Obama Administration thinks if you dad sucks, they can kill you

Re: Obama Administration thinks if your dad sucks, they can kill you

Where was Azure when hundreds of thousands of civilians died in Iraq between 2003 and 2008?

No doubt arguing "I didn't vote for Bush, so it's got nothing to do with me."

I would personally say no. That there should be some sort of warrant process, akin to what I believe Alan Derschowitz (sp?) proposed, where to sanction the death of an American citizen overseas, there generally would have to be an application to a court with the government providing evidence enough to get a sign-off. As with FISA, there could be an exemption if there is the Jack-Bauer-style emergency where there is actionable intelligence that must be acted on RIGHT NOW.

The thing is, though, at least as I understand the power that has been claimed by the Bush and Obama administrations and their attempts to defend their actions, there is no need to justify such actions, and courts have no place in interpreting these actions and the interest of national security justifies the utmost in secrecy. Further, anyone divulging secrets of any sort faces prosecution.

Not to sound all tinfoil-hatty, but given all that, there is every possibility that such approaches have been used or could be used domestically or in friendly countries and we the general public wouldn't know about it. People who would know about it might either approve of the practice or stay silent for fear of being prosecuted.

That's a scary thing.

There are very few of the things that Obama has done that have not been done by Bush. So I don't think that it's fair to say he's far more an authoritarian than W, let alone far more than W dreamed of being.

It's interesting to me that given the Republicans (both elected officials and pundits) have generally decided to oppose Obama's policies in every area, I haven't seen any opposition to the sorts of things you're talking about here.

It is not a moot point if the question is "Why haven't liberals gotten more in arms about what Obama has done?"

It doesn't diminish what Obama has done.

But it goes to why people haven't abandoned Obama or criticized Obama more despite these things.

There is not and has not been a viable alternative who would not have engaged in the same sort of secrecy and power grab Obama has on these subjects. Therefore, it is fair game to look at which of the candidates is better on various other fronts. And it's reasonable to conclude Obama's better overall on the other fronts, or that Romney's better overall on the other fronts (or on a particular front that matters most).

Police forces are local, so to the extent that police forces have become more militarized, Obama's administration has limited responsibility. Mainly, the extent to which the Obama administration helped procure funds for military-style weapons.

I don't know so much that it's ignored as there is little action to be taken by the likes of you or me.

We can vote, but there's no way that Obama or Romney will interpret a vote for Gary Johnson (or whoever) as "stop claiming supreme authority to kill U.S. citizens you think are involved in terrorism without checks and balances."

We can write letters to the editor or the White House (or post to message boards). That too isn't a recipe for change.

Not sure what it would take.

"fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" -George W. Bush

So now anyone who has any concern over assassinating American citizens is an Al Qaida supporter? You've really drank the neo-con kool aid, haven't ya?

Can't speak for anyone else but I've been complaining about drone attacks to anyone who'll listen.

It is unfortunately true that much left-liberal opinion has been silent on Obama's war crimes.

Do you kill a baby or a puppy? Which should die?

Drank the Kool Aid? Hardly. I'm just not sure where the sudden outpouring of compassion for terrorists has come from, other than the C-in-C having a D next to his name. I'd be disappointed if it were that simple.

If a crackhead broke down your door and threatened to kill you, would you hesitate to drop him because he happens to be an American citizen? Why should this be any different?

I also note you didn't answer my question.

Whichever one wants to blow me up.

Are you really trying to say that extra-judicial execution by the state is the same thing as self-defense by a citizen and that there is no alternative whatsoever but letting terrorist attacks happen?

What happened to the Benjamin Franklin quote that everyone was so fond of when Bush was doing this stuff?

The Constitution in no way distinguishes between extrajudicial executions of citizens and non-citizens, nor is there any good reason for it to do so.

But Bush wasn't doing "this stuff." Bush invaded a sovereign country using false intelligence, leading to sectarian civil war that killed hundreds of thousands.

It's not even close to the same thing as targeted assassination of terrorists.

By "this stuff" I refer broadly to illegalities in the name of the "War on Terror". But he had some drone strikes too. Obama just escalated them.

I don't consider myself a leftist, but I think Obama has been piss-poor on civil liberties.

As I said in another thread, he campaigned as a liberal but he governs like a neo-con. His foreign policy has been mixed.

But I don't think McCain or Romney would be any better on these issues. This is what I'd like to see happen:

Recall American forces in Afghanistan
Decriminalize marijuana
Decriminalize prostitution
Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act
Repeal the Patriot Act
Disband the TSA

among other things...

I give Obama credit for ending DADT, ending the war in Iraq, etc. But there is a lot more he could be doing...

The first part of your post is incorrect. Ruby Ridge happened during Bush I's term, in 1992.


Regardless of who was in office at the time, both incidents were otterly ridiculous.

nvm, flow beat me to it.

But are we ignoring it? This was a thread about something else altogether. Just because you and a few others have combined the concept of drone assassination with the concept of domestic authoritarianism doesn't mean that they really are the same thing.

Maybe. Or maybe you're paranoid. Why were so many who are now howling about this silent on the matter five years ago? I've been pretty silent the whole time, aside from an occasional "yeah, we shouldn't do that." Why? Because as Raoul points out, you or I or anybody else here can't do much about it. We can only do something about it by revolution. I'm not ready to go there. Maybe you are, that's fine, we all have differing breaking points.

As I said before, there are more impactful issues at hand. I'm sure neither one of us has time for all of them, so we pick our battles.

Man, you don't know much about the Obama voter. Just about all of my liberal friends are deeply disappointed in the man, particularly over this very issue. He is too much a centrist, and didn't stop enough of the Bush excesses. These are complaints I hear every single day. But in the end, most people understand that the choice is between Romney and Obama, not between some idealized fantasy and Romney or Obama.

All excellent points. I would also include:

Repeal the Patriot Act
Decriminalize all drug use

Oh so now we're cheerleaders for the terrorists?

Deflect, deflect, deflect....

Sorry, but I'm not hearing any complaints, nor is anyone else. The silence in regards to Obama walking all over the Constitution is rather deafening.

Yes, the Republicans would be equally bad. That isn't the point.

Deflect what? I've said numerous times I have no problem with President Obama killing terrorists.

Why do you?

I'm assuming AM's point is the citizenship of the person should not be a factor in determining whether the action was justified.

Agreed. The only difference would be that there is a contingent who do believe that there is/should be an extra layer of protection for citizens. And for such people it would be OK for extrajudicial assassination/indefinite detention/etc. for non-citizens but not for citizens. The fact that the claimed powers in question clearly also encompass citizens might stir those people up.

http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...89b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html

There are probably other links one could actually find if one wanted to look for coverage or criticism of Obama's policies in this area.

As disgusting as this is, the silver lining is watching WFs leftists thow away their last shreds of credibility. I mean forget about denying whatsisname due process and just putting a Executive death sentence on him, they killed the man's teenage son and the only thing the Obamatons have to say about it is "Oh well. Guess he shouldn't have hung around with terrorists. Besides, McCain probably would've done the same thing. "

Can you imagine if that standard was held for the Marines in Haditha? Or Bush, arguing the case for invading Iraq? Not just having evidence that turned out to be wrong, but if Bush would've just invaded and later on had his press secretary say "By the way, we've invaded Iraq. KTHXBYE." Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if Governor Rick Perry executed a 16 year old after convicting him in a fair trial? Or how the Left would respond if, oh, I don't know, some neighborhood watch guy in Florida shot a teenager in self defense?

Why didn't Gibbs say "Obama doesn't have a son, but if he did, he'd probably look a lot like al Alawki" and then call for a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of this?

With this thread, I no longer owe any of you lefties more than jeers and condescension.

You've given nothing else for quite some time, so go ahead with it and keep placing made-up phrases in our mouths for good measure.

The wanton drone attacks are horrible. We just don't see as many "war criminal!!!" posts at WF with Obama as president compared with Bush because Muad Dib, Volpone, and the others are too busy taking him to task for being black and somehow trying to ban guns without actually banning guns. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al got us into this clusterfuck using deliberately false intelligence and shady tactics. Obama should rise above that, and unfortunately for one reason or another, has not.

The only thing the left, including Chad and Mikey, are good at, is deflecting from the original issue at hand.

You've just spent 2 pages, defending killing a child who is a US citizen because the guy who did it has a (D) behind his name. Maybe you should just quit while you're behind.

You amoral hypocritical fuckbag.

No, I've defended the concept of killing enemy combatants. The suggestion that this guy was killed for being the son, is probably not correct -- even Azure, who started the thread has agreed with that. If there is evidence that the alarmist view on this is true, than yeah, that's indefensible. But, where is this evidence?

You're kidding me, right? I addressed the original issue in my very first sentence and my concluding sentence in the post right above yours:

And if the guy who did it had an (R) behind his name, your monitor would be so covered in jizz you'd need a squeegee.

"Ride with an outlaw, and you can hang with an outlaw."

-Augustus McCrae.