huge hypocrite when it comes to criticizing other supporters of those policies. If you want a clean conscience and/or not vote for the killer in chief, then there are two options - vote for a third party or do not vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama, then be prepared to be ridiculed if you go "BAD IRAN" next time.

[Lord Zentei]

If Obama keeps this up, it's an open question whether he's less bad than Romney would have been. At least with the GOP in the White House, the Democrats would have to pretend to be an opposition party, not that they had a sterling record of that during the Bush years.

But more to the point: the more people vote for a third party, the more responsibly the Democrats (and Republicans) will be forced to act. If that means 4 years of Romney instead of 4 years of Obama, tell me how much worse that would be, exactly? This is supposed to be the whole point of political parties: you punish them by not voting for them if they don't give you what you want. Stiff upper lip if you need to endure temporary discomfort while they get the fucking message. But if you hope they will become nicer later on if you keep rewarding them, then I fear you will be disappointed.

[Simon_Jester]

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

Nobody ever told me voting works that way- I thought it was a statement of relative preference. "Of the choices on offer, I believe that the best option is to vote Candidate X" is not the same as "I admire Candidate X in all things always and forever!"

Now Zentei's arguments, those carry a bit more weight to me- arguing about consequences instead of drumming up reasons to point fingers and cry hypocrite.

If Obama keeps this up, it's an open question whether he's less bad than Romney would have been. At least with the GOP in the White House, the Democrats would have to pretend to be an opposition party, not that they had a sterling record of that during the Bush years.

But more to the point: the more people vote for a third party, the more responsibly the Democrats (and Republicans) will be forced to act. If that means 4 years of Romney instead of 4 years of Obama, tell me how much worse that would be, exactly?

Domestic politics. Romney, by all evidence, would have been willing to let the US government's domestic agencies and federal programs go to hell in a handbasket. Unless the Senate Democrats got really staggeringly obstructionist despite being in a vise, I suspect we'd be seeing Tea Party budgets within a year or two.

People can die of their heating oil subsidy coming to an end too. It may not be a civil liberties issue, but it's real, and I know it weighed on a lot of minds on this site this year.

This is supposed to be the whole point of political parties: you punish them by not voting for them if they don't give you what you want. Stiff upper lip if you need to endure temporary discomfort while they get the fucking message. But if you hope they will become nicer later on if you keep rewarding them, then I fear you will be disappointed.

Point.

[Ralin]

Only if you want to see it. I am arguing against members of the board who said the republicans will do all Obama does and even be worse than he is and based on that hypothetical argue to vote for Romney. I have in the past argued for voting third party and that has not changed.

You're not an idiot Thanas. You know perfectly well that voting for a third party candidate over Obama in the US political system is tantamount for voting for Romney.

I expect the voter to do what he can justify with his conscience. If he thinks he can vote for somebody who advocates for unchecked assassination, disappearing and torture power then he can certainly do so. It would make him a huge hypocrite when it comes to criticizing other supporters of those policies. If you want a clean conscience and/or not vote for the killer in chief, then there are two options - vote for a third party or do not vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama, then be prepared to be ridiculed if you go "BAD IRAN" next time.

That's a false dilemma. There were only two viable options. One of them was going to win, and if it wasn't Obama it would have been Romney. Not voting for Obama or throwing away one's vote for a third party that had no chance of winning the presidency would have made the voter responsible for anything Romney would have done as president.

Again, bad situation. One of these things would be worse than the other, and when it's a choice between two bad things picking the lesser evil is not immoral.

But more to the point: the more people vote for a third party, the more responsibly the Democrats (and Republicans) will be forced to act. If that means 4 years of Romney instead of 4 years of Obama, tell me how much worse that would be, exactly? This is supposed to be the whole point of political parties: you punish them by not voting for them if they don't give you what you want. Stiff upper lip if you need to endure temporary discomfort while they get the fucking message. But if you hope they will become nicer later on if you keep rewarding them, then I fear you will be disappointed.

There's a time and a place for trying to force the major parties to act more responsibly. When you're staring down the barrel of a possible Romney presidency? Not one of them. People would have suffered a hell of a lot worse than "temporary discomfort" under a Romney presidency. I see zero reason to think that Romney wouldn't have been Obama+ in terms of bad things happening.

[Lord Zentei]

Explain how he would have been significantly worse, given that the Democrats control the Senate, and explain how the options between the Democrats and Republicans are likely to become more palatable in the foreseeable future.

Of course, to ignore the above, you really need to believe that Romney is the devil himself, and they managed to make him appear like that quite nicely. The loser tends to end up looking that way in the eyes of the party that wins, so when would your criteria apply?

Frankly, this is EXACTLY the time when the parties should be forced to act more responsibly.

That's a false dilemma. There were only two viable options. One of them was going to win, and if it wasn't Obama it would have been Romney. Not voting for Obama or throwing away one's vote for a third party that had no chance of winning the presidency would have made the voter responsible for anything Romney would have done as president.

No, your position is a false dilemma. Especially this perennial idea that voting third party is "throwing your vote away". The only way you can throw your vote away is by accepting the good cop/bad cop bullshit and voting for some one you don't want to be president.

[Thanas]

You're not an idiot Thanas. You know perfectly well that voting for a third party candidate over Obama in the US political system is tantamount for voting for Romney.

Nope. First, it is voting for the third party. That it profits Romney is an assumption which relies on outside conditions (number of total votes for Romney etc) to be valid. Given how few Americans really care about their freedoms, I remain unsatisfied that this assumption is correct.

That's a false dilemma. There were only two viable options. One of them was going to win, and if it wasn't Obama it would have been Romney. Not voting for Obama or throwing away one's vote for a third party that had no chance of winning the presidency would have made the voter responsible for anything Romney would have done as president.

Again with this unsupported assumption.

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

Nobody ever told me voting works that way- I thought it was a statement of relative preference. "Of the choices on offer, I believe that the best option is to vote Candidate X" is not the same as "I admire Candidate X in all things always and forever!"

Apparently the same logic which is used for populations all over the world (aka Iranians who vote for Ahmadinejad "hate America and vote for him because they do not want the US to be a power player in the region", Russians who vote for Putin "hate freedom and love oligarchs", arabs who vote for the muslim brotherhood "want the scharia and hate women") can't be used for the precious american electorate.

Also, if you vote for a candidate you are responsible for what he does in office, unless it goes against his stated intentions. Obama is doing what he said he would do. Ergo, this exception does not apply here.

[Metahive]

Both winning and losing causes Dems and Repubs both to move further right. If progressives drop the Dems they just interprete that as progressives being a worthless electorate segment to pander to. Sad but true.

[Lord Zentei]

I missed this earlier:

If Obama keeps this up, it's an open question whether he's less bad than Romney would have been. At least with the GOP in the White House, the Democrats would have to pretend to be an opposition party, not that they had a sterling record of that during the Bush years.

But more to the point: the more people vote for a third party, the more responsibly the Democrats (and Republicans) will be forced to act. If that means 4 years of Romney instead of 4 years of Obama, tell me how much worse that would be, exactly?

Domestic politics. Romney, by all evidence, would have been willing to let the US government's domestic agencies and federal programs go to hell in a handbasket. Unless the Senate Democrats got really staggeringly obstructionist despite being in a vise, I suspect we'd be seeing Tea Party budgets within a year or two.

People can die of their heating oil subsidy coming to an end too. It may not be a civil liberties issue, but it's real, and I know it weighed on a lot of minds on this site this year.

I give the word to TYT, regarding the recent "fiscal cliff" deal:



And more:



And more:



And still more:



You got that? Obama is an establishment candidate. The whole bullshit act about taxing the rich and supporting the entitlements for the middle class is just that: a bullshit act. He gave the corporations more welfare in his "fiscal cliff" deal, and is likely to put your welfare on the table in negotiations. And when Obamacare kicks in, then maybe, just maybe you'll FINALLY see what a colossal crock of shit that will be.

[Grumman]

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

It comes from the fact there are lines you should be unwilling to cross. Nobody's saying you have to shun a politician because he eats peanut butter and bacon sandwiches, but Obama's attacks on the Sixth Amendment alone should make him unelectable.

Or to put it another way: what would it take for you to vote for Anders Breivik for President, if he was eligible? Because I would never vote for him. I would sooner vote for a goldfish to be made the President of the United States than for someone who is an active force for evil.

[Metahive]

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

It comes from the fact there are lines you should be unwilling to cross. Nobody's saying you have to shun a politician because he eats peanut butter and bacon sandwiches, but Obama's attacks on the Sixth Amendment alone should make him unelectable.

Or to put it another way: what would it take for you to vote for Anders Breivik for President, if he was eligible? Because I would never vote for him. I would sooner vote for a goldfish to be made the President of the United States than for someone who is an active force for evil.

Problem is the american electoral system is rigged. Short of a revolution there'll only ever be deciding between two evils. Might as well pick the lesser one and that's currently not the batshit-insane Tea Party infested Republicans.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Democrats are the lesser of evils, and not pretty much the flip side of the same coin.

And claiming that it's pointless to vote for a third party because the system is "rigged"? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Grumman]

Problem is the american electoral system is rigged. Short of a revolution there'll only ever be deciding between two evils. Might as well pick the lesser one and that's currently not the batshit-insane Tea Party infested Republicans.

You dodged the question: are there any depths to which you will not sink? If Obama had run on a platform of murdering children, would you be making the same mealy-mouthed excuses about how Romney was running on a platform of eating children, so you're compelled to vote for the lesser evil? Or would you find your balls and actually vote for someone who isn't shit?

[Metahive]

Problem is the american electoral system is rigged. Short of a revolution there'll only ever be deciding between two evils. Might as well pick the lesser one and that's currently not the batshit-insane Tea Party infested Republicans.

You dodged the question: are there any depths to which you will not sink? If Obama had run on a platform of murdering children, would you be making the same mealy-mouthed excuses about how Romney was running on a platform of eating children, so you're compelled to vote for the lesser evil? Or would you find your balls and actually vote for someone who isn't shit?

One guy's murdering 100 children, the other 1000. If I don't vote for the former, the latter gets his turn. That's how the american political system works. Do you want to have 900 more dead children just so you can pat yourself on the back for your moral principles?

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Democrats are the lesser of evils, and not pretty much the flip side of the same coin.

And claiming that it's pointless to vote for a third party because the system is "rigged"? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How about you prove that Repubs and Dems are all the same?

Also, that's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, that's the reality of a first past the post electoral system. In such a system, the chances of a viable third party are slim to nil. The best one can hope for is that one of the two big parties split.

[Aaron MkII]

That only works as long as people buy into it. American's have been sold the two party system they have now and the powers that be work hard to make sure you don't deviate from it. A third party candidate is doable but first you need to ditch the belief. And excuse, lets not ignore that it provides a handy reason to absolve the populace of responsibility.

[Grumman]

One guy's murdering 100 children, the other 1000. If I don't vote for the former, the latter gets his turn. That's how the american political system works. Do you want to have 900 more dead children just so you can pat yourself on the back for your moral principles?

I could say the same of you. Do you want to have 1000 more dead children because of your hard-on for realpolitik at the expense of doing the right thing? Because the only reason either of them have any chance of winning is because of people like you.

I would do my part to ensure zero children were murdered and sleep with a clear conscience, even if you succeeded in your attempts to fuck it up for everyone.

[Beowulf]

I still don't get where this brainbug comes from, this "if you vote for a politician you're a hypocrite if you disapprove of any of the things the politician does."

Nobody ever told me voting works that way- I thought it was a statement of relative preference. "Of the choices on offer, I believe that the best option is to vote Candidate X" is not the same as "I admire Candidate X in all things always and forever!"

Now Zentei's arguments, those carry a bit more weight to me- arguing about consequences instead of drumming up reasons to point fingers and cry hypocrite.

I would, however, say you're a hypocrite if you say that you trust the government, and support increasing it's power, and then complain that it's conducting assassinations with out giving the decency to even give a rational as to why it's legal to do so.

[Metahive]

I could say the same of you. Do you want to have 1000 more dead children because of your hard-on for realpolitik at the expense of doing the right thing? Because the only reason either of them have any chance of winning is because of people like you.

I would do my part to ensure zero children were murdered and sleep with a clear conscience, even if you succeeded in your attempts to fuck it up for everyone.

So where's your effort? Where's you participating in grass-roots movement to get the american system changed? Where's your political activism? You know, just not voting or throwing your vote away on election day doesn't cut it, you have to become involved. Show that you earned that sneer at the general electorate. Show that you're serious about getting no children killed and not just a pseudo-principled intellectually-lazy ass.

That only works as long as people buy into it. American's have been sold the two party system they have now and the powers that be work hard to make sure you don't deviate from it. A third party candidate is doable but first you need to ditch the belief. And excuse, lets not ignore that it provides a handy reason to absolve the populace of responsibility.

The right-wingers almost always vote in unison. Splitting the left vote just means more and worse right-wingers in office. That's the lesson the Weimar Republic learned when the left was split between communists and socialists.

[Grumman]

So where's your effort? Where's you participating in grass-roots movement to get the american system changed? Where's your political activism? You know, just not voting or throwing your vote away on election day doesn't cut it, you have to become involved. Show that you earned that sneer at the general electorate. Show that you're serious about getting no children killed and not just a pseudo-principled intellectually-lazy ass.

I'm not part of the fucking problem, that's always a good start. And before the last election I was making an effort to inform your countrymen of just what kind of government they were voting for, and how actively harmful to the purported goal of making America safer tactics like torture and CIA dronestrikes are.