FTFA:

...green-lighting shoot-to-kill orders against an American terror suspect overseas - would have triggered a massive backlash if George W. Bush had tried them...



BS!! I WOULD HAVE LOVED IT GW WOULD HAVE DONE THIS.

cman: Its easy to do that when you brand people who disagree with you as a a racist bigot.

You can get down off of that cross now.

timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

notsureifserious.jpg

Bush was well on his way to "doing that".
You just can't do all of it at once, you have to take a liberty here, a right there, another removed right here and another liberty there... until you get to where we are now.

Obama is a BUSH extension.

Yeah, none of the Obama Administration officials ended up behind bars like John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez. What's up with that?

I think that signing a law which allows the military to detain US citizens without due process and crafting an attempt at legally justifying the assassination of US citizens makes Obama necessarily worse on civil liberties than Bush, whose actions mostly consisted of spying on and harassing US citizens.

IMO some people who consider themselves liberal give Obama a pass on some of his creepy foreign policy stuff. But that's politics for ya, doesn't seem like you need to try to prove it over 4 pages of an article.

Green light killing an American abroad.

That means he's killing broads for Americans, right? Hold on I have a few names I'd like to write down for him.

timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

That is an accurate statement. Due process means "according to law" and has nothing to do with courts.

The law, right now, says the President can kill anyone associated with, or a member of, any group, nation, or organization associated with the 9/11 attacks. That is the due process they get.

1derful: I think that signing a law which allows the military to detain US citizens without due process and crafting an attempt at legally justifying the assassination of US citizens makes Obama necessarily worse on civil liberties than Bush, whose actions mostly consisted of spying on and harassing US citizens.

Obama used his magical time machine to sign the 9/11 AUMF? Fascinating, tell me more.

Stoker: Bush was well on his way to "doing that".
You just can't do all of it at once, you have to take a liberty here, a right there, another removed right here and another liberty there... until you get to where we are now.

Obama is a BUSH extension.

I have no sympathy at all for people who discovered that they cared about civil liberties on January 20, 2009.

timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

Yeah.

Am I happy the guy ate a Hellfire missile? Yes.
Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

ha-ha-guy: Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Sigh, another thread full of people who don't know how the whole "Congressionally approved war powers" thing works.

Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.

sprawl15: timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

notsureifserious.jpg

Did you not see Eric Holder's speech on this subject? That's practically a direct quote, I mean the first sentence is.

And some folks on the right think he is a wanton child killer because Al-Awlaki's son was killed while hanging out with folks wanting to slaughter Americans.

Also...I find it really strange that Obama can't kill someone actively planning attacks...but nary a peep came out of the media when Israel killed an American in order to keep their blockade.

cman: Its easy to do that when you brand people who disagree with you as a a racist bigotterrorist sympathizer.

sprawl15: ha-ha-guy: Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Sigh, another thread full of people who don't know how the whole "Congressionally approved war powers" thing works.

Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.

Somehow, I think you've done this before!

ha-ha-guy: Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

What Republican wishful thinking might resemble.

malaktaus: sprawl15: timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

notsureifserious.jpg

Did you not see Eric Holder's speech on this subject? That's practically a direct quote, I mean the first sentence is.

Duh. And it's absolutely, completely correct. A crazed gunman shot down by a policeman receives full due process because our laws allow a policeman to use lethal force in the interest of public safety. Due process does not mean 'court process', it means that the government shall act according to its laws. Just because criminal acts require a court for conviction doesn't mean that all government action requires a trial first.

ha-ha-guy: timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

Yeah.

Am I happy the guy ate a Hellfire missile? Yes.
Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

The targeted killing of al-Awlaki was fully authorized under the 9/11 AUMF, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. Don't try and pretend there was no legislative authorization or that the President somehow exceeded the authority granted by Congress by taking a "measure he deems necessary".

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: A series of recent moves - from aggressively filling his reelection war chest to green-lighting shoot-to-kill orders against an American terror suspect overseas - would have triggered a massive backlash if George W. Bush had tried them, say former Bush administration officials and a few on the political left.

I like how they added a dash of "on the political left" parts, there. The editorial conversation probably went something like this:

Editor: "This line makes it seem like you're whining on behalf of former Bush Administration Officials"
Writer: "Well, how about we add something about Bob (D-NY) not liking this stuff either."
Editor: "Sold! Howard, you've done it again!"

Obama "gets away with it", because he's able to make eloquent, reasoned statements about why he chose to do things.

Though that ignores the fact that GWB's approval ratings for much of his first term were relatively good. He and his Administration also put the PATRIOT Act through and created the TSA, which, so far at least, makes every thing that the President's administration has "gotten away with" look like small beans.

I didn't see POTUS with both houses of congress trying to dismantle the Patriot Act or the TSA between '09 and '11. In fact, they voted to extend the Patriot Act. Pile on NDAA, Gitmo still being open, and the assassination of an American citizen and that amounts to more than "small beans."

And, maybe the civil liberties of a people don't amount to a hill of beans. But, this is OUR hill. And, these are OUR beans.

LasersHurt: I can't take the article seriously when it says "a candidate is getting donations in an election year" and uses that to bolster an argument that it just wasn't fair for ol' Bush.

Well, maybe you should read the entire rest of the article, instead of cherry-picking one sentence you didn't like and using that as a pathetic excuse to dismiss the whole thing.

/I'm a liberal Dem, but there's no farking way in hell you can tell me that the Dems aren't being total hypocrites here. If Bush were sending attack drones to kill US citizens we would never hear the end of it on the Left.

qorkfiend: ha-ha-guy: timujin: "'Due process' doesn't mean 'court process'"? WTF is up with that shiat?

Yeah.

Am I happy the guy ate a Hellfire missile? Yes.
Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

The targeted killing of al-Awlaki was fully authorized under the 9/11 AUMF, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. Don't try and pretend there was no legislative authorization or that the President somehow exceeded the authority granted by Congress by taking a "measure he deems necessary".

So Obama had no choice?

Obama could personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day and the media would not give a shiat.

I'm okay with judicious use of the AUMF authorized drone strikes. Beats nation-building. Golfing and fund-raising: yeah, meh. Closed door meetings are integral to actually getting things done as the national discourse is sub-idiot level and the press poisons everything it touches. Legitimate outrage to be found on transparency issues and the response to whistle-blowing.

stewmadness: Obama could personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day and the media would not give a shiat.

But Republicans would finally care about the rights of Gitmo detainees.

There is a vast difference between assassinating a known terrorist and bugging the phones of your political opponents. If that isn't glaringly obvious, you have a real perspective problem.

Obama's approach makes me nervous, sure. But equating it to Bush's scorched earth approach is ridiculous. Bush would have gone to martial law if he could have gotten away with it. He probably would have called it "Freedom Law".

eddiesocket: So Obama had no choice?

What an astonishingly stupid and pointless question.

cman: Its easy to do that when you brand people who disagree with you as a a racist bigot traitor.


for the record, most republicans sure do act like racists.

Stoker: Bush was well on his way to "doing that".
You just can't do all of it at once, you have to take a liberty here, a right there, another removed right here and another liberty there... until you get to where we are now.

Obama is a BUSH extension.

+1.

Every administration incrementally builds upon established precedents set during all prior administrations. Thus, Obama is worse than W Bush, who is worse than Clinton, who is worse than Bush, etc.

Go ahead though, and keep arguing over insignificant (and in most cases, non-existent) policy differences, Fark morans of the left and right.

erveek: ha-ha-guy: Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

What Republican wishful thinking might resemble.

Can I offer you some spare AAs for your snark detector?

sprawl15: ha-ha-guy: Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Sigh, another thread full of people who don't know how the whole "Congressionally approved war powers" thing works.

Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.

I'll bite. Which war powers would those be? Because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 hasn't been used since WWII. Would you be referencing, PATRIOT Act, NDAA, or something else?

Not that it really matters. We started expanding congressionally approved powers shortly after 9/11 (with Patriot Act) and a decade later we're still waging war and expanding the powers with things like NDAA. Just because the executive branch has that tool in their tool box doesn't meant I can't be pissed that:

A) Congress gave them that tool
B) They used it.

For example, Congress had no issue with rounding up all the Japanese in WWII (when they even went so far as to declare war) and yet it's a fairly common belief that was wrong (and Executive Order 9066 was far from the most constitutional order ever issued). Of course we paid the Japanese reps over that issue and while the Supreme Court rulings from have the time have never been overturned, less court rulings vacated some of the convictions. Basically just because you get something done to paranoia, doesn't mean that a couple decades later people won't consider a bunch of executive orders, Supreme Court rulings, and even Congressional Acts to be complete shiat.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Obama "gets away with it", because he's able to make eloquent, reasoned statements about why he chose to do things.

President Obama "gets away with it" because everyone is afraid of the republican alternative. As long as he is perceived as being even slightly to the left of republicans, most democrats from top to bottom will support him no matter what.

eddiesocket:

So Obama had no choice?

He did have choices. The one he did choose was expressly authorized under a very specific statute.

I get the impression most Obama supporters don't really care about civil liberties other than being able to smoke pot and see boys marry boys.

Any criticism of Obama is just because you are racist, subby.

stewmadness: Obama could personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day and the media would not give a shiat.

The media doesn't "give a shiat" because neither the Republicans nor Democrats give a shiat. Dems used to pretend to give a shiat when Bush was in charge. Republicans never bothered to even pretend.

ha-ha-guy: I'll bite. Which war powers would those be? Because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 hasn't been used since WWII. Would you be referencing, PATRIOT Act, NDAA, or something else?

The 9/11 AUMF. It's been mentioned about a half dozen times in the thread. You are aware of the War Powers Resolution, yes?

ha-ha-guy: a decade later we're still waging war and expanding the powers with things like NDAA

The NDAA was a very minor expansion of powers. It mostly codified a lot of powers implicit in the AUMF.

Rent Party: eddiesocket:

So Obama had no choice?

He did have choices. The one he did choose was expressly authorized under a very specific statute.

Sigh. The point is that it doesn't make it right. We Dems used to care more about that sort of thing, at least when Republicans were in charge.

Teufelaffe: 1) The language that allowed the detention portions of the NDAA to apply to US citizens was removed before Obama signed the bill.

Incorrect. The part that was removed was mandatory military detention. The government still had the option to detain via military or indefinitely detain via civilian authorities. The implementation of the bill was weird and stupid for a lot of reasons, but as you mentioned he kind of wrote those away. I'd rather see it vaporize than be kind of swept under a rug, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

ha-ha-guy: erveek: ha-ha-guy: Like if Holder gets dragged off and some libertarian militia puts two in his skull, hey that involved in a process, so it's legit right?

What Republican wishful thinking might resemble.

Can I offer you some spare AAs for your snark detector?

sprawl15: ha-ha-guy: Am I much more unhappy about the fact we issued an what is basically an executive order to kill an American citizen? Yes.

Sigh, another thread full of people who don't know how the whole "Congressionally approved war powers" thing works.

Soon to be followed by people mistaking legal justification for moral justification.

I'll bite. Which war powers would those be?

Link (new window)

Any other questions?

sprawl15: eddiesocket: So Obama had no choice?

What an astonishingly stupid and pointless question.

Um, in what respect? You're attempting to argue that legal=moral or even constitutional, and it doesn't always.