David Sirota: Obama is George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin is Al-Awlaki.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

Throughout the last month or so, we kind of forgot about Salon.com’s David Sirota. We’ve been so preoccupied by his counterpart, Glenn Greenwald, that Sirota had mostly receded into the background, barely detectable by the naked eye.

And then sometime around mid-afternoon on Monday 15 July, 2013, David Sirota not only re-emerged, but he did so in a way that utterly buried the crazy-needle on the Histrionic Seismograph. It was a downpour of self-satirical outrage-porn so massive in its ridiculousness that experts are still attempting to parse whether The Onion infiltrated Salon.com by hijacking Sirota’s log-in privileges. I’m awaiting the word from conspiracy theorists as to whether Sirota’s post was a false-flag to distract from Greenwald’s blunder about Snowden’s “dead man switch” threat.

Are you sitting down?

Here we go. Sirota posted an article on Salon.com titled “George Zimmerman killed the presumption of innocence,” in which he compared George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin to President Obama’s decision to take out al-Qaida terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki. Again, President Obama is like George Zimmerman, while Trayvon Martin, the unarmed African American teenager whom Zimmerman shot and killed, is like the terrorist recruiter and plotter Al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. predator drone in 2011.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/07/david-sirota-unhinged-obama-is-george-zimmerman-trayvon-is-al-awlaki/#.UeWEr4fTe6A.twitter

[msanthrope]

1. Some crazy firebagger shit...what the hell is David Sirota on? nt

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

4. They're either unhinged or they try to outdo each other's cretinous behavior. nt

[msanthrope]

7. It takes werk to outcrazy Greenwald.....nt

[otohara]

109. Recently Fired Radio Talk Show Host

who hates the President, always has. He and Greenwald are one in the same.

[Whisp]

130. ah ha! that explains it then. Why I had the comments I did

down further.

The donators to Greenwald's fund, no doubt.


suckers!!!

[msanthrope]

144. Racial dirty tricks in the Philly mayoral--another firing of Sirota. We here in Philly remember

Dave well.

He cost Dwight Evans the election.

http://inquirer.philly.com/opinion/cv/mayo27.html

[Whisp]

148. thanks for the link, yes, Sirota appears to be very Greenwald like.

scum liar.

[otohara]

153. He's An Angry Guy

might be why he keeps getting fired.

[msanthrope]

141. Here in Philly, we remember when he was fired for racial dirty tricks during the mayoral race.

http://inquirer.philly.com/opinion/cv/mayo27.html

[Cha]

159. Sirota is on pretzels laced with megahater steroids. You know the usual.

[JoePhilly]

2. Sounds like Sirota has jumped the Sharknado.

[rhett o rick]

18. Do you want to discuss the "presumption of innocence" or just throw

ad hominem remarks? Do you even believe in the presumption of innocence?

[JoePhilly]

22. I found Sirota guilty of jumping

Multiple flying sharks after reading his article.

I had presumed him innocent prior.

[onenote]

67. I believe in the presumption of innocence.

I wonder, however, when Sirota writes that "America has proudly discarded old ideals about presuming innocence and now openly presumes guilt in so many different ways" he has given any thought to how those "old ideals" were applied by FDR during WWII when thousands of Japanese Americans were rounded up for nothing more than being Japanese Americans.

The "old ideals" that folks like to throw around often don't hold up to scrutiny.

[rhett o rick]

82. It sounds like you have a valid subject for discussion. I am not claiming to agree with what

he wrote. I find it sad that in DU many have resorted to only assassinating characters and rationalizing ridicule. I am putting them on ignore.

[msanthrope]

90. Don't you laugh when certain posters on this board claim they are "FDR Democrats?" nt

[Yavin4]

119. I laugh as well

Not only did FDR imprison innocent Americans, he did nothing as the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans in the South.

[NOVA_Dem]

75. Sirota is talking about the 16 yr old al-Awlaki AND his father.

I think it is an attempt to misrepresent the tone of the article.

[rhett o rick]

100. Of course, to justify the righteous ridiculing and ad hominem.

The article was the lost of the presumption of innocence in the good Ole USofA. But the only thing some can discuss is how horrible Sirota is. No substance, only logical fallacies.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

120. Exactly.

And it's really sad to see the knee-jerk responses some gave here.

Quite disheartening, actually.

[heaven05]

101. not

in amerikkka for black people. It's always guilty until proven innocent. History bears that fact out.

[kysrsoze]

3. Yeah, exact situation... what a complete ass.

[frazzled]

5. Jumping the Shark, Part III

This is what happens when your thoughts stem from vitriol rather than analysis.

Syllogisms, in the social and historical realm, never lead to valid conclusions.

[ProSense]

14. Jumped a long time ago.

Hate has turned a lot of people into fucking idiots. They're no different from the fucking idiots surrounding Zimmerman.

[ZombieHorde]

49. The Declaration of Independence is a syllogism.

Many people think that document is convincing, but of course that doesn't make it right.

[NightWatcher]

6. Or was he more like Hitler, wait was he worse than bush

Was he worse than Hitler and Zimmerman riding on the back of a Sharknado?

[MrScorpio]

8. Jeezus H. Keryst on a trailer hitch, Sirota

Really?

[Electric Monk]

156. Here's a direct link to Sirota's column

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/15/after_zimmerman_verdict_we_all_are_threats_now/

(snip)

Zimmerman, you recall, tracked Martin’s walk through their gated community, muttering under his breath about “these fucking punks” and “assholes” always getting away. Though Martin wasn’t doing anything other than strolling around, Zimmerman presumed him guilty of something and therefore followed him, ultimately leading to the altercation in which he murdered Martin.

In consequently exonerating him for such a murder, the Sanford court effectively added its government stamp of approval to Zimmerman presuming Martin guilty. Put another way, the Florida judiciary went on record declaring that armed citizens like Zimmerman have no obligation to presume unarmed black teenagers innocent, but instead have a right to presume them guilty — and, in turn, worthy of extrajudicial capital punishment. Call it the Zimmerman Principle.

Terrifying and grotesque as that principle is, it is sadly neither nothing new nor anything we can write off as isolated. On the contrary, Zimmerman’s presumption of guilt and his subsequent actions mimic those of his own government, and therefore reflect a larger attitudinal shift in the nation at large.

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them. Not only that, such a presumption wasn’t hidden from view in shame, as if it was something to be embarrassed about. Instead, Obama openly touted the extra-judicial killing of the father and then his spokesman haughtily justified the extra-judicial killing of the child.

more at the link

[GeorgeGist]

10. Wow thats some kinda stupid.

[arely staircase]

11. So he's calling Martin a terrorist?

Hoe rude.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

13. That's the gist of it. Regardless of how someone feels about drones...

Al-Awlaki was not innocent. Martin was.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

121. Was Al-Awlaki's son innocent or not?

I think the Trayvon comparison to Al-Awlaki's son is comparable. Both are presumed innocent, no?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

123. One can make that argument, as they have many times,

without comparing our first black President to a man that shot an innocent, unarmed black kid to death in cold blood.

If people can't see how wrong that is, then their mental state is too far gone. This kind of shock journalism is no better than the shit the RW shock jocks say on a daily basis.

[disidoro01]

127. Was

Al-Awlaki's son innocent?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

128. Fair enough if we're talking about the father.

What I want to know, however, is if the comparison can then be made with regard to Trayvon and Al-Awaki (the son). Can we then make the analogy that President Obama behaved in a similar manner to Zimmerman by ordering (or presiding over the operation for sake of argument) the murder of an innocent 16 year old kid?

[arely staircase]

186. comparing Trayvon Martin to any terrorist is sick. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

187. Do you know how to read?

I asked about Al-Awaki's son.

What's with the blatant obtuseness in this thread?

[NuclearDem]

189. But, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki palled around with terrorists!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

191. Yeah, very Palinesque answers in this thread.

They should be proud, dontchya know!

[arely staircase]

190. a sick comparison

ask the martin family if they appreciate that comparison

[NuclearDem]

192. Appealing to emotion to dodge the underlying issue.

Classy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

193. To compare him to another innocent kid?

I don't think they'll mind.

[Whisp]

12. David Sirota appears to be a very stupid man.

I have seen other articles by him here over time but I don't recall his stuff enough to have an overall in my mind of him.

If he usually this stupid?

[rhett o rick]

19. So you attack the person and ignore the discussion? nm

[Cleita]

36. My thoughts too. Also, now Senator Franken, used to have him on his radio show

on a regular basis for his insights on what was going on with the Bush administration. Now that he criticizes Obama, he's suddenly stupid?

[otohara]

202. Relentlessly Trashing Obama & His Listeners

I think his radio listeners finally got sick of it and turned him off as I did. He got verbally abusive with his listeners towards the end because God forbid they had their own opinion which often disagreed with his.

I started out my day listening to his show then he got a bad case of Obama derangement syndrome. Moving him to the right-wing station seemed fitting, but knowing Clear Channel as I do being a former employee myself...it was their first step to getting rid of him before letting him go.

One of these days, I'm gonna find out exactly why he was fired from one of the few people at the CC Denver I still converse with via Facebook. It was not on good terms, because he leaves his stint on radio off his bio in listing his jobs. Pretty sure they gave him a decent package and made him sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Suddenly stupid no, suddenly extremely hateful towards POTUS Obama yes!

[Whisp]

129. ha, typical. nm

[geek tragedy]

15. Trayvon Martin joined Al Qaeda? Sirota is a very handsome moron. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

16. That blog you link to is some McCrartyite crap.

Lurid and petty.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. So, in other words, Not Guilty

[rhett o rick]

20. This thread is a great example of posters with no substance but only ad hominem comments that

they think are cute.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

21. Sirota's comments are not worth substantive discussion. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. So they tell me

Empires usually become cartoons of the values they once held... We have entered that stage.

[rhett o rick]

42. That's the usual rationalization of those that are afraid to venture out and have

an open-minded discussion. Now if he had said the same statement about George Bush, I am betting this thread would read a lot different. Situational ethics.

[geek tragedy]

47. Okay, how in your open mind is Trayvon Martin similar to Anwar Al Awlaki? nt

[rhett o rick]

61. I would love to discuss this issue, but not with someone that isnt interested in anything

but character assassinations and ridicule. To me having an "open mind" means willing to listen to both sides w/o resorting to logical fallacies.

[geek tragedy]

71. I read what Sirota wrote. He claimed that Zimmerman was to Martin as Obama was to Al Awlaki.

So, he managed to score the two-fer---comparing the first black President to a racist vigilante, and the victim of a lynching to a traitorous terrorist.

Oh, and he blames Obama for the phenomenon of innocent black folks getting killed by white people.

Which totally never happened before drones.

[rhett o rick]

88. And you jumped to those conclusions without any discussion.

Defending Pres Obama is righteous and therefore justifies any and all behaviors.

[geek tragedy]

94. I read his article. And it was every bit as ODS-soaked as it's being portrayed.

Ask any black person if they were presumed innocent by American society before Obama started using drones.

Shit only a myopic Obama-hating white person would write.

[leftstreet]

24. More Ardent Supporters tend to come out during the workday

I've noticed anyway

And I'm surely, surely not suggesting there's anything odd about that

Surely not

No way

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

30. Are you saying Obama supporters are too lazy to get jobs?

How FOX News of you.

[leftstreet]

34. Heavens no! I'm suggesting high rates of employment! n/t

[bunnies]

115. ...

[msanthrope]

35. It was all the free stuff we got, according to Mitt--like phones and welfare. We don't need jobs!!!

We are the 47%.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

38. It's always the people that feel the need to reaffirm their leftiness in their usernames. nt

[geek tragedy]

51. Isn't that in their SOP of how to troll leftwing boards--

make sure your username includes "left" or "socialism" or "Marx" or something like that?

[Brewinblue]

176. You've been here one week.

[geek tragedy]

39. Ever notice how the supposed leftists who do nothing but hate on Obama

and Obama supporters can't help but belch up rightwing rhetoric?

[msanthrope]

45. It's ODS on fucking steroids--using Trayvon Martin's body this time. nt

[geek tragedy]

37. So now you're plagiarizing Mitt Romney's 47% speech for your trashy insults.

Very revealing.

[leftstreet]

46. wut? n/t

[geek tragedy]

48. Not fooling anyone.

Now, or in general.

[NCTraveler]

25. The lunacy of his thoughts in this matter deserve.......

nothing but ridicule. You have now discussed how duers are reacting to this three times yet you have not offered anything of substance with respect to the article.

[rhett o rick]

50. I would be glad to discuss what he said but not with those that clearly find rationalizations to

ridicule. Character assassinations and ridicule are not the tools of someone interested in open-minded discussions.

[DevonRex]

102. Then why didn't you? You chose to discuss posters rather than the OP.

You derailed the thread, in fact, from discussing the point. So, who is it again who doesn't want to discuss issues? Looks like it's you since you changed the subject deliberately with petty insults. Again.

[Cha]

160. thank you, Devon, for pointing that

shit out.

[DevonRex]

163. It had to be said, as it's rather ironic, at best, for him to do what he whined about.

I suppose it was more important to insult DUers than to actually discuss the topic. Thus drawing all those people he deems unworthy of having a discussion with right to him. The poor thing must have felt so dirty after all that contact.

[Cha]

164. And, I think it's important to bring out Sirota's

teminal case of ODS. Explains much with his latest pretzel induced coma.

[msanthrope]

28. Trayvon Martin wasn't declared a terrorist by the UN. Awlaki was. End of discussion, and Sirota

deserves to be ridiculed for his disgusting comparison.....

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/07/21/Awlaki-lands-on-al-Qaida-suspect-list/UPI-55521279731808/

[questionseverything]

105. that article is about the father

the OP is about the 16 year old son

[msanthrope]

111. Try reading Sirota's actual column...He calls the killing of Awlaki SENIOR 'extrajudicial.' Try

reading the source, and then tell me he was ONLY talking about the son.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

122. So, can we make the comparison regarding Al-Awaki's son?

Who, as Trayvon Martin, could be considered innocent and a victim?

[msanthrope]

132. No. Leave the using of Trayvon Martin to the likes of Juror B37. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

133. So, we can't have that discussion?

Trayvon was murdered for being black. Al-Awaki's son was murdered for being Arab.

So, why can't we make that comparison?

[msanthrope]

137. No. You don't get to compare Trayvon Martin to a UN-designated terrorist and then pretend you have

a right to 'discussion.'

[Fantastic Anarchist]

139. Al-Awaki's son was a UN-designated terrorist?

By the way, you don't get to tell me what rights I have.

I'm simply asking if we can't have a discussion of two murdered innocent teenagers being compared. You don't want to have that conversation because my point remains consistent, while yours just remains convenient.

How sly of you.

[msanthrope]

142. Awlaki was--and that's who Sirota mentioned first. And Sirota, who was fired for racial dirty tricks

during the 2000 mayoral race here in Philly, really should shut his damn mouth...

http://inquirer.philly.com/opinion/cv/mayo27.html

[Fantastic Anarchist]

145. I don't care about what Sirota said.

I asked if we could have a discussion with regard to Trayvon and Al-Awaki's son. This seems to be inconvenient for you, or too confusing. I haven't decided which yet.

Edit: Emphasize "son" so we both won't get derailed by the "father" red herring.

[msanthrope]

147. Tell ya' what. The day Trayvon Martin's family decides to have that discussion, I'm there. Until

then, I ain't having an ODS-fueled discussion with a guy who was fired for racial dirty tricks in the Philly mayoral.

http://inquirer.philly.com/opinion/cv/mayo27.html

You are free to use Trayvon Martin in any way you see fit.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

149. I'm not "using" Trayvon anymore than I'm using Al-Awaki's son.

I'm trying to make a point. That they were both innocent, and they were both killed. You apparently don't want to have that discussion.

Instead, you will resort to points I couldn't care about, namely Sirota and some Philly Mayoral guy. It's not up to Trayvon Martin's family to have a discussion on this board, though, I'm sure they'll appreciate you giving them that burden.

If you don't want to discuss things that may or may not be convenient for you, the simple answer would have been to just say "no," instead of using Trayvon's family as the designated press secretaries in your argument.

[msanthrope]

154. Yeah--you are using people to "make a point." Sirota likened a UN designated terrorist to Trayvon

Martin, then thought better of it, and used the 16 year-old son of the terrorist.

Here's an idea--try making points that don't use children for political arguments.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

162. Again, I don't care what Sirota said, or about any other red herring you're introducing.

Here's an idea, if you didn't want to have a discussion, the simple answer would have been "no," instead of using Trayvon's family as a shield.

Stay classy, msanthrope.

[msanthrope]

168. Right--because using Trayvon Martin as a point of discussion in a lunatic ODS rant is classy. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

172. Who was ranting?

Who brought up his family?

I asked for a discussion about two innocent teenagers who were killed. You brought everything else and the kitchen sink into this.

Your argument was inconvenient, and you chose to use his family as a shield because it was inconvenient, not out of any concern for them, but to avoid having to look at any similarities between Al-Awaki's son and Trayvon Martin.

It was the equivalent of an internet nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

Kind of pathetic, really.

[Galraedia]

181. Al-Awaki's father caused his death

His father decided to involve himself and his family with terrorists when he left the United States with them. He is the one who put his son's safety at risk.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

185. That is a very sorry argument.

Beneath contempt. Beneath a dignified response.

Wow, just fucking wow.

[NuclearDem]

188. Are you fucking kidding me?

So, "sins of the father" is now all of a sudden good enough for summary execution?

Goddamn.

[Galraedia]

195. I'm talking about the fact that his father brought him there and allowed himself and his son to be

around terrorists, which was how his son ended up dead in the first place. War isn't pretty. There are soldiers that actually have had to run over children because they were being used to stop convoys so that a person aiming an RPG missile at the vehicle would have time to fire.

[NuclearDem]

198. So every child that is brought to or lives in whatever "warzone" has been designated by the US

is now fair game because "the parents are irresponsible?"

Perhaps, we could blame the execution of children on the war crimes being carried out by the CIA and USAF through the drone program.

But, no, it's the sixteen-year-old's fault for being dragged into a country the US, through unofficial means and very loose logic, has declared a warzone where children and civilians are fair game.

[Galraedia]

199. HE WAS AROUND TERRORISTS WHEN HE WAS KILLED

He wasn't even the target. The target was al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died in the attack.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

200. Some would think that Trayvon shouldn't have been in a white neighborhood.

A sick, twisted, and depraved argument to be sure, but really no different from yours.

Wow, just wow.

[Cha]

161. Exactly, msanthrope. "The day Trayvon Martin's family decides

to have that discussion..."

Why have a discussion instigated by a fucking humanoid pretzel laced with steriod fueled ODS?

Sirota Fucking exploiting Trayvon Martin's death to feed his ODS. Dispicable pretzel.

[DevonRex]

81. And your post discusses POSTERS. You added nothing to the discussion

of the point raised. Look in the mirror next time you bring this point up, which seems to be all you do these days. It's sad that your only intent is to hurt and demean other DU members.

[snooper2]

104. Truthy to Power?

[Dash87]

26. What a doofus

[Octafish]

27. Sirota's got integrity. Here's what he wrote re Tim Geithner vs Elizabeth Warren

Unless You're a Shill for Banks and Big Business, The Washington Elites Will Call You Controversial

By David Sirota, AlterNet
Posted on July 21, 2010, Printed on July 22, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147594 /

Editor's Note: As chair of the bailout oversight panel, Elizabeth Warren held Wall Street executives' feet to the fire and proved time and time again that she was not afraid to speak out. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is fighting to block her appointment. Sign Credo's petition pushing Elizabeth Warren police Wall Street.

Over the last few days, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have made the case that Harvard professor and Congressional Oversight Panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren is too controversial a figure to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This, then, raises the revealing question of how Washington defines "controversial"?

Recall that the charge of "too controversial" was not made by Senate Democrats (or at least not at the volume they are being made against Warren) against Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs executive appointed by President Obama to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It was not made by most Senate Democrats against Larry Summers, a hedge fund executive subsequently appointed to a top economic position in the administration. It was not made against Citigroup executive Jack Lew when last week he was appointed to head the Office of Management and Budget. And it wasn't made against Tim Geithner, who orchestrated massive taxpayer giveaways to major banks during his time at the New York Fed.

SNIP...

The message to both today's generation and the future generation of citizens who may aspire to work in government is pretty clear: If you are personally/financially connected to private for-profit corporations -- even those that helped destroy the economy -- that underwrite political campaigns, Washington has no problem with your appointment to a position overseeing those same private corporations. But if you forge an independent path and are not connected to those corporations and to that sluice of corporate campaign cash, you are suspect -- and probably will have trouble getting a job in government. Why? Because the former cadre of insiders poses no real threat to the economic status quo -- while the latter kind of independent outsider like Elizabeth Warren might actually rock the boat. Defining "controversial" this way, thus, creates a perverse incentive system: Going through the revolving door is rewarded as noncontroversial, while refusing to go through the revolving door is effectively punished as too controversial.

This is how corruption tends to work most often in D.C. On a day to day basis, it's far less the brazen money-for-votes schemes, and far more the narrowing of the political debate and the distortion of political language itself. In this case, it's the hijacking of the concept of "controversial" so as to marginalize an agent of change. And if that hijacking ends up preventing Elizabeth Warren from heading the CFPA, then, indeed, the status quo will have won.

SOURCE w/links: http://www.alternet.org/story/147594 /

Gee. While I may not agree with his conclusions or style, Sirota tells the truth as he sees it. I seem to remember that before the USA PATRIOT Act, that was his Constitutional right.

[ProSense]

29. "Sirota's got integrity." So you agree with the fucked up comparison he just made? n/t

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

33. That one never sees a fucked up comparison he/she doesn't like. nt

[Octafish]

43. Sheldon, is that you?

"That one." Nice, Dude.

[Octafish]

41. Why don't you quote the rest of what I wrote, ProSense? Taking things out of context is sad.

What else I wrote:

Gee. While I may not agree with his conclusions or style, Sirota tells the truth as he sees it. I seem to remember that before the USA PATRIOT Act, that was his Constitutional right.

[ProSense]

56. He has no fucking "integrity" making this comparison. Also

Why don't you quote the rest of what I wrote, ProSense? Taking things out of context is sad.

What else I wrote:

Gee. While I may not agree with his conclusions or style, Sirota tells the truth as he sees it. I seem to remember that before the USA PATRIOT Act, that was his Constitutional right.

...what "truth" do you see in this fucking lunatic comparison?

[Octafish]

62. Sirota is an excellent reporter.

What are you, ProSense?

[ProSense]

66. He jumped the fucking shark. Can you see that? n/t

[Octafish]

79. Just because you say so?

That is funny.

[geek tragedy]

113. Here's his skis over the shark's fin

On the contrary, Zimmerman’s presumption of guilt and his subsequent actions mimic those of his own government, and therefore reflect a larger attitudinal shift in the nation at large.


Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them. Not only that, such a presumption wasn’t hidden from view in shame, as if it was something to be embarrassed about. Instead, Obama openly touted the extra-judicial killing of the father and then his spokesman haughtily justified the extra-judicial killing of the child.

Explaining the Zimmerman-like aggression against the Awlakis and thousands of others who find themselves targeted by U.S. drone strike missiles, the federal government later offered up the Zimmerman Principle, repeating the same sentiment that Zimmerman expressed during his cellphone call to non-emergency responders.

Except for that part where what happened to Trayvon was part of a 400 year old pattern, and that Al Awlaki was a sworn enemy of the United States, having affiliated himself with a group launching armed attacks against the United States.

Only in Sirotaworld is actively joining the ranks of Al Qaeda the same as carrying Skittles.

[Octafish]

157. You must have trouble with parallel structure. Some minds can't adapt. No problem.

Let me put things simply:

Sirota writes that is not legal to kill someone without due process of law.

[geek tragedy]

158. That is not true in all cases. nt

[onenote]

76. An excellent reporter wouldn't write that America is discarding "old ideals" about the presumption

of innocence and ignore the numerous other instances in our history where that has happened, such as during WWII and the round up of Japanese Americans. A good reporter wouldn't simply ignore facts that contradict his thesis.

[Octafish]

92. No, he's not required to include what you want.

The point he's making is that it's wrong for a president to order the death of a citizen of the United States without due process of law. That would mean he's the judge, jury and executioner, what the U.S. Constitution was written to prevent.

[onenote]

118. No one is "requiring" him to do anything. However, I'll reserve the label "excellent" reporter

for reporters that don't ignore history because its inconvenient to their thesis (or because they're ignorant of history).

[NuclearDem]

184. Look, I know you "strongly support Obama"...

...but can you not read subtext or think critically? Or are even the slightest offenses against Obama just enough to trigger the Pavlovian anger?

Here's what Sirota said:

Zimmerman presumed Trayvon was one of "those assholes" who "always get away." He summarily executed Trayvon without trial.

Obama presumed Al-Awlaki and his son were among "those terrorists" who "hate our freedom." He summarily executed both without trial.

Let me be absolutely clear: I don't care if an American citizen defected to the fucking Third Reich. As long as they hold American citizenship, they are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

I know it sucks having to realize the comparison is apt, because it offends your die-hard loyalty to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama, like Zimmerman, summarily executed an American citizen on a presumption of guilt, and subsequently violated every right of the accused our justice system is based on.

[msanthrope]

31. Sirota just compared a dead 17-year old the equivalent of a UN-named terrorist. He just shit on his

own integrity....He's Juror B37, making a buck off a body.

[Octafish]

55. The president killing who he wants to is un-Constitutional.

The thing was written to prevent one man from having the "right" to be judge, jury and executioner.

Regarding Al-Awaki, he was a child, an American citizen who was 16-years of age.



You say you're a lawyer. What crime was he charged with, msanthrope?

[ProSense]

64. So after claiming I quoted you out of context, you're agreeing with the comparison?

Or at least trying to justify it?

Sirota comparison is sheer lunacy.

[Octafish]

69. Again: I wrote what I wrote.

It seems what I wrote bothers you excessively. Or is it what Sirota wrote?

Either way, don't be mad at me. I didn't send a drone to kill an American citizen -- a child, mind you -- without charge or trial.

[ProSense]

83. Oh please. Sirota's comparison is lunatic, and your attempt at deflection is lame. n/t

[Octafish]

86. He's got a right to state his opinion.

That's what a free press is all about.

[ProSense]

91. And I have a right to call him out on his lunatic comparison. n/t

[Octafish]

126. And that's the point, what makes us fucking different, ProSense.

I want ALL to have a voice in government, not just those who match up with what I want.

It's called "Democracy."

[ProSense]

136. No

And that's the point, what makes us fucking different, ProSense. I want ALL to have a voice in government, not just those who match up with what I want.

It's called "Democracy."

...what makes us "fucking different," is you defending Sirota's lunacy and trying to claim that it's about everyone having "a voice in government." No one said anything about him not being able to say whatever the fuck he wants to say.

"Democracy" allows RW lunatics to voice their opinions, and one can still recognize it as lunacy.

"Democracy" allows me to call fucking lunatics exactly what they are, lunatics.

[Octafish]

150. Yes. You can fucking say what you want, ProSense. The OP can say whatever he or she wants.

...even if it's based on the rantings of a kook blogger smear artist at "The Daily Banter" or DU.

The First Amendment makes democracy possible. What's un-democratic is the organized effort to smear Sirota -- and all the other journalists who mention anything negative about President Obama and his policies, including killing Americans without trial.

[ProSense]

152. You

Yes. You can fucking say what you want, ProSense. The OP can say whatever he or she wants.

...even if it's based on the rantings of a kook blogger smear artist at "The Daily Banter" or DU.

The First Amendment makes democracy possible. What's un-democratic is the organized effort to smear Sirota -- and all the other journalists who mention anything negative about President Obama and his policies, including killing Americans without trial.

...have no point. You're attacking people and claiming that those who disagree with Sirota's lunatic comparison are engaged in an "un-democratic" and "organized effort to smear Sirota."

I mean, WTF?

[msanthrope]

68. Anwar Awlaki was not 16. He was a grown man, subject to the AUMF of 9/18/2001. His son was

killed in a strike targeting another Al Qaeda operative...

Then, on Oct. 14, a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There is no doubt that this was a horrible tragedy. I hope that his family files a wrongful death suit here.

Mr. Sirota chose to compare Trayvon Martin to Awlaki Sr. Despicable.

[Octafish]

74. Got a link for that? The president sent a drone to kill an American citizen without trial.

Then he sent another one to kill the guy's son. The reason for the strike has never been explained to the public.

[msanthrope]

85. I just gave you a link. Did you read it?

As for Mr. Awlaki, he, as an admitted member of Al Qaeda is subject to the AUMF of 9/18/2001. Surely you remember that AUMF?

As for his son, I just gave you link that explained the drone strike. He was not the target.

[Octafish]

131. Nowhere in that article does it state what law gives Obama the authority to kill Americans.

The reason I bothered to ask you, msanthrope, is I can't find the law that allows Obama to kill American citizens without trial.

It's like the president is operating under some Top Secret law. Maybe not for John Roberts or you, but that, for me, anyway, is un-Constitutional.

For those wondering about the "Who?" -- the American citizens killed without trial:

Obama Gets Slippery on Killing U.S. Citizens

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, May 23, 2013

EXCERPT...

Most slippery was Obama on the subject of killing U.S. citizens.

“For the record,” he said, “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen—with a drone, or a shotgun—without due process.”

But then he justified the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, without acknowledging that Al-Awlaki received no due process.

Even more shabbily, he neglected to even mention by name the three other American citizens his administration has rubbed out.

The Obama Administration doesn’t want to admit that they intentionally killed any U.S. citizen other than Anwar Al-Awlaki because by their own standards, they’re only supposed to kill Al Qaeda members who pose an “imminent” threat.

SNIP...

By the way, these three never received due process, either. So by Obama’s own standard, his Administration violated the Constitution by killing them.

SOURCE: http://progressive.org/obama-drone-speech

If you're a U.S. citizen, msanthrope, that is what has happened to four of our fellow citizens: killed without trial or due process, by remote control robots, firing guided missiles, into a nation that is not at war with the United States.

[msanthrope]

134. I just gave you the law. Try reading it. The AUMF of 9/18/2001.

Mr. Awlaki was subject to the that law, and he was killed pursuant to the authority vested in the Executive under it. Just like Bin Laden.

Mr. Awlaki was given the due process required under the AUMF of 9/18/2001. You seem to not understand what that is, which is why your posts seem uninformed.

Start with the law.

[Octafish]

138. Here's a PDF. Nowhere in that does it say the President can kill Americans without trial.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

You should look for yourself. That law is a short read.

[msanthrope]

151. Under the War Powers Resolution, enemy combatants can indeed be killed without trial.

Awlaki was an enemy combatant because he declared himself to be AlQaeda. We can kill AlQaeda wherever we find them, unless they submit to custody. Then, Hamdi and progeny applies.

Why do you think being a 'citizen' exempts someone from an AUMF? Seems that equal protection should apply there.

[Octafish]

169. Where in the War Powers Resolution does it say the president can kill Americans without trial?

If you're talking about the 1973 law, it's not there, no matter how you and Tony Scalia define "enemy combatant" or equal protection.

BTW: The kid was 16. It's in your New York Times article.

[msanthrope]

180. First, you keep saying 'American citizen' as if this means that Americans are entitled to rights

that non-citizens are not. Persons who are enemy combatants have the same rights, whether or not they are citizens. This is not Imperial Rome, where only 'citizens' have the benefit of the laws. So what if they are citizens. Are the lives of non-citizens not as valuable?

Second, once war is declared, an enemy combatant (citizen or not) may be killed wherever they are engaged in conflict. Anywhere, if they are not custodial. Hamdi and its progeny have repeatedly confirmed the right of the President to act under the AUMF of 9/18/2001, using his discretion.

Third, citizen or not, you can be named an enemy combatant. Awlaki was. So was Bin Laden. Because neither submitted to custody, they both could be killed under the same AUMF.

Fourth, read the AUMF---if the President decides that a drone strike, or a raid in Pakistan is how you deal with persons under the AUMF, he's got the power to do so.

If Congress didn't want this...they can always seek to revoke the AUMF.

Awlaki, as a non-custodial combatant, had no right to trial. It does not matter if he was a citizen. He got the drone strike he deserved.

[stevenleser]

174. You just moved the goalposts. nt

[Octafish]

177. Really? Where?

As I've consistently asked, where in the law does the president get the authority to kill an American citizen without due process?

[ProSense]

32. Here's Elizabeth Warren:

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023273434

That has about as much relevance as your post.

[Octafish]

59. No, because my post was written by Sirota.

Your post is to divert the conversation to something that's only in your mind.

[ProSense]

87. And it has nothing to do with the OP. Nothing: Pure lame deflection. n/t

[Octafish]

171. That's your term. I explained why I chose that article as an example of Sirota's work.

Here's another one:

Follow the Money

By David Sirota and Jon Baskin
Washington Monthly (Permalink)

EXCERPT...

Bin Laden’s bankers

Kerry’s record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush’s. The current president’s career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a “mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding [Harken] since George W. Bush came on board.” In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president’s history suggests his attacks on Kerry’s national-security credentials come from a position of little authority.

As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry’s BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry’s foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, “years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts…Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security.”

Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today “is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI.” As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, “BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations.”

Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency–even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry’s subcommittee, put it best. “John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation,” Brown said. “Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did.”

SOURCE: http://www.davidsirota.com/articles/follow-the-money/

What that has to do with it? The article shows the quality of Sirota's work.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

44. Anyone not rushing to condemn Sirota for these comments are highly suspect

regardless of how they feel about his other "reporting."

[rhett o rick]

54. "Highly suspect" of having open minds. Rushing to condemn isnt a characteristic that

I would expect of a "politically liberal" person.

[geek tragedy]

60. "rushing to condemn" is something you do on a regular basis by smearing

a wide swath of the community as authoritarian sycophants.

Or are you one of those "can dish it out but whines when it gets thrown back" types?

[rhett o rick]

70. You should read the book, "The Authoritarians". I think you would find it

enlightening.

I would like to have a decent conversation about what Mr. Sirota had to say, but this thread is a group-grop intended only to gang up and ridicule the author and ignore the subject. Ad hominem.

[geek tragedy]

78. Which part, the one where he blames Obama for innocent black people

getting killed by white racists?

Or the part where he compares Obama to George Zimmerman?

Or the part where he says Al Awlaki is as much of a victim as Trayvon was?

[rhett o rick]

93. Everything isnt about Obama. nm

[msanthrope]

97. Then why did Sirota bring him up???? nt

[KittyWampus]

98. You were just asked legitimate questions about the analogy and refuse to answer them.

[geek tragedy]

103. I love how people defend Obama hatred and then come back with "

well not everything is about Obama" rather than own their defense.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

107. Ad hominem! 1984! Obama's evil! This is not about Obama! Where's my meds? nt

[rhett o rick]

112. Plez. "where he blames Obama for innocent black people getting killed by white racists? "

I dont think Sirota said that. He isnt interested in a discussion. Character assassinations and ridicule maybe.

[geek tragedy]

114. He said that Martin's killing was part of a nationwide attitudinal shift

regarding the presumption of innocence.

First, it was about racism, not the legal presumption of innocence.

Second, that wasn't a shift. That shit has been going on for centuries.

Third, George Zimmerman wasn't the fucking government. He's not supposed to use lethal force on anyone anywhere ever.

[rhett o rick]

117. Without sounding sarcastic, that's more like a real discussion.

I like to have honest discussions with those that I dont agree with. I am finding it harder and harder to do that here. I am sure you recognize that you dont learn much when you only discuss with those that agree with you.

[geek tragedy]

124. Agreed. Cheers. nt

[geek tragedy]

99. We're talking about the frigging article that is about Obama. nt

[rhett o rick]

116. He didnt say, "he blames Obama for innocent black people getting killed by white racists".

More logical fallacies. I think we are done here.

[snooper2]

106. We thank you for your vote anyway!

LOL

[geek tragedy]

84. It's the people who collapse into convulsions of pure rage every time they

read the word "drones."

[geek tragedy]

52. So, people who disagree that Travyon=Anwar Al Awlaki are sychophants?

How dare someone attack Sirota by quoting him? The only thing that counts is hating Obama!!!!

[geek tragedy]

65. You're here bashing everyone in sight taking issue with Sirota's Obama-hating nuttiness.

As if black kids never got targeted by racist vigilantes before he was President.

P.S. Sirota has hated Obama since 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-ridiculousness-dang_b_35334.html

[geek tragedy]

96. Your reference to everyone in this thread as "sycophants" was meant

as a compliment?

[msanthrope]

57. Right--because comparing a dead 17-year old who did nothing wrong to a UN-designated terrorist is

acceptable discourse???

I'll accept the term 'sycophant,' if that means I don't use the death of a dead 17-year old who did nothing wrong to bash the President.

[msanthrope]

72. And I have the free speech to compare Sirota to Juror B37--both using the corpse of Trayvon Martin

to further their ends.

Sirota is free to publish drivel as he wishes....and we are free to comment.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

73. Ad hominem attacks aren't covered under the 1st Amendment?

Well, I'll be damned.

[ProSense]

77. "Free speech" is

"Right or wrong, Sirota has a free speech right to say it. Obama is not a God. He is as much subject to criticism as was George Bush. You may not agree, but that's no reason for ad hominem attacks."

...calling Sirota out for jumping the shark. He "is not a God" and he's not above criticism.

The comparison was fucking absurd. Dimissing people calling him out on it by stating, "Right or wrong, Sirota has a free speech right to say it," is simply claiming that people have no right to criticize him.

[geek tragedy]

80. And we have a free speech right to call him an idiot if he's earned it. nt

[rl6214]

95. Can't get much nuttier.

[n2doc]

125. Even I find this repugnant n/t

[cali]

135. dog, but Sirota is skeevy. total sleazebag

[MNBrewer]

140. Poor, poor Sirota haters

[JI7]

143. WTF , so he thinks Zimmerman was right in the assumptions he made about Trayvon

Trayvon was not a suspect in anything.

this comparison is offensive to Trayvon who did not have a record like al awlaki.

[Rex]

146. Terrorist blow shit up and kill people.

Martin was walking home from a gas station with munchies. The comparison is sick and pathetic at best.

[Cali_Democrat]

155. Sirota actually compared Trayvon to a member of Al-Qaeda

disgusting.

[Zoeisright]

165. What a fucking stupid article.

Fuck off and die, Sirota.

[Laelth]

166. Sirota's article is intruiging, to say the least.

The comparison holds up in a lot of ways, and Sirota is right to call our attention to the erosion of the presumption of innocence in our jurisprudence.

The blog quoted in the OP, however, is awfully angry and difficult to digest.

-Laelth

[Mass]

170. Absolutely stupid comparison. In addition, it is insulting for Trayvon Martin that is compared to a

terrorist.

I used to have respect for Sirota. Today, my respect drops a lot.

[stevenleser]

173. Ahem

[Octafish]

175. George Zimmerman killed the presumption of innocence (SIROTA article)

A few relevant parts of what Sirota wrote:

George Zimmerman killed the presumption of innocence

In an era of drones and NSA excess, the Zimmerman verdict reaffirms that like Trayvon, too many are presumed guilty

BY DAVID SIROTA
Salon.com, July 15, 2013

EXCERPT...

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them. Not only that, such a presumption wasn’t hidden from view in shame, as if it was something to be embarrassed about. Instead, Obama openly touted the extra-judicial killing of the father and then his spokesman haughtily justified the extra-judicial killing of the child.

SNIP...

It is, of course, no coincidence that, whether African-Americans like Martin or Arabs like the Awlakis, those most affected by the Zimmerman Principle’s presumption of guilt tend to be people of color.

As has been the case throughout this country’s history, being racially, ethnically or religiously classified as non-white or “other” by America still means being presumed guilty (and certainly more guilty than others). Indeed, despite all the vapid paeans to our allegedly “post-racial” or “colorblind” ethos, we see that truth everywhere.

We see it in the disproportionate targeting of minorities through programs like “stop and frisk.” We see it in a CIA-directed police department targeting Muslim communities for surveillance. We see it in Arizona’s racial profiling law that aimed to weaken the requirement for probable cause. We see it in the proliferation of “stand your ground” laws that disproportionately protect white folk whose presumption of black guilt leads them to gun down African-Americans. And we see it in a drug war whose deployment of resources presumes that communities of color are more guilty than other communities.

That said, the Zimmerman Principle is also now becoming more indiscriminate and expanding beyond race, ethnicity and religion. For instance, with its “collect it all” mentality, the National Security Agency presumes all Americans guilty — or at least potentially guilty enough for the government to have probable cause for 24/7 surveillance. Likewise, the Justice Department presumes whistle-blowers guilty and prosecution-worthy, and the Washington establishment presumes the same about journalists who report news that embarrasses the government. Meanwhile, as McClatchy reports, the White House is now encouraging federal employees to presume their co-workers guilty based on “lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors.”

CONTINUED... http://www.salon.com/2013/07/15/after_zimmerman_verdict_we_all_are_threats_now/

Those interested in reading Sirota's own words for themsleves for themselves can get all of them at the link above. Please note his point on the presumption of innocence.

[MNBrewer]

178. I'm sure many here would prefer Cesca's dishonest characterization of Sirota's words

to the actual words he wrote.

[ProSense]

179. You're actually

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them. Not only that, such a presumption wasn’t hidden from view in shame, as if it was something to be embarrassed about. Instead, Obama openly touted the extra-judicial killing of the father and then his spokesman haughtily justified the extra-judicial killing of the child.

...reposting this shit in support of it?

What exactly do you think is not lunacy about the premise of that entire opinion? The comparison is beyond sick. Sirota needs his head examined.

From the OP link:

Here’s the section of Sirota’s post that jumped off the screen as being hysterically blind:

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extrajudicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime.

The phrase “Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama,” is particularly egregious. Sure, Obama is Zimmerman’s president insofar as he’s everyone’s president, but, naturally, that wasn’t Sirota’s intention. His intention was to cut both men from the same homicidal cloth. Obama, Sirota implies, is a Zimmerman-like president. Actually, he doesn’t just imply it, he comes right out and writes it with the subsequent line, “Zimmerman-like aggression against the Awlakis.” But actually, Obama is far worse in Sirota’s view since he’s responsible for the deaths of considerably more people — innocent people, according to Sirota. I’ll circle back to this later.

That aside, I fail to see how a sociopath who’s on video calling for fellow Muslims to kill Americans is anything like a kid who was armed with nothing but a bag of Skittles and some iced tea. Or perhaps Trayvon was also carrying the Underwear Bomber’s exploding briefs at the time.

Sirota continued:

It is, of course, no coincidence that, whether African Americans like Martin or Arabs like the Awlakis, those most affected by the Zimmerman Principle’s presumption of guilt tend to be people of color.

Unbelievable. Here, Sirota writes that the president killed Al-Awlaki in part because Al-Awlaki is a “person of color.” So President Barack Obama, on top of being a murderer and war criminal, is also a racist. Our African American president. A racist. Of course! I’ve always wondered why Obama hates brown people, so thank goodness we have David Sirota to tell us how the president is so completely filled with racial hatred that he’s using America’s military might to kill all of the colored people he hates. You know what? Al-Awlaki’s a person of color in the same way I’m a person of color. I’m a black-haired, olive-skinned Italian. I guess the president hates me, too (checks the sky for Hellfire missiles).

[stupidicus]

183. Indeed

I'd say anyone who disagrees with the American "kill" list (and more) wouldn't struggle with his point.

I'm beginning to think for many DUers those like that are the ones that justify the "collect it all" BS.

[Bonobo]

182. I said the same thing here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023258817

[cali]

201. no, you really, really didn't.

[ucrdem]

194. That's some serious ODS, of the Stand-with-Rand Obama-is-worse-than-Bush variety

so popular with the fake left:

1) They’ve relentlessly criticized the first African American president. I don’t want to skew off on this tangent, but suffice it to say, the ongoing, crazy-eyed, fist pumping array of grievances from this group aren’t thoughtful or fair policy disagreements. For years now, the line has been that President Obama isn’t just a bad president, he’s worse than George W. Bush. He’s a homicidal war criminal who ought to be prosecuted and convicted for his crimes. Most recently Cenk Uygur said that the president should be arrested and tossed in prison. Others, especially Greenwald, have spent nearly every post outlining the charges, usually beginning with the killing of Al-Awlaki, the killing of Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and continuing on down a familiar docket of trespasses against domestic and international laws.

2) Related to the war criminal charges, they also couldn’t wait to “Stand with Rand Paul” on the drones issue. Yes, Rand Paul: the states’ rights, nullificationist, tea party conservative who’s hired at least two racist staffers and once said he opposed one of the most crucial chunks of the Civil Rights Act — just like his crackpot father. Again, I wrote about this last week, but it bears repeating. By “standing with Rand,” it doesn’t just help Rand on drones (the usage of which he actually supports, by the way) but it offers him a heaping bucket of political capital with which to pursue his other radical policy goals, including a personhood amendment and nullification. It simply appears as though some liberals are standing with a racist.

"It simply appears as though some liberals are standing with a racist." Exactamundo.

[NuclearDem]

196. Cool, guilt by association.

Also, sorry, did you just call the liberals standing on principle rather than personality the "fake left"? If the "fake left" isn't the group justifying unquestioning support of Obama on logical fallacies and character assassination, then count me in as a member.

As for Paul, hey, broken clock is right twice a day. But it was really cool how you played the tired old meme that all Obama critics are racist.

[ucrdem]

197. Could you spell that one out in more detail?

I have to mail something right now but I'd be happy to answer more fully later if I can get a better idea of what you're criticizing, thanks!