Shoot to Kill as Govt. Policy?

[goinghome]

"...Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished. The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.

And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration's tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution -- and it was -- what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process?

All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know: that while Obama's "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

 

[Dave]

while Obama's "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

This is the truth. It's not about comparing him to Hitler or questioning where he was born or anything speculative or nutty. He is on the same team as the previous administration and until we get a truly independent party we are all slaves who can be locked up or shot without charges or trial.

 

[Black Cloud]

This thread makes me want to listen to AC/DC

 

[Worm]

All of this underscores the principal point made in this excellent new article by Eli Lake, who compellingly and comprehensively documents what readers here well know: that while Obama's "speeches and some of his administration’s policy rollouts have emphasized a break from the Bush era," the reality is that the administration has retained and, in some cases, built upon the core Bush/Cheney approach to civil liberties and Terrorism..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent book called "Washington Rules" which shows that every administration since World War II, Democratic and Republican alike, has been more or less aligned with its predecessors in expanding the powers of the executive branch and the overall shift toward a huge military acting as custodian of a global empire. Not only Obama, but Bush, Clinton, and all of these jokers have used the same blueprints for decades. It's almost beside the point to blame Obama. Bush was more the outlier, since some of his policies flew in the face of what the older guard wanted. But they're all drinking from the same water cooler.

 

[goinghome]

Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent book called "Washington Rules" which shows that every administration since World War II, Democratic and Republican alike, has been more or less aligned with its predecessors in expanding the powers of the executive branch and the overall shift toward a huge military acting as custodian of a global empire. Not only Obama, but Bush, Clinton, and all of these jokers have used the same blueprints for decades. It's almost beside the point to blame Obama. Bush was more the outlier, since some of his policies flew in the face of what the older guard wanted. But they're all drinking from the same water cooler.

When it comes to the crunch, there's little difference between them all - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...rols-worlds-most-populous-nation-1116689.html

 

[Dave]

Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent book called "Washington Rules" which shows that every administration since World War II, Democratic and Republican alike, has been more or less aligned with its predecessors in expanding the powers of the executive branch and the overall shift toward a huge military acting as custodian of a global empire. Not only Obama, but Bush, Clinton, and all of these jokers have used the same blueprints for decades. It's almost beside the point to blame Obama. Bush was more the outlier, since some of his policies flew in the face of what the older guard wanted. But they're all drinking from the same water cooler.

The difference between Obama and these others is that, though it's hard to remember now, he was sold to us as CHANGE and HOPE, and he's pushing things like ACTA, the Internet Kill Switch and sovereign immunity while using a man that equates gays with pedophiles and ...whatever they call people that f*** dogs, as the minister at his inauguration. When asked about "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" at a Barbara Boxer rally he laughed and said "We're working on it fellas!"

His idea of universal healthcare is making everyone buy insurance and that is his big achievement. Turning over Iraq to the Iraqis must be mentioned also. Give the devil his due. But all you've really done is said the same thing people said to defend Nixon, "Oh they're all crooks." Yes, and we deserved better, and it's time to throw out both parties.