Would Democrats have supported extrajudicial killings under Ashcroft?

You need to add a 3rd option: Duh.

 

I can't speak for all democrats, but I personally wouldn't have supported it under Ashcroft, just like I don't support it now.

Tennis shoes- we are not all the mindless sheeple blindly reciting the party line like you make us out to be.

 

Brainwashed Republicans are so pathetic.

 

You'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. Whatever gives them more power is what side they'll take.

 

Democrats supported all kinds of crap, like the Iraq War, under Bush for the sake of anti-terrorism.

 

I am not a Democrat, but I maintain the same consistent position I always have---extrajudicial killings are wrong, the Obama Administration is wrong on this.

 

If John McCain were president we would already be bombing and occupying Iran, have killed all suspected American terrorists abroad, and likely be in Egypt, Syria and Libya, so Senator Obama would likely have greater things to rail against.

I wouldn't have supported it under Ashcroft, just like I don't support it now. I think that continued justifications of extra-judicial killings that began under Bush and now continue under Obama is wrong. I do agree with Brad DeLong and think it is a bit of false equivalency, though.

The relative quiet from Democrats does not come from abandoning the view. It comes with weighing the upsides and downsides from abandoning the party over a single issue, and it comes from understanding the unsavory political reality that requires that Democrats to give up certain political and moral ground simply because electoral politics demands it. For many left-leaning democrats this means we either get to eat a serving of the cake, but are also forced to eat a smaller slice of something rotten, or we don't vote and we are forced to eat 2 big slices of something rotten. I'd much rather just eat the whole damn delicious cake and nothing rotten, but I'll take what little gains I can. Others view the downsides as outweighing the upsides and will choose not to vote, I respect that.

I think Brad De Long is on the money. There is a difference between remaining silent as the Democratic president pursues extra-judicial killings and actively supporting extra-judicial killings. I also think that a president who pursues such an unsavory policy because it is in his view a necessary sacrifice to the altar of political capital so that he may pursue many other policy objectives that he thinks will have a higher net positive impact on more lives is not completely and irreparably morally bankrupt. I would also trust a Democratic president pursuing such a policy as part of a political and legislative strategy to better manage the inherent slippery slope over someone who is a true believer supported by a cadre of true believers, because a Democratic president risks alienating his base.

Thanks for posting this Hightop, while you still personally managed to avoid putting any commentary or questions of your own, Ezra Klein helpfully posted a question in his headline for you. We cannot respond to you because you have posted no original thoughts, but in this case, we can respond to Klein and to each other. This is definitely a step up from some of your more recent posts. If your intent was not to ask the question that Ezra Klein asked or if you have any original thoughts of your own, don't hesitate to take it to the next level and post in your own thread.

 

This.

In my experience, Democrats positions tend to be more nuanced. They don't automatically adopt the stance of their leaders as much as Republicans do. That's why there are a lot of pro life Democrats. Many Democrats don't support Obama on this, just like they don't support his leaving Guantanamo Bay open, just like they didn't approve of his signing the provision in the NDAA 2012 Bill that allows for indefinite detention into law even though he said his administration wouldn't use it.

 

Well said.

Now there would be much frothing at the mouth about Munich, Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, as well as Obama being a Nazi-Communist or a simply a weakling dope smoker who sings Kumbaya, by the GOP'ers and most of the so called "libertarians" if Obama had nixxed extradjudicial assassinations.

 

I'm sad that I don't live in an America anymore where I can declare myself the sworn enemy of the U.S., join a foreign terrorist organization, carry out terrorist attacks, and then roll around lawless areas of civil war-torn Yemen with armed bands without worrying about being blown up by a drone attack.

What has our constitution come to!!!111!!!

 

Please don't stoop down to Hightop/Basso's level.

 

Because half of it is sh-t you are making up and doesn't exist or exhibit a profound ignorance about.

Meanwhile in the real world we have real problems.

 

it is truly bizarre watching supposed liberals and progressives support, defend and make excuses for a president who has overseen the abolishment of habeas corpus (people talk about ron paul bringing us back to the 19th century...obama has brought us back to the 16th century), indefinite detention, assassination of american citizens, expansion of bush's warrantless wiretapping program, continuation of bush's patriot act and the TSA sexually molesting innocent americans.

even more disgusting than watching supposed liberals and progressives support, defend and make excuses for this is watching them mock and criticize those who actually call obama out on his actions.

 

How many plane trips have you taken since 2009? I'm guessing less than 5.

 

Can the President Kill You? - Andrew P. Napolitano

http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/03/07/can-the-president-kill-you/

Its sad to see the AG arguing that the assassination of US citizens is somehow 'due process'...

 

Child please. Sam's been in the mud for a long time.

 

Was the bin Laden raid illegal? Yes or no?

 

it isn't like they are killing innocent US tourists who are checking out the Louvre in Paris with drone strikes...