At a campaign stop in Carson, Calif., Governor Sarah Palin lashed out at Senator Barack Obama's ties to controversial figure Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground.
June 18, 2013:
Bill Ayers believes President Obama should be put on trial for war crimes at The Hague, the Weather Underground co-founder told Real Clear Politics in an interview posted Tuesday.
Ayers told the website he "absolutely" believed the president was engaged in terrorism for his use of drone strikes in fighting the war on terror.
"Absolutely. Every president in this century should be put on trial, every one of them," Ayers said. "For war crimes. Absolutely. Every one of them goes into office, an office dripping with blood, and adds to it. And yes, I think these are war crimes. They are acts of terror."
Ayers also said he would give the president a "failing" grade, while admitting that he liked him personally more than other recent presidents.
Oh well then, as long as he still likes him.
Here is the transcript of the speech, not including improvised remarks. Here are clips of Medea Benjamin asking President Obama, “Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?” and his reactions.
Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts...
Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates...
Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts...
Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries...
But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions... [P]utting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm...
To begin with, our actions are effective... Simply put, these strikes have saved lives... Moreover, America’s actions are legal...
To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance...
[B]y the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes...
America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set...
[I]t is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq...
To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties... So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars... But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life...
Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action....
[N]ot only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP...
This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, 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. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.
But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team
Please go here for the entire transcript.
Medea Benjamin may have made some valid points, as did the president. But heckling often ends up working against the heckler, at least that's the way it looked from the reactions that came my way on Twitter. On the other hand, it does get a whole lot of attention from the media.
President Obama eventually became impatient with the interruptions and politely told a very persistent Medea Benjamin to STFU:
"This is part of free speech, is you being able to speak but also, you listen, and me being able to speak."
Today’s guest post by the one, the only, Will Durst:
Put on your tinfoil hats everybody. Or didn’t you get the memo? Its paranoia time in America again. Maybe it’s the spring that brings out the crazy in our legislators. Of course, that would assume a semblance of sanity the other three seasons, and nobody wants to bet anything more than lunch money on that proposition.
The deal is, some maladjusted California State Senator who obviously didn’t get enough hugs from his mommy has single handedly set out to shackle another of our nation’s emerging industries to the cement block of job- killing restriction. Apparently, we don’t have enough problems, this guy has to make stuff up.
Alex (D- Pacoima) Padilla’s bill would make civilian spy drones illegal and require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before deployment. Doesn’t he get it? You can’t hold back the future. The drones are coming. Probably wants to require air bags and wheelchair ramps installed for potential disabled mouse pilots as well.
This loony leftist has targeted an embryonic market, which unfettered, would have the potential to boost this country’s economy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Not to mention destroying any possibility of world- wide drone domination. Ground floor dronage is what we’re giving up here.
Just what we don’t need. Another namby-pamby California socialist with his knickers all in a wad over more silly liberal concepts like invasion of privacy. Who’s he kidding? What privacy? Like we got any left. Must live in a cave. Besides, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you got nothing to worry about. Although, the definition of wrong does tend to be somewhat elastic these days according to who’s on the critiquing end. But as long as god- fearing people are in charge, we can sleep easy. Fearing the right god, that is.
It is estimated by the year 2020, 10,000 drones will be scampering around US airspace. Municipal drones. Federal drones. Personal drones. Pocket drones. Big drones with baby drones flying out of their bellies. Lexus drones. Pinto drones. Security drones. Billboard drones. Drones with eyes and ears and wings and feet and… arms. Imagine every household functioning as its own defense department with a flying bazooka under remote control. It’s a patriot’s dream come true.
Now think of the jobs the drone industry could create. Drone traffic controllers. Drone valets. Drone charging stations. After- market drone turbo conversion shops. Replacement drone dome light factories. And in response, the brave new world of technology designed to thwart and stymie drones. Drone sensors. Rooftop detection radar. Heat emitting decoys. Drone clones. Huge umbrella hats and lightweight overcoats with enormous shoulder pads to foil recognition software. Harry Potter brand invisibility cloaks.
The day will come when entire law firms specialize in drone issues. Representing plaintiffs and manufacturers in cases involving drone accidents, drone crashes and folks rained down upon with drone debris leading to… drone insurance. And the listening capabilities of drones will inevitably lead to a proliferation in the use of American Sign Language.
But, if people like Alex Padilla get their way, this legislation will set off a veritable avalanche of meddling regulation. Next will come neighborhood no-fly zones. And then the Seagulls’ Bill of Rights. So, write your representatives today and tell them to say yes to America. Say yes to drones. Say yes to… little deaf children.
Recipient of 7 consecutive nominations for Stand Up of the Year, Will Durst, opens his new one- man show “BoomerAging: From LSD to OMG” on Tuesday, May 7, at the Marsh, San Francisco. Go to… themarsh.org or willdurst.com for more info.
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.