Obama Personally Approves Killings Of Americans Suspected Of Terrorism

jo mama · Feb 8, 2012

QdoubleA said: ↑

If you think he's a bad president, cool. Think he's the second worst in history? I think that's pushing it quite a bit but ok, still cool. Thinking that the president of these United States hates America and the American way of life is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

i didnt say he hates america. but in light of the fact that obama has a total disregard for the bill of rights and habeas corpus the person who made that claim might be onto something.

thadeus · Feb 8, 2012

Hightop said: ↑

Obama's War Crimes
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=214899

By Glenn Greenwald (openly gay progressive)

the link is at the bottom:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/
Click to expand...

Sitting at my computer, I audibly sighed when I read this. You completely ignored my questions, and just did the same old garbage you always do.

It's not enough to be simply anti-Obama. I'm anti-Obama ... but there is not better alternative. I'd love to actually vote FOR a candidate instead of just voting against candidates like I usually do.

But, at any rate, just walking around posting articles about how much Obama sucks doesn't contribute anything at all to this forum.

You're an idiot Hightop, and you're going to be the first poster I have ever put on ignore. You have no original ideas, no constructive or interesting viewpoints, and you are nothing more than an automaton for Ron Paul.

Be sure to send me a message when you've decided that you can actually think rationally.

jo mama · Feb 8, 2012

justtxyank said: ↑

It won't always be Obama making "those decisions."

The powers he takes now will be passed down and expanded upon. Each time an executive takes a little more of these "aberrant" powers it won't seem that much worse than the one before it. The problem is, America is too busy looking at the small steps and they don't see the whole road we've gone down.

To mock the profoundness of the line from Star Wars Episode Something, This is how liberty TRULY dies.
Click to expand...

exactly - no president will willingly cede power acquired by their predecessor. we have seen obama expand much of bushs more egregious policies and whomever comes after obama will simply expand what he has done.

this is the main reason why obama has been so dangerous.

Hightop · Feb 8, 2012

thadeus said: ↑

But, at any rate, just walking around posting articles about how much Obama sucks doesn't contribute anything at all to this forum.
Click to expand...

Posting articles very critical of Obama (oh no!) written by progressives -only to see the subject changed or the content / myself attacked by the hero-worshipers is a great contribution. They just don't know it yet.

jo mama · Feb 8, 2012

Oski2005 said: ↑

Why should Obama be impeached for NDAA exactly?
Click to expand...

because it says the president has the power to use the military to arrest and hold american citizens w/out trial. but as i said, he should also be impeached for targeted assassination of american citizens and warrantless wiretapping, TSA grope-downs/naked body scanning and operation fast and furious and going to war w/out congressional approval.

Oski2005 said: ↑

Where was this anger from some of you in 2001 when these provisions were actually originally enacted?
Click to expand...

you can go back and read my posts from when bush was president to see where i stood then. im one of the few people on this board who has been consistent in my principles regardless of who the president is.

you are right that much of this stuff started under bush - patriot act/warrantless wiretapping/indefinite detention/gov. secrecy/using evidence gained under torture in a court of law - the problem w/ obama is that he has not rejected it...rather he has continued and expanded. and the next president will continue to expand executive power even further.

Oski2005 said: ↑

He signed the bill, but jo momma and hightop and some of you act like he wrote the damn thing himself and pushed for it when the reality is he signed it because the f**ing military needed to be funded for 2012 and there weren't enough votes in congress to remove the provision.
Click to expand...

democratic sen. carl levin said it was the obama administration who demanded that the section about arresting american citizens w/out trial be left in.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jHaJrnlqCgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

rhadamanthus · Mar 6, 2012

Eric Holder makes the same tired arguments, and Greenwald just skewers him.

In a speech at Northwestern University yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the most detailed explanation yet for why the Obama administration believes it has the authority to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution by the CIA without even charging them with a crime, notifying them of the accusations, or affording them an opportunity to respond, instead condemning them to death without a shred of transparency or judicial oversight. The administration continues to conceal the legal memorandum it obtained to justify these killings, and, as The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage noted, Holder’s “speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo.” But the crux of Holder’s argument as set forth in yesterday’s speech is this:

Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
Click to expand...

When Obama officials (like Bush officials before them) refer to someone “who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” what they mean is this: someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence. The “process” used by the Obama administration to target Americans for execution-by-CIA is, as reported last October by Reuters, as follows:

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
Click to expand...

As Leon Panetta recently confirmed, the President makes the ultimate decision as to whether the American will be killed: “[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go.”

So that is the “process” which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes “due process” as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he’s accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you? At Esquire, Charles Pierce, writing about Holder’s speech, described this best: “a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo.”
Click to expand...

And more:

It isn’t merely the Democratic Party generally and its hordes of adherents who have performed a complete reversal on these issues as of January 20, 2009. It’s also true of Barack Obama and Eric Holder themselves.

Throughout the Bush years, then-Sen. Obama often spoke out so very eloquently about the Vital Importance of Due Process even for accused Terrorists. As but one example, he stood up on the Senate floor and denounced Bush’s Guantanamo detentions on the ground that a “perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government’s case and has no way of proving his innocence.” He spoke of “the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.” He mocked the right-wing claim “that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury.” He acknowledged that the Government will unavoidably sometimes make mistakes in accusing innocent people of being Terrorists, but then provided the obvious solution: “what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes.” How moving is all that? What a stirring tribute to the urgency of allowing accused Terrorists a day in court before punishing them.

Then we have Eric Holder, who in 2008 gave a speech to the American Constitution Society denouncing Bush’s executive power radicalism and calling for a “public reckoning.” He specifically addressed the right-wing claim that Presidents should be allowed to eavesdrop on accused Terrorists without judicial review in order to Keep Us Safe. In light of what the Attorney General said and justified yesterday, just marvel at what he said back then, a mere three years ago:

To those in the Executive branch who say “just trust us” when it comes to secret and warrantless surveillance of domestic communications I say remember your history. In my lifetime, federal government officials wiretapped, harassed and blackmailed Martin Luther King and other civil rights leader in the name of national security. One of America’s greatest heroes whom today we honor with a national holiday, countless streets, schools and soon a monument in his name, was treated like a criminal by those in our federal government possessed of too much discretion and a warped sense of patriotism. Watergate revealed similar abuses during the Nixon administration.

To recap Barack Obama’s view: it is a form of “terror” for someone to be detained “without even getting one chance to prove their innocence,” but it is good and noble for them to be executed under the same circumstances. To recap Eric Holder’s view: we must not accept when the Bush administration says “just trust us” when it comes to spying on the communications of accused Terrorists, but we must accept when the Obama administration says “just trust us” when it comes to targeting our fellow citizens for execution. As it turns out, it’s not 9/11/01 that Changed Everything. It’s 1/20/09.
Click to expand...

Hightop · Mar 6, 2012

rhadamanthus said: ↑

Eric Holder makes the same tired arguments, and Greenwald just skewers him.

And more:
Click to expand...

I started a thread about it. Nobody cares. Rush Limbaugh is of more concern.

Forums

Obama Personally Approves Killings Of Americans Suspected Of Terrorism

jo mama Member

thadeus Member

jo mama Member

Hightop Member

jo mama Member

rhadamanthus Member

Hightop Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!