Justice under Obama

[joeb]

I don't know how many have heard about this, but Obama and Eric Holder, i.e. the "Justice" Department have decided that it is OK to kill American citizens without any due process, thus killing off our most basic of right as American citizens, and the Constitution.

Quote:

The U.S. government is authorized to order the killing of any American citizen who is believed to be a “senior operational” leader of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” regardless of whether that person poses an immediate national security threat, according to a confidential Justice Department memo.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, reveals the rationale behind the September 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both men were American citizens and had not been indicted or charged with crimes.

Human rights activists and other critics have questioned the Obama administration’s policy of using drone strikes against alleged al-Qaeda operatives, including U.S. citizens. The key question in the debate has to do with whether the federal government is within its power to kill Americans who have not been indicted or charged with any crimes.

The rest of the article can be found at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/...terror-ties-ok/

I saw an interview with a Senator yesterday in which he said he and a State judge had sent memos questioning both the Justice Department and the Obama administration how this is legal in the light of both the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution a few weeks back. He said all they have heard back was crickets, iows, the silence has been deafening.

This coming from an administration and a "justice" department that say foreign terrorists should be given the same rights as US citizens and condemn any enhanced interrogation procedures of same people. The hypocrisy in this is monumental....

Oh. One more thing. The person who makes the decision to kill US citizens is a nameless bureaucrat, not an elected official, thus removing any possibility of holding them accountable for their actions.

[Narcah]

I think that is called murder when you kill someone without a trial...

[Tom Wetmore]

So I assume you were as equally outraged by the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against those that threaten our national security? Or the Bush doctrine about treatment of "enemy combatants"?

Really, how is this any different, other than the precision and lethal effectiveness of using drones without risk to our own troops to carry out those preemptive strikes against known enemy combatants?

[Guest]

Really, how is this any different,

The difference is, Bush never killed any Americans without due process. Which is what you are defending. Even when they found an enemy combatant who was an American, they didn't kill him at all. (Probably should have) Instead they brought him home where he is now alive and well in a nice posh American prison.

And whether you believe it or not, that is a HUGE difference. (Not the prison, but the action taken)

[Tom Wetmore]

As far as you know...

Secret prisons, renditions, ... and yes, under Bush, US citizens could be declared as enemy combatants and held without due process.

[bonnie]

The difference is, Bush never killed any Americans without due process. Which is what you are defending. Even when they found an enemy combatant who was an American, they didn't kill him at all. (Probably should have) Instead they brought him home where he is now alive and well in a nice posh American prison.

And whether you believe it or not, that is a HUGE difference. (Not the prison...the action taken)

Richard,

You have to cut Obama supporters a little slack.

Into the second term and still anything and everything Obama does is given a wink and a nod because you know "Bush".

Some of what took place and was allowed to happen because of 9/11 was a bad idea is now a good idea because Bush did something in a far more limited fashion.

There has to be something that is used as an excuse by Obama supporters for putting this man back in office.

[joeb]

As far as you know...

Secret prisons, renditions, ... and yes, under Bush, US citizens could be declared as enemy combatants and held without due process.

A US citizen being held without due process is not legal under our constitution, and no I did not like that under Bush, if he actually did it. As far as I know Bush never did it. To my knowledge it is Obama who wrote the Presidential order to give himself the power to do that, as well as the power to kill us. Obama has taken things much farther than Bush ever thought of. He'll kill a US citizen with nothing more than an accusation. Funny how I see no outrage in you over this.... The only outrage I see from you is outrage that I don't like Obama's actions.

Rendition, Gitmo, etc... are things done to foreign nationals who do not have American citizenship, and things Obama said were unconstitutional when he was a candidate. In the war we're in against people who want to kill us, but are not fighting under any national flag, I don't find this extremely abhorrent. These guys don't fight a conventional war. They specialize in killing civilians. Obama, however, goes far beyond what he condemned as a candidate. He'll kill you or I without even charging either of us with anything....

I think you need to watch 2016 Obama's America so you can see who this guy really is and what he's about.

[Guest]

... and yes, under Bush, US citizens could be declared as enemy combatants and held without due process.

I'd rather be held than killed most any day. Yes I still see a difference there. A pretty big one.

[Guest]

Funny how I see no outrage in you over this.... The only outrage I see from you is outrage that I don't like Obama's actions.

That pretty much nails it. I'm amazed at what they'll defend. It's like they have on purple and pink "Decieve Me" sunglasses.

Can you say "Swallow a Camel, Strain at a gnat"?

:)

[Guest]

As far as you know...

So, me not knowing of one, somehow proves that there was one? What kind of reasoning is that?

We know for a fact that Obama has already killed some Americans without any charges, or any kind of due process. We don't have to say: "As far as we know".

We know.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

As far as you know...

Secret prisons, renditions, ... and yes, under Bush, US citizens could be declared as enemy combatants and held without due process.

A US citizen being held without due process is not legal under our constitution, and no I did not like that under Bush, if he actually did it. As far as I know Bush never did it. To my knowledge it is Obama who wrote the Presidential order to give himself the power to do that, as well as the power to kill us. Obama has taken things much farther than Bush ever thought of. He'll kill a US citizen with nothing more than an accusation. Funny how I see no outrage in you over this.... The only outrage I see from you is outrage that I don't like Obama's actions.

Rendition, Gitmo, etc... are things done to foreign nationals who do not have American citizenship, and things Obama said were unconstitutional when he was a candidate. In the war we're in against people who want to kill us, but are not fighting under any national flag, I don't find this extremely abhorrent. These guys don't fight a conventional war. They specialize in killing civilians. Obama, however, goes far beyond what he condemned as a candidate. He'll kill you or I without even charging either of us with anything....

I think you need to watch 2016 Obama's America so you can see who this guy really is and what he's about.

The enemy combatant we face, do so disobeying the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention allows for the instant dispatch of those waging war against a signed country without donning a uniform of the attacking country.

But you won't hear that from our wonderful liberal media, who says that anything the US does is bullying against these poor, smaller countries.

When I see someone pull off the ol' whine of "where's your outrage when Bush did xxxxxx?", I know I am dealing with the intellectually dishonest. If they didn't like an action under Bush, they certainly shouldn't be giving Obama a pass when he takes Bush's action light years farther. Not only that, these assume all those who voted for Bush all thought his actions were OK. That is what they call "psychological projection" as this is precisely what the political left do with their own - they surround their leaders with the aura of purity and infallibility - as if "good intentions" is the cloak of righteousness that should cover all sins.

Since I have been politically aware (late 60's), I have observed the Republicans hold their own accountable. I have yet to see Democrats do that at all - whether from the top, or their rank and file. Especially at the top.

Our political Left hated Bush for Guantanamo - but it is fine if Obama keeps it open. Likewise rendition, secret CIA prisons, and the rest of their complaints against Bush.

It was a "Constitutional invasion of privacy" crises for Bush to enact warrantless wiretaps and InterNet surveillance of our enemies - but OK for a Republican to lose power by a political hack eavesdropping on said Republican's cell phone; it is even more OK for Obama to sign off on even deeper intrusions of our privacy....because of Bush

It was evil for Bush to use drones against enemy combatants in other countries - but it is OK for Obama to order use of drones against our own citizens...because of Bush

It was evil for Bush to "cross" the 4 TRILLION dollar debt mark, but OK for Obama to add more than twice that amount in his first term....because of Bush

It is evil for Bush to desire past records not be paraded about the Media - but it is OK for Obama to have his entire life from college forward to be sealed away from public inspection....because he's not Bush

Bush's daughters were fair game for the media; the daughters of the Clintons and Obamas forbid their daughters from being Media fodder.

And the list goes on...and is the reason why I no longer respect the opinions of our political Left, nor those who parrot them. Bush is both their pass to do as much evil as possible, and their proverbial whipping boy for those evils. Intellectually dishonest, indeed.

Blessings,

[Tom Wetmore]

I am not trying to justify what either Bush or Obama have done. What I am doing is trying to point out the hypocrisy evident by those who are now critical of Obama, no matter what he does. Where were those same people when Bush was justifying casting aside due process or any regard for civil liberties or human rights or other nations sovereignty all under the guise of national security? Indeed the hypocrisy cuts the other way also since those that were critical of Bush seem rather accepting of Obama continuing the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare against all threats.

And I bet you just assumed that a liberal would never say that last bit.

[Ted Oplinger]

Well, Tom - that is indeed surprising. I don't think all of the political Left gives Obama a pass - I have just yet to meet significant numbers of them vocal enough to make their protest against their own valid. Even here in Texas, Democrats to a person give Obama a pass on everything, while criticizing Bush on everything imaginable.

Bush, on the other hand, saw the Tea Party rise on his watch, precisely because he was big spending, big government Clinton redux, minus the sex/intern thing. A very large number of conservatives voiced their dismay and protest. That is why among the political pundits, the talk is always how the Republican Establishment can find ways to mend its rifts.

We didn't like these things under Bush, we don't like them under Obama, and we certainly don't like having our own government turn those policies against Americans.

Blessings,

[OzarkWoman]

I am not trying to justify what either Bush or Obama have done. What I am doing is trying to point out the hypocrisy evident by those who are now critical of Obama, no matter what he does. Where were those same people when Bush was justifying casting aside due process or any regard for civil liberties or human rights or other nations sovereignty all under the guise of national security? Indeed the hypocrisy cuts the other way also since those that were critical of Bush seem rather accepting of Obama continuing the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare against all threats.

And I bet you just assumed that a liberal would never say that last bit.

People like me dislike both parties and I was never a fan of either Bush or reagan. In fact, the last decent President we had was JFK, in my opinion.