EAllusion wrote:Trump has engaged in impeachable content as and more overtly than what exists in the Ukraine instance. The Mueller investigation began in earnest with a confession of obstruction on TV. Trying to argue that this one instance is different because the evidence is stronger than normal is just wrong and smacks of a conclusion in search of a justification.
You keep saying the same thing over and over rather than taking on the details that make the Ukraine scandal different. "Trump did things I recognize as bad therefore people who are not me should do things I think they should do. So there." <insert foot stomp>
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:I am not saying I approve of Vladimir Putin killing journalists. All heads of nations have to make tough decisions that can get people killed. It’s a complex job and no one successful at it is morally pure.
Uh, that elides important distinctions and functions as an apology for tyranny.
Whoa buddy. I said I wasn’t approving of what Putin did. Quit being a contrarian.
Yeah...
Interesting parody. What I said -
Back when Obama was President I had publicly expressed opposition and serious concern regarding the lack of transparency, overzealousness in using drone strikes that including killing American citizens without trial, and demonstrating an over-reliance on rhetoric with apparent limited ability to manage the mechanisms of government needed to enact laws that matter. Did that mean I didn't generally think he was doing a reasonable job because I had issues with some of his policies? And in the case of the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, serious concerns? I'd hope not. Being President is not a job that allows for idealistically pure decision making. The President is a job that is almost 100% guaranteed to include making decisions that result in people dying, losing their jobs, having to decide which group to leave behind to help out the other. Taking the job means the person who leaves that office will be morally compromised.
…
It's a fair point that the President giving the ok for drone strikes knowing they will result in the death of American citizens is not inherent to the job. I certainly think of all of Obama's legacy that is in it's own category. If pressed, I don't have a clear opinion on what should be or have been done about it. I was never of the opinion he should have been impeached over it but when those strikes occurred I was very concerned that it showed a Bush-era level of rationalizing our actions in the so-called war on terror that warranted some form of censure. But what? I don't know.
...
Either way, the point is there aren't many people wondering when we're finally going to go arrest Obama for ordering the killing of American citizens without due process. I doubt that you are clamoring for that. Or are you?
That last question still stands, EA. Do you think Obama should be arrested and tried for ordering the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and other American citizens without due process? If not, what DO you think should be done? We agree what Obama did was wrong. We agree that ordering the killing of an American citizen because they were likely operating as a terrorist against the United States where there is zero intent of arresting them isn't much different than Duterte allowing the killing of people on the grounds they were criminals without a trial. We agree that were this to become an acceptable action on the part of the US Government it would be a precipitous move towards tyranny. Neither of us appear to think it was the right thing for Obama to do. As noted above, I thought it should have been taken up by Congress and debated but I don't think then that he should have been impeached over it. I don't have a thought-out answer to the question of if there is anything that should be done at this point that directly involves Obama.
You have outrage and opinions here still. Apparently so much so you can't maintain your integrity or reading comprehension enough to engage my comments in good faith. But whatever. At least you could answer the question regarding what you think should happen in response to Obama's actions in relation to the use of drone strikes to kill US citizens suspected of crimes rather than attempt to bring them to trial.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
The good guy down the street should be charged and convicted if he murders his wife in a domestic dispute or murders some random person in a road rage incident or murders a US citizen while acting as President. I know the definition of what exactly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors is murky, but murder should obviously be included therein.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
EAllusion wrote:Trump has engaged in impeachable content as and more overtly than what exists in the Ukraine instance. The Mueller investigation began in earnest with a confession of obstruction on TV. Trying to argue that this one instance is different because the evidence is stronger than normal is just wrong and smacks of a conclusion in search of a justification.
You keep saying the same thing over and over rather than taking on the details that make the Ukraine scandal different. "Trump did things I recognize as bad therefore people who are not me should do things I think they should do. So there." <insert foot stomp>
This an odd case of projection. You haven’t made any case that Ukraine is different because the evidence is so much stronger. You just assert it and fold your arms. I have responded to that assertion just by pointing out it is ridiculous and gesturing at some overt examples of evidence of significant wrongdoing in other instances that you apparently just ignore.
That last question still stands, EAllusion. Do you think Obama should be arrested and tried for ordering the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and other American citizens without due process?
I would have supported his impeachment for it and am open to his arrest and trial in such a universe where his actions were recognized for what they were.
EAllusion wrote:This an odd case of projection. You haven’t made any case that Ukraine is different because the evidence is so much stronger. You just assert it and fold your arms. I have responded to that assertion just by pointing out it is ridiculous and gesturing at some overt examples of evidence of significant wrongdoing in other instances that you apparently just ignore.
You keep saying I'm arguing the evidence is stronger. I keep saying the case is different. What I said -
The Mueller report is solid evidence in my opinion, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing there is a meaningful difference between it's findings and how they are perceived compared to the almost immediate implosion of the attempt to make, "No Quid Pro Quo" the new "No Collusion". From the White House memo, to Christie saying it wasn't like Trump said, "Do me a favor" only to have Trump have said those exact words, to the text message exchange, to Mick Mulveny telling people to get over the quid pro quo, to Vindman's testimony...it's not the same case that has to be made to the American people. On top of that, even though in this case the targets were Joe and Hunter Biden it's clear the people who were being screwed over were the Ukranians fighting against Russian separatists. That brought out criticisms from multiple corners of the government apparatus that might not have been as willing to take risks coming forward had it been purely political.
Simply put, it's a different case.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
That last question still stands, EAllusion. Do you think Obama should be arrested and tried for ordering the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and other American citizens without due process?
I would have supported his impeachment for it and am open to his arrest and trial in such a universe where his actions were recognized for what they were.
In this universe, then, you are arguing that his actions aren't correctly recognized for what they were, so Obama being arrested and tried isn't on the table? Interesting. The evidence for Obama having ordered the killing of a US citizen rather than pursue apprehension and a trial isn't the only think you are taking into account here? In a perfect universe where things happen perfectly, Obama would face consequences but in our imperfect one there is more to it than that you say?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:In this universe, then, you are arguing that his actions aren't correctly recognized for what they were, so Obama being arrested and tried isn't on the table? Interesting. The evidence for Obama having ordered the killing of a US citizen rather than pursue apprehension and a trial isn't the only think you are taking into account here? In a perfect universe where things happen perfectly, Obama would face consequences but in our imperfect one there is more to it than that you say?
No. I just recognize that wanting Obama tried for his crimes puts me on the fringe and don’t waste my effort on it. If he were to be arrested specifically for that, and not as political punishment, I would celebrate it. But that’s gum drops and rainbows. In the real world, if Obama was arrested, that would almost certainly be a political punishment, even if those doing the arresting claimed otherwise. This would be reminiscent of Comey's much deserved firing occurring for the wrong reasons with the right reasons being given as a sham, but worse. So in our universe, Obama being arrested probably would be a bad thing.
The Trump admin is now inexplicably holding up military aid to Lebanon after its prime minister resigned. The state department refuses to explain itself. This potentially frees up Russia to expand its sphere of influence to there.
That's from the NYT. It parallels my post on another thread about NPR making the editorial decision to cover this as the Democratic impeachment inquiry as opposed to the Congressional one. I don't know. The dream of Ukraine playing out differently because it will obviously be covered/perceived as a non-partisan affair doesn't seem to be coming to fruition.
