Last week I used some space to make a not-so-subtle plea to our Resident Aquarist to vote Obama. Understand that he's no Republican, but he is, to put it mildly, disillusioned with the President. So I, and several of our friends, attempted to work him over from the "lesser of two evils angle." See, our aquarist lives in Ohio, where Romney and Obama have more or less established permanent residences. He was unmoved. His reasons why* bear repeating. I maintain that a "not Romney" vote is a good one, but I find myself agreeing with much of what is written below, and look forward to the day that we toss out this worm-ridden 2 party system of ours.
nwb
I've thought long and hard about it and I will not be voting for Obama.
At what point is "the lesser evil" so repugnant that it can't be
supported? For me it breaks down to several actions Obama took in both
international and domestic policy.
1. The Drone Strikes.
So far, the US has launched close to 400 drone strikes in Yemen,
Somalia, and Pakistan that have killed an estimated 3500 people, give or take a
few hundred. Drone strikes are notoriously inaccurate, and some stats
I've seen talk about a 1 successful kill to 49 innocents killed ratio.
That's not a good thing especially considering we are not at war with
Yemen, we are not at war with Somalia, and we are not at war with
Pakistan. I haven't even brought up his strikes in Libya, which were not
only done without Congressional approval, but done in the face of Congressional disapproval. I believe these conflicts were an
unconstitutional overreach by the President and if so, this makes him a
historic-level mass murderer.
2.
Disposition Matrix. Let's call a spade a spade. This is Obama's
personal kill list that contains women, children, and U.S. citizens that
he is attempting to codify to make it a permanent fixture in our
foreign policy arena. Normally when military action seemingly goes awry
you can make an argument that the President didn't have direct
involvement. That is not true in this case. Obama personally approves
every target on the list. I have serious problems with summary
executions being carried out without due process. Can you imagine if
this was Dick Cheney and not Obama with a personal kill list? (does it
matter whose list it is?)
3. Lack of
Transparency Part I. What is the President's argument that all of the
above is legal? Nothing. He has made no argument at all. In fact, he
refuses to turn over the legal memos justifying any of it despite the
demands of Congress. This whole episode has a Nixonian, "if the
president does it, then it's legal" stench to it. At least Bush marched
out that legal hack John Yoo to make a case for waterboarding. Secrecy
is a worrisome trend with this administration.
4.
Lack of Transparency Part II. This Administration has declared war on
whistleblowers like none other before it. Obama dusted off the
Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute double the number of whistleblowers
than ALL prior presidents combined. It's ironic because during his
inauguration speech he talked about having the most open and transparent
Administration ever. He has gone on to use this tactic to threaten and
intimidate journalists who's job it is to look into government affairs.
Perhaps more concerning than those he
prosecutes for whistle-blowing are the ones he doesn't prosecute. Last I
checked, Bradley Manning, of WikiLeaks fame, is still being tortured in
some CIA black site and will be until he meets his demise without
formal charges ever being filed. The President can do that I hear
because of the 2011 NDAA which authorizes indefinite detainment of
citizens without judicial review. When Obama signed it, he did so
vehemently disagreeing with that provision in the NDAA, but from that
moment has fought vigorously to hold onto that power.
I
read an article in the Guardian about the worst civil liberty
presidents in US history, and they did an interesting balancing test
comparing the horrible actions taken, (for example Abraham Lincoln
suspending habeas corpus rights for deserters and seditious elements in
the population) with the justification used for those offenses. In the
Lincoln example, the entire nation was engulfed in an internal all-out
war where half the country was fully devoted to the total destruction of
the other half. The existence of the nation was in doubt and people
were dying by the tens of thousands practically daily.
Obama's
justification is the war on terror. You have a better chance of
getting struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist. The
infringements on civil liberties are a delusional overreaction to the
threat of terror. Needless to say, Obama didn't score well in that
article's view. The fact that Obama argues it is lawful to be able to
unilaterally snatch up a U.S. citizen and detain them forever with no
trial or even charges is downright chilling. Obama is no doubt a
talented lawyer and it is dismaying to see him use that talent to be as
big a creep as possible.
5. Lack of
Transparency Part III. I'll make this one short. The government is
trying to pass a law where it is lawful for them to lie about the
existence of records requested by the public under the Freedom of
Information Act when in reality those records exist.
Long
story short, I just can't overlook this stuff. I must sound like a
pro-life person that just can't get over the whole abortion thing
despite agreeing with a candidate on 50 other things. Seriously though,
look at this shit. He is killing thousands of innocent people in a
war-crime-like fashion while suppressing dissent in the most horrific
ways possible. Lesser evil is pretty damned evil. Fuck Obama. He is
the reason that a "not Mitt Romney" vote for the Democrats isn't viable.
Such a low hurdle too.
-ra