Holy... Crap...

[WillyT]

Obama's War On Terror: Civil Libertarians Decry Being 'Stabbed In The Back' By Awlaki Decision
Joshua Hersch - HuffPo
First Posted: 10/10/11 06:49 PM ET Updated: 10/10/11 09:48 PM ET

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- Civil libertarians are expressing dismay over a new report that names two prominent one-time critics of the abuse of presidential power as the forces behind a controversial memo authorizing Obama to assassinate an American citizen. The memo, described Sunday in an article in The New York Times, was reportedly signed by David Barron and Marty Lederman, two law professors who frequently challenged President Bush's legal stances on his war powers before joining the Obama Office of Legal Counsel.

"It's always more painful for civil libertarians to be stabbed in the back by a friend," said Jonathan Turley, a scholar at George Washington University law school who has long been a fierce opponent of expansive interpretations of executive powers. "There's a real feeling of the Ides of March, that the Obama administration has enlisted civil libertarians to sort of do its dirty work."

<And...>

But it was the attachment of Barron and Lederman's names in the story -- they were described as the memo's "principle" authors, with Barron having signed it -- that startled so many observers, particularly since it came on the heels of reports that a third prominent Bush critic, the State Department's legal adviser Harold Koh, had earlier defended Obama's decision to forego congressional approval before the Libya conflict.

"If there were two people you wouldn’t have expected to underwrite expansive new powers for the president, they would have been Harold Koh, who built his career arguing against the Imperial Presidency, and Marty Lederman, who, right up until the time he entered the Obama administration, repeatedly made the case against the Bush-era expansion of executive power," said Gene Healy, of the libertarian Cato Institute. "Talk about 'growing in office.'"

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/obamas-war-on-terror-awlaki_n_1004161.html

:wtf:

:nuke:

[dkf]

1. When you feel responsible for saving lives it's a bit more gray.

[villager]

2. similarly, when you feel responsible for saving Bush's legacy of expanded executive powers, it's

...a lot more gray. Murky as hell, even.

[WillyT]

4. Yeah... It's Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper...

My apologies to the various classes of students I taught to believe in this country.

I'm sorry I let you all down.

:puke:

[EdMaven]

11. Anything can be justified on that basis, including assassinating US citizens in the US & detaining

every arab in the country.

"We're trying to save lives here!"

[dkf]

15. No need to assassinate if you can apprehend.

But if you can't apprehend, then what? Leave them be?

[Fuzz]

19. That's what makes this whole freedom and rights thing hard to keep going. If it's abandoned when it

gets hard, those rights are no longer inalienable but just random shit decided by petty tyrants, again.

[moodforaday]

24. And your proof that Awlaki was dangerous

enough to warrant killing is?

[scentopine]

12. No. It isn't. You bring forth evidence, you then act accordingly so that there is public

accountability for your actions. This is to ensure that the rule of law is applied equally without regard to wealth or privilege.

It is also to ensure that murder and war aren't used as tools of governance.

Obama is proving to be no different from Bush in this regard.

It is getting more and more difficult to tell these two right wingers apart.

This is every bit as rotten as Obama decriminalizing torture and wiretapping by corporations.

[dkf]

16. Bring forth evidence to who?

Try him in an American court in absentia?

[bvar22]

17. To a JUDGE,

who then will issue the appropriate WARRANTS base on the evidence.
You know, the way it is prescribed in our Constitution.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Uncle Joe]

21. bvar, that is so 18th, 19th and 20th century,

welcome to the lost century beginning with the lost decade.

We don't need no stinkin Constitution, now we have the Star Chamber; only difference being it's for everybody.

[dkf]

22. An American judge? What judge?

And let's say we did try him and we gave him the death penalty. Then you are okay with the attacks?

[moodforaday]

27. Yes, that. Or how about

if you cannot or are unwilling to prove that a person committed crimes worthy of capital punishment, you do not kill him?

[FiveGoodMen]

32. Is your screen name a reference to the Steve Howe piece?

[scentopine]

33. There are legal means for serving arrest warrents and capturing fugitives, or

do you advocate using the military to shoot predator drones at citizens, even if it kills dozens of people in a plurality of misses?

Is this your idea of constitutional justice?

1. CIA reports to president that a person who is "bad" based on secret evidence.

2. Obama says, well then, seems clear to me, take him out.

3. The military launches targeted strikes with predator drones in an indiscriminate killing spree of civilians until the guy has been blown up.

4. Then, all data relating to the murder is classified.

Or is it OK to bomb and assassinate people only in impoverished countries where Americans don't give a shit who gets slaughtered in the process?

We have a legal process that involves issuing arrest warrants that are part of public record. That's what makes us better than say, Afghanistan. That process exists even for suspects who are fugitives.

The reason this information is available is so the accountability is there to prevent abuse of power, say by someone who murders a good person who just happened to be bidding or protesting a lucrative oil contract that might interfere with Exxon's right to have unrestricted access to oil in every country.

If the CIA and President say that person was murdered by a predator drone because he had weapons of mass destruction, then we could see that there was a big lie involved and at a minimum use that as information to not vote for that candidate or the party.

Ideally, you would like to know that the president was giving out a sack of lies before the 200,000 to 1,000,000 people are slaughtered, but of course, we shouldn't be purists, right? So, we settle for postmortem justice. And make are choices based on that.

When the Obama justice department uses the military to kill citizens and keeps all the information secret, that is just more proof that Obama is comfortable with fascism, just as Bush was. There continues to be little difference that matters between the two right wingers, Bush and Obama - they are twins, although Obama may be better looking in a swim suit.

The moral hazard threshold has again been crossed by democrats who want to be Reagan republicans except that the tea party now calls Reagan a liberal so there is no place for them except in the more moderate republican wing of the democratic party where they spew immoral bullshit defending torture and the suspension of fair trial.

You killed a man, that man set back constitutional safe guards for 300 million people by more than 250 years. Who do you think was victorious?

Right wingers on both sides of this conflict are bombing us back to the 1700s.

Just because it may be inconvenient to capture someone based on constitutional law, doesn't mean you get to do it some other way.

Chalk this one up to the cowardly terror state by people too weak to uphold justice and the rule of law.

Meanwhile on Wall Street, no fear that our military will be used to punish the sons of bitches profiting from these wars and bank fraud and insider trading and mortgage fraud.

Maybe we need to move Wall Street to Afghanistan. Then, by Obama's rules, it would be OK to take out criminal CEOs with predator drones.

[Rex]

25. And how many lives have you saved?

Right. Zero. Like your understanding of the OP. :eyes:

[LanternWaste]

26. When we use bumper sticker philosophies, we can rationalize anything...

When we proclaim a bumper sticker philosophy, we can rationalize anything...

[LondonReign2]

29. Really? When Bush did it it was illegal...

...but when Obama does it you'll defend him? Really?

[DJ13]

3. Power corrupts

[GeorgeGist]

5. As we all know it's easier ...

to stab your friends in the back than in the chest. They never see it coming from behind.

[DirkGently]

6. Indefensible. Betraying our own principles GUARANTEES more terrorism.

Stupid.

[moondust]

7. As I see it...

if you move away from the United States and declare yourself to be an enemy of the United States and your actions support your declaration of hostility, you thereby surrender your rights as a citizen of the United States by default.

I wouldn't ask a loyal American to risk his/her life or limb trying to penetrate deep into the hinterlands of Yemen or Somalia or anyplace else to try to apprehend a known well-armed, well-protected enemy unless it was absolutely necessary.

[scentopine]

9. Excellent right wing talking points. Where does it say that in rule of law? Please - show me because

where do you draw the line - is it OK to slaughter 200 children in "near" misses from drone attacks as long as you get the "one"?

What is it about public due process that you are afraid of? Why is it that right wingers don't trust Americans to handle the truth of evidence and law?

Do you advocate killing anyone who declares themselves "an enemy of the state"? Do you advocate killing people who post things bad about Obama on this web site? Why not - how do you know they aren't inciting people to do bad things? Should we screen every communication to protect people and investigate them (for their own protection)?

If they are in the "hinter lands" how much of a threat are they? Really. Tell me - how much of a threat?

What other freedoms and liberties do believe we should deny citizens of USA. Or anywhere else for that matter?

Do you think that Obama is so pure that he wouldn't use this to take out people he doesn't agree who are otherwise politically inconvenient? How about Nixon or Reagan or Bush? Do you trust them more?

Do you think the pentagon and CIA is capable of abusing the right to kill people, say because a major oil company has interests in a particular region that is being opposed by a political group or foe of the CEO? Why not? All they have to do is say they are a terrorist or that they have weapons of mass destruction.

That's why constitutional safe guards are in place. Because government abuses power.

I'm strong enough to take this man to justice the old fashioned way, although admittedly, it isn't as expensive and news worthy and you don't get the pleasure of killing lots of people in the most violent ways possible in the process.

One good outcome - the right wingers like yourself who think this is OK will have plenty of business because there will be retribution. And that's always good for the war profiteers and the right wingers who love them.

You killed a man. He killed a significant part of the American rule of law affecting 300 million people.

Who do you think really won that battle?

[Luminous Animal]

10. That may be how you see it but it is not the law.

" While the Obama administration contends al-Awlaki’s U.S. citizenship didn’t prevent the CIA from targeting the alleged terror leader with a drone, the government didn’t have the right to take away that citizenship.

“It’s interesting,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Friday’s daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a person’s citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out there’s no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. “An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case,” she said. “Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case.”"

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/10_-_October/Summary_Judgments_for_Oct__3/

[COLGATE4]

23. That's your uninformed conclusion. Legally you can't 'surrender

your rights as a citizen by default'.

[moodforaday]

28. Thanks. Now how does the law see it?

Please show me the law that says "you thereby surrender your rights as a citizen of the United States by default". That would be very interesting to see.

[neverforget]

34. We did with bin Laden (risked American lives) why not disloyal Americans?

And who puts them on the kill list? Who are these people? What are their backgrounds? What is the evidence? What happens if they make a mistake like mistaken identity?

We don't know any of it because it's Top Secret.

[kenny blankenship]

8. But Ann Coulter has got to be feeling up these days. She wanted death w/o trial 4 John Walker Lindh

as well as for loads of other Americans whom she regards as rightless unpersons, according to her secret and personal criteria. Thanks to helpful scholars like Koh and Lederman, and most of all thanks to President Obama, she's now that much closer to seeing that dream come true.

[scentopine]

13. Obama learned from GW Bush. Bush made a mistake

he fabricated evidence and lied to UN and Congress and American people about Iraq. Eventually those lies caught up with him.

Obama is smarter. He's just going to do the same shit and keep it secret. His misconduct will never be revealed. That's because the truth about what a rotten leader you are is very bad for winning elections.

It's the same model being applied to Wall Street. Obama and a criminal Wall Street CEO think very much alike.

They both operate in secret to stay above the rule of law so that they can operate business as usual.

[BlueCheese]

14. It's a new strategy.

If they hate us for our freedoms, then we can get them to stop hating us by doing away with our freedoms.

[Octafish]

18. Hope Changed...

...back to what it was.

Thanks for the heads-up, WillyT!

[WillyT]

30. Anytime Octafish... Anytime...

:pals:

[leftstreet]

20. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

31. Short version: "It's not fascism when WE do it!"

[Ignis]

35. K&R

What an about-face for these guys. But I guess the final paragraph of the article sums up what's at play there.

:puke: