October 10, 2011
3. Newblog2011: 10/10/11 The New York Times
Another thing that I didn't have a chance to put online yesterday, and that I didn't have time to talk about in another way, was a recording I had made of myself reading the first, few paragraphs of a story on the front page of the 10/09/11 New York Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: October 8, 2011"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2011
I'm curious as to whether the fact that I neither talked about that article nor called the New York Times to garble rage into their voicemail made the newspaper or anyone else think that the article, titled and situated as it was, intimidated me.
I found their threatening code tactic typical, conglomerate behavior. If they don't know what to say to something I've said, they call me vagina names. If calling me vagina names doesn't quite work, then they threaten to kill me. Same old, same old.
If it were funny, it would be hilarious that a conglomerate that includes the government of the United States and that endorses the perpetual abuse and murder of women and children and anyone else who objects to its human rights abuses has ever compared me to a terrorist. I'm almost tempted to say "Blah Blah Blah" in total mockery of the conglomerate's behavior, not because I want to be killed or to continue to be abused by the conglomerate or by anyone whom it encourages to kill or to continue to abuse me, but because.....gimme a break. I thought there was concern that some of the conglomerate wasn't transparent ENOUGH, so those kinds of threats are ironic, to say the least.
What I still haven't seen from any faction of the conglomerate is any kind of coherent argument for why it thinks that its human rights abuses are justifiable in any way. I've been asking for that explanation since the only issue was sexual harassment, and I have yet to have any other kind of answer from the conglomerate besides more vagina names and death threats.
Here are the first, few paragraphs of the New York Times article from yesterday, October 9, 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: October 8, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2011
The front page of the New York Times today is devoted to every issue that I'm against.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 10, 2011 @ 11:35 a.m.
3. Newblog2011: 10/10/11 The New York Times
Another thing that I didn't have a chance to put online yesterday, and that I didn't have time to talk about in another way, was a recording I had made of myself reading the first, few paragraphs of a story on the front page of the 10/09/11 New York Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: October 8, 2011"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2011
I'm curious as to whether the fact that I neither talked about that article nor called the New York Times to garble rage into their voicemail made the newspaper or anyone else think that the article, titled and situated as it was, intimidated me.
I found their threatening code tactic typical, conglomerate behavior. If they don't know what to say to something I've said, they call me vagina names. If calling me vagina names doesn't quite work, then they threaten to kill me. Same old, same old.
If it were funny, it would be hilarious that a conglomerate that includes the government of the United States and that endorses the perpetual abuse and murder of women and children and anyone else who objects to its human rights abuses has ever compared me to a terrorist. I'm almost tempted to say "Blah Blah Blah" in total mockery of the conglomerate's behavior, not because I want to be killed or to continue to be abused by the conglomerate or by anyone whom it encourages to kill or to continue to abuse me, but because.....gimme a break. I thought there was concern that some of the conglomerate wasn't transparent ENOUGH, so those kinds of threats are ironic, to say the least.
What I still haven't seen from any faction of the conglomerate is any kind of coherent argument for why it thinks that its human rights abuses are justifiable in any way. I've been asking for that explanation since the only issue was sexual harassment, and I have yet to have any other kind of answer from the conglomerate besides more vagina names and death threats.
Here are the first, few paragraphs of the New York Times article from yesterday, October 9, 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
By CHARLIE SAVAGE Published: October 8, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 2011
The front page of the New York Times today is devoted to every issue that I'm against.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, October 10, 2011 @ 11:35 a.m.