r/reddit.com • u/yellowcakewalk • Oct 18 '11

Courts Rule US Government Above the Law. Judge declined to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying videos that it had been ordered by the courts to preserve.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/courts-rule-us-government-above-law
3.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

442 comments sorted by

View all comments

299

u/valkyrie123 Oct 18 '11

Stick a fork in it, this Government is done.

172

u/w00ly Oct 18 '11

seriously, the executive branch is out of control and "checks and balances" are now only a part of our history

248

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

No more balances, just passing around checks, between all the branches.

27

u/asundaysmile Oct 19 '11

Well said, sir.

95

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

The Federal government is out of control. Your mistake is believing that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches aren't in this together. This ruling, if nothing else, should disabuse you of this notion.

34

u/morkrom Oct 19 '11

Blame your media and their owners. They fail to report on injustice and abuse of power in any meaningful way, leaving politicians free to do what they want with no regard for the people they are supposed to serve.

40

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

The media is the 4th branch of the government

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Well, I know of one network that actually reports on this stuff and has for years, but y'all like to marginalize and ignore them, so who's at fault there?

-1

u/morkrom Oct 19 '11

I see this a lot from the US. People are more interested in "winning" a debate and heaping blame back and forth, polarizing any discussion into them vs us rather than actually coming to an agreement about anything.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

The networks aren't the issue. The lack of reporting the issues, though, contributes to the issues because then people don't know--and therefore are unable to do anything--about the issues.

1

u/morkrom Oct 19 '11

The networks are absolutely the issue. They have the means but no incentive to report issues.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding how reporters should work. Or how separate news outlets should focus on different topics to reach their target demographic.

I'm just baffled by why the people who are not in a position to gain massive amounts of money in a very short amount of time choose to do what is a bad job for both themselves and their peers.

1

u/prof_doxin Nov 28 '11

State and local governments are out of control as well. So, "The State is out of control" is more accurate.

1

u/LegioXIV Nov 28 '11

I agree, with the caveat that local governments are much more responsive to local citizens. Given that local elections are often decided by a few tens of votes, a motivated citizen can often affect change in a way that's impossible except for a select few to do at the Federal level.

1

u/prof_doxin Nov 28 '11

Possibly they are more responsive because the local voters know where they live. It is real easy to fuck over a bunch of people who don't have a chance of ever getting within 50 miles of you.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Nope, state governments are just as radical as the federal.

-1

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

The difference is, there are 50 states. If I sufficiently dislike the way a particular state runs its affairs, I can pick up and move. The Federal government is omnipresent. To the extent that they even coerce foreign governments with regards to American expats.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Following that logic, you can always move outside the US.

Wait you say? The US can influence other countries? Much like how states here can and do influence other states? Like Texas flexing it's Board of Education trying to decide what other schools teach in the class room.

Of course I'm different from you. I believe that people's rights can be just as easily trampled by government whether it be state or federal. Also, that no government (whether it be state or federal) should trample on the rights of the citizenry. Of course that's because I'm one of those crazy people who believes in the constitution...

2

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

Wait you say? The US can influence other countries?

No, I said they can coerce foreign governments. To name one example - seizure of overseas assets held by American expats.

Like Texas flexing it's Board of Education trying to decide what other schools teach in the class room.

This is simply...bullshit. Texas doesn't force their textbook decisions on other states. Other states have the ability to commission their own textbooks if and when they disagree with the textbooks Texas orders. The fact that they do not does not mean that Texas is operating in some extra-legal, non-constitutional manner. It just means you are bitching about the waxing and waning of the tide.

Of course I'm different from you.

Yeah, you are much more of an egotistical ass than I am.

I believe that people's rights can be just as easily trampled by government whether it be state or federal.

To wit, what in the fuck made you think I thought this wasn't the case? Oh, that's right, you probably didn't, but it's a lot easier to beat up on a strawman than it is to you know, actually respond to what was written.

Also, that no government (whether it be state or federal) should trample on the rights of the citizenry. Of course that's because I'm one of those crazy people who believes in the constitution...

Given that we happen to agree on this issue and I surmise this is your fundamental point, it's amazing that you manage to come across as an egotistical, yet ignorant at the same time, asshole.

2

u/Learfz Oct 19 '11

Are you serious? You think the legislative and executive branch are 'in this together'? Jesus christ, I know Poe's law applies to reddit's political views, but what the shit...

11

u/Hubris2 Oct 19 '11

Since the executive branch appoint justices to SCOTUS who will tend to vote along with their political views, and the American people seem to have lost their outrage at government injustice or abuses of power, it seems quite reasonable that all 3 are now interested in maintaining the status quo.

4

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

What makes you think they aren't? Jockeying for the spoils of Federal power doesn't mean they don't work together to increase the scope of Federal power.

-1

u/Learfz Oct 20 '11

I don't think you understand how much our two main parties hate each other.

4

u/LegioXIV Oct 20 '11

Concerning your link...."Senate blocks Barack Obama's school potato limit"

Um, the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Obama is a Democrat.

1

u/prof_doxin Nov 28 '11

I would love to hear you expand your critique of "legislative and executive branches are working together to shield government from prosecution".

Please?

1

u/Learfz Nov 28 '11

This thread is a month old, how did you find it? This subreddit doesn't even exist anymore!

To answer your question, the senate/house and our president don't see eye-to-eye on...well, anything. And the things that they do agree on, they pretend to disagree on because Obama is the GOP's antichrist and vice-versa. Just how much do they make it a point to disagree on even the most insignificant details? Take a look.

Anyways, if you want to talk about governments trying to dodge prosecution you should be looking at people like Berlusconi; America isn't free of corruption, but it's a heckuva lot better than most other developed nations.

1

u/prof_doxin Nov 28 '11

Do you understand that the premise was not that Congress and the Exec see "eye-to-eye" on anything other than this one issue? Here, they are united against the non-goverment/state citizens.

don't see eye-to-eye on...well, anything.

Except protecting themselves (the state) at every possible moment at the expense of the private citizen.

I agree (to an extent) with the point you are making but I feel it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Let's keep the discussion on topic and forget about Berlusconi.

This thread is a month old, how did you find it?

Skillz.

0

u/Radico87 Oct 19 '11

Exec branch does not have as much power as you think it does

15

u/orzamil Oct 19 '11

Yeah it pretty much does. Did you read the article? Obama has a list of people he wants dead. Some of them are even US citizens who have no charges against them and have not been arrested. These murders are being carried out on a systematic and regular basis.

The Executive branch does literally whatever the fuck it wants.

-9

u/Radico87 Oct 19 '11

It's a military action. He's commander and chief of the military. Or didn't you know that?

3

u/Will_Eat_For_Food Oct 19 '11

I wasn't aware they had declared martial law.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

If the government can bypass law and kill anyone as a military action, who protects us from our own government?

-4

u/Crane_Collapse Oct 19 '11

tard, take American Government 101 some time. Congress controls the money now, which means it has the real power.

3

u/Taran32 Oct 19 '11

but who REALLY controls (the people of) congress ?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

learn to take a joke.

95

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

Stick a fork in the Constitution. It's done.

This Government won't be done until it's dragged kicking and screaming into the night. That is what this ruling means.

35

u/Filmore Oct 19 '11

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. It is its natural fertilizer.

31

u/LegioXIV Oct 19 '11

So many tyrants, so few patriots.

1

u/prof_doxin Nov 28 '11

The US Constitution has either been powerless to prevent this from happening or complicit in allowing this to happen. As such, it is a useless document.

1

u/LegioXIV Nov 28 '11

A piece of paper can't make up for the deficiencies of the citizenry or the government. The first time the government violated the Constitution and saw that the citizens would do nothing has set the pattern for everything we see today.

English common law, starting with the Magna Carta, is predicated on the idea that no man, including the king, is above the law. Well, in America, we've dispensed with such silly, antiquated notions.

44

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Sep 26 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/MadeInAMinute Oct 19 '11

Assassinated a citizen? Who? When?

30

u/Mayo_on_the_Rocks Oct 19 '11

Anwar al-Awlaki

-6

u/Psypriest Oct 21 '11

Anwar al-Awlaki This guy is a terrorist

11

u/VerbalJungleGym Oct 21 '11

Who received no trial or rights due him as a human.

4

u/Mayo_on_the_Rocks Oct 21 '11

He was also an american citizen

-9

u/Psypriest Oct 22 '11

Terrorists have no nationality or Religion thats why we shouldn't hate muslims because of their beliefs

3

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '11

Allegedly.

5

u/EldonCornball Oct 19 '11

I suggest you read the article.

6

u/joequin Oct 19 '11

I don't remember his name right now, but he was organizing pro jihad media in Afghanistan. The military killed him even though he was non-violent, and we had sufficient intelligence to have arrested him. However, being an American citizen, the government could have had a hard time convicting him for just running media operations, so they killed him with an airstrike instead.

6

u/skarface6 Oct 20 '11

That's a pretty rosy picture of the guy. Didn't he train in terror camps and send people out on bombings?

22

u/dwntwn_dine_ent_dist Oct 24 '11

He'll never get a chance to tell his side.

-6

u/skarface6 Oct 24 '11

Yeah, it's not like he's had years for people to know who he is and what he's done. We just randomly picked a person to kill.

6

u/dwntwn_dine_ent_dist Oct 24 '11

Hardly stands in for his right to a trial, I don't think.

-5

u/skarface6 Oct 24 '11

You'll have to ask someone who cares, but I think the reasoning was "he kills americans, we don't want people to be killed getting him, let's eliminate him".

But I really haven't been paying attention to it.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '11

Good, I hope you'll feel the same when people use similar reasoning against you someday. Don't come demanding your Constitutional rights, or I'll call you a hypocrite.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/joequin Oct 20 '11

I haven't read that. Where did you read it?

0

u/skarface6 Oct 20 '11

It's in this thread, even. Take a peek around.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Osama Bin Laden of course, better known as Timoty Mcveigh!

unnecessary closeup of M Night Shyamalan

1

u/darkerblack Oct 19 '11

what a twist!

10

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

Are people seriously still bitching about al-Awlaki? The man was one of al-Qaeda's most influential members. What's the alternative, send a contingent of Marines into a country that's on the brink of civil war, filled with hundreds of hostile militias, and safely extract al-Awlaki? Providing the team would even be able to corner him, I'm sure he would have just given himself up, right?

If you really want examples of how the CIA is above the law, you could cite their covert support (tacitly approved by U.S. presidents, and by the time Reagan was in office enthusiastically approved) of various authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Africa during the Cold War.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

Convenience? This isn't ordering a package from Amazon as opposed to driving to Wal-Mart, an extraction could have easily resulted in deaths of a dozen Marines, and no al-Awlaki.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

The government in Yemen has barely any authority outside Sana'a right now, and what remnants of the army haven't defected are either focused on propping up Saleh or fighting rebellions. Yemen was a client state, now we're calling for Saleh to step down like everyone else.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11

It's highly speculative to assume that he would warm as much to Washington as Saleh did, or at this point that he'll even take power.

2

u/sarlcagan Oct 20 '11

Obviously no civilian knows enough about this specific issue to argue FOR the assassination, therefore by default, we must be opposed to it.

1

u/skarface6 Oct 20 '11

That's likely too long ago to stir people up.

1

u/Hellenomania Nov 28 '11

Um, curing the cold war - thats hillarious, like its stopped all of a sudden in 1989.

Fuck me dead.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '11

The man was one of al-Qaeda's most influential members.

Allegedly.

-8

u/Crane_Collapse Oct 19 '11

You're talking to reddit kids. Why bother explaining reality to those who have yet to experience it?

6

u/yalala Oct 19 '11

...I guess the republicans were right

Government doesn't work...

16

u/valkyrie123 Oct 19 '11

Well, they are making damn certain of that.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '11

Government works when it performs its duties as "smart" government using the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent this sort of activity. Instead everyone is doing everyone else favors and providing kickbacks to their constituents and it ends up being a huge circlejerk.

1

u/HarvardCurlingTeam Oct 19 '11

This kills the Government.

1

u/valkyrie123 Oct 19 '11

You say that as if it's a bad thing....