[Peace-discuss] Obama's lies are now officially crazy

Mon Jul 29 02:15:18 UTC 2013

cattle
1175–1225; Middle English /catel/ < Old North French: (personal) 
property < Medieval Latin /capitāle/ wealth; see capital 
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capital>^1

chat·tel
1. Law. a movable article of personal property.
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and 
other things annexed to land.
3. a slave.

Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English chatel < Old French.  See cattle

Synonyms
1. See property.

On 07/29/13 9:47, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
> Amerikans, just like most subservient people throughout history,
> want to be ruled by a king.
>
> It could be argued that the willingness to be ruled by a king
> is genetic, and has a natural selection advantage for the subservient.
>
> Cattle-like, they are willing to trod the same paths from the
> shade to the water hole to the barn over and over and over
> again, invariantly.   Habituation is in ROM chips if you are
> cattle.
>
> Cattle-like people are allowed to eat, and mate, and give
> birth to more cattle-like offspring.  They ascribe to the
> herd mentality.  Those who are disobedient to the herd
> mentality are treated poorly and are not likely to be
> allowed to reproduce but will be culled.
>
> The constitution apparently was written to provide clear barriers
> to the king-like power in the executive.  Successive
> executive administrations invest more and more kingly authority
> in the office.  Of course the "friends" of the executive support
> the increase in authority and those who speak against the accretion
> of power often do so out of partisan jealously rather than out
> of a genuine concern for the consequences.
>
> Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the cattle keep their heads down.
>
>
>
>
> On 07/29/13 9:21, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> ProPublica  |  By Cora Currier
>> Posted: 07/26/2013 12:35 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/26/2013 10:09 pm EDT
>>
>> In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said 
>> again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, 
>> and their associated forces.”
>>
>> So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.
>>
>> At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense 
>> Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.
>>
>> The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they 
>> aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, 
>> would say only that the department’s “answer included the information 
>> requested.”
>>
>> A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could 
>> cause “serious damage to national security.”
>>
>> “Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can 
>> build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we 
>> have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. 
>> “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent 
>> extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”
>>
>> It’s not an abstract question: U.S. drone strikes and other actions 
>> frequently target “associated forces,” as has been the case with 
>> dozens of strikes against an Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen.
>>
>> During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of 
>> Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he 
>> was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as 
>> “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the 
>> Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which 
>> are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda.
>>
>> Sheehan said that by the Pentagon’s standard, “sympathy is not 
>> enough…. it has to be an organized group and that group has to be in 
>> co-belligerent status with Al Qaeda operating against the United 
>> States.”
>>
>> The White House tied Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “elements” 
>> of Al Shabaab in Somalia to Al Qaeda in a recent report to Congress 
>> on military actions. But the report also included a classified annex.
>>
>> Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal 
>> counsel during the Bush administration and has written on this 
>> question at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for 
>> keeping the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are 
>> ‘inflated’ enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they 
>> be mentioned publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a 
>> countervailing very important interest in the public knowing who the 
>> government is fighting against in its name."
>>
>> The law underpinning the U.S. war against Al Qaeda is known as the 
>> Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and it was passed 
>> one week after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t actually include the 
>> words “associated forces,” though courts and Congress have endorsed 
>> the phrase.
>>
>> As we explained earlier this year, the emergence of new or more 
>> loosely-aligned terrorist groups has legal scholars wondering how 
>> effectively the U.S. will be able to “shoehorn” them into the AUMF. 
>> During the May hearing, many lawmakers expressed concern about the 
>> Pentagon’s capacious reading of the law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 
>> described it as a “carte blanche.”
>>
>> Obama, in his May speech, said he looked forward “to engaging 
>> Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately 
>> repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.” But he didn’t give a timeframe. On 
>> Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that 
>> would sunset the law at the end of 2014, to coincide with the U.S. 
>> withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was voted down the same day, 185 to 236.
>>
>> The AUMF isn’t the only thing the government relies on to take 
>> military action. In speeches and interviews Obama administration 
>> officials also bring up the president’s constitutional power to 
>> defend the country, even without congressional authorization.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/pentagon-war-classified_n_3659353.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130729/dc2cc12f/attachment-0001.html>