So, it turns out Obama is worse than Bush

[jsteele]

All of you who complain that I don't criticize Obama or Democrats, please bookmark this post.

I recommend Glen Greenwald's post today about Obama's authorization of the assassination of an American citizen:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

I'm going to draw on Greenwald's article for this post, so consider this a footnote crediting him.

According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, President Obama has authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was born and raised in the US, though is now believed to be living in Yemen. He gain notoriety after the killing of US soldiers at Ft. Hood by Major Malik Nadal Hasan. Subsequent to the killings, it was revealed that Hasan had communicated by email with al-Awlaki (though US investigators believe that communication was in line with Hasan's duties).

What is appalling about Obama's action is that he has removed all right to due process for al-Awlaki. The basis of the American justice system is that we are all presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Obama has chosen to not only convict al-Awkaki, but to sentence him to death with no due process whatsoever. This is simply un-American and opens a Pandora's box that is extremely dangerous.

Obama is apparently relying on the findings of the US intelligence services. Does anyone need to be reminded how not long ago the same services assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone remember how those services assured us of the imminent threat of the Soviet Union right up to the minute it collapsed like a house of cards? In short, these services make mistakes. Sadly, a mistake of judgement by intelligence officers recently cost several of them their lives when they met with someone they believed to be an informer and he blew them up. It is because of mistakes like this that these services should not be depended upon to determine whether someone lives or dies.

Not long ago, liberals and Democrats were complaining that George W. Bush was tapping our phones without a warrant. While he appeared to have little regard for the Bill of Rights, even Bush did not order the murder of American citizens. Obama's actions are an absolute travesty. Attempting to provide universal healthcare is not tyranny. Bailing out America's auto industry is not tyranny. But, ordering the killing of American citizens is pretty damn close to tyranny. However, I wonder whether Glen Beck and the Tea Baggers will care? Let alone the Democrats who are scarred shitless of being labeled "soft on terrorism". In 1776, brave people stood up and said that men (and by implication, women) were granted certain unalienable rights. The first of those was "life". Obama has decided that right is no longer unalienable and not only can be taken away, but can be taken away without a trial or the most basic of due process. Sadly, since no tax increase is involved, few people will care.

[Anonymous]

Yep, I'm a little unsure what to do with this information. On the one hand I am appalled, and on the other hand, I can't imagine what the alternative would be (i.e. McCain/Palin in the White House), and on the third hand (yep, I know), Hillary is Sec'y of State - I don't think she'd be one to let this pass, unless she agreed as well. Hrmmm. What to do.

[Anonymous]

What to do? Hold your rock stars to the same standards that you hold ours (conservatives...). Go bang pots outside the White House and all that. Don't vote him back in. Etc.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:All of you who complain that I don't criticize Obama or Democrats, please bookmark this post.

...

Obama is apparently relying on the findings of the US intelligence services. Does anyone need to be reminded how not long ago the same services assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

Pardon Jeff, I could not pass this up. What about "Bush lied"? We don't agree on much, which is fine, but this one has been repeated so often, forgetting that pols on both sides were fully convinced by the intelligence.

Be happy!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Pardon Jeff, I could not pass this up. What about "Bush lied"? We don't agree on much, which is fine, but this one has been repeated so often, forgetting that pols on both sides were fully convinced by the intelligence.

Be happy!

I don't really understand your point. Whether one politician or a million politicians are convinced by the intelligence is really immaterial. In either case, the intelligence was wrong. Therefore, it is fair to question whether the intelligence that has led to an American citizen being targeted to be murdered might also be wrong.

As for Bush lying, there is no doubt that he did. He repeatedly said that he had not made up his mind about going to war. In fact, we now know that his mind was made up well before he disclosed that fact.

While we may not often agree, do you agree with me that Presidents shouldn't be in the business of ordering the murders of American citizens? Because, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, if you don't speak up when they come for the Muslim Americans, there won't be anyone left to speak up when they come for the Tea Baggers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pardon Jeff, I could not pass this up. What about "Bush lied"? We don't agree on much, which is fine, but this one has been repeated so often, forgetting that pols on both sides were fully convinced by the intelligence.

Be happy!

I don't really understand your point. Whether one politician or a million politicians are convinced by the intelligence is really immaterial. In either case, the intelligence was wrong. Therefore, it is fair to question whether the intelligence that has led to an American citizen being targeted to be murdered might also be wrong.

As for Bush lying, there is no doubt that he did. He repeatedly said that he had not made up his mind about going to war. In fact, we now know that his mind was made up well before he disclosed that fact.

While we may not often agree, do you agree with me that Presidents shouldn't be in the business of ordering the murders of American citizens? Because, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, if you don't speak up when they come for the Muslim Americans, there won't be anyone left to speak up when they come for the Tea Baggers.

They will call that the Great Dunking.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pardon Jeff, I could not pass this up. What about "Bush lied"? We don't agree on much, which is fine, but this one has been repeated so often, forgetting that pols on both sides were fully convinced by the intelligence.

Be happy!

I don't really understand your point. Whether one politician or a million politicians are convinced by the intelligence is really immaterial. In either case, the intelligence was wrong. Therefore, it is fair to question whether the intelligence that has led to an American citizen being targeted to be murdered might also be wrong.

As for Bush lying, there is no doubt that he did. He repeatedly said that he had not made up his mind about going to war. In fact, we now know that his mind was made up well before he disclosed that fact.

While we may not often agree, do you agree with me that Presidents shouldn't be in the business of ordering the murders of American citizens? Because, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, if you don't speak up when they come for the Muslim Americans, there won't be anyone left to speak up when they come for the Tea Baggers.

Google "Bush lied" = the phrase is used repeatedly to assert that Bush lied to Congress, the American people, the world about WMD to justify going to war - NOT about when he made a decision to go to war. I don't know at what specific poing he decided that war was necessary, I do know that he waited for Congressional authorization.

I don't know enough about the Yemeni cleric who apparently has US citizenship to make an informed decision, but on its face any politician ordering murder is wrong. I suspect there are some - politicians and citizens - who believe we are at war, and do not characterize the capture or death of the enemy's leaders as murder, but that is another discussion.

Further, I think discussion should be respectful - it is beneath you to continue to refer to the Tea Party movement and its associates as "tea baggers" - it goes a long way to negate any reasonable points you might be making when you stoop to this.

[Anonymous]

I agree with above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pardon Jeff, I could not pass this up. What about "Bush lied"? We don't agree on much, which is fine, but this one has been repeated so often, forgetting that pols on both sides were fully convinced by the intelligence.

Be happy!

I don't really understand your point. Whether one politician or a million politicians are convinced by the intelligence is really immaterial. In either case, the intelligence was wrong. Therefore, it is fair to question whether the intelligence that has led to an American citizen being targeted to be murdered might also be wrong.

As for Bush lying, there is no doubt that he did. He repeatedly said that he had not made up his mind about going to war. In fact, we now know that his mind was made up well before he disclosed that fact.

While we may not often agree, do you agree with me that Presidents shouldn't be in the business of ordering the murders of American citizens? Because, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, if you don't speak up when they come for the Muslim Americans, there won't be anyone left to speak up when they come for the Tea Baggers.

Google "Bush lied" = the phrase is used repeatedly to assert that Bush lied to Congress, the American people, the world about WMD to justify going to war - NOT about when he made a decision to go to war. I don't know at what specific poing he decided that war was necessary, I do know that he waited for Congressional authorization.

I don't know enough about the Yemeni cleric who apparently has US citizenship to make an informed decision, but on its face any politician ordering murder is wrong. I suspect there are some - politicians and citizens - who believe we are at war, and do not characterize the capture or death of the enemy's leaders as murder, but that is another discussion.

Further, I think discussion should be respectful - it is beneath you to continue to refer to the Tea Party movement and its associates as "tea baggers" - it goes a long way to negate any reasonable points you might be making when you stoop to this.

By naming themselves the "Tea Party" they are being presumptuous and therefore I think it is fair that they get mocked for it. No one has a unique claim to our national heritage. They do not speak for our forefathers. In fact the Boston Tea Party wasn't even anti-tax, so really they are twisting history to their advantage. It was about lack of representation. Yet I bet DC's lack of voting rights does not phase them in the slightest. At least DC's Taxation Without Representation plates used the actual ideal honestly.

[jsteele]

I think it is very telling that the thread about Obama's census response has 53 replies while this one has less than 10. And, most of those are about what you should call a group of people whose protest movement was launched by mailing tea bags to members of Congress and the President. In fact, the term "teabagger" originated with that very movement and it was only after they found liberals laughing at them that they decided to drop it. Too late.

So, I guess if you prefer to stand by while US citizens are summarily executed because you are pissed off about terminology, I'll have to respect that. We all have priorities after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google "Bush lied" = the phrase is used repeatedly to assert that Bush lied to Congress, the American people, the world about WMD to justify going to war - NOT about when he made a decision to go to war. I don't know at what specific poing he decided that war was necessary, I do know that he waited for Congressional authorization.

Now that you've figured out how to google, try entering "wmd iraq stovepiping". None of the WMD info coming out of the "traditional" intelligence services was conclusive. That's why the office of the VP created an Office of Special Plans to funnel raw intelligence of sketchy provenance to the White House--bypassing the professional analysts.

In other words, they knew the info was crap. Or to be more exact, perhaps they knew but didn't give a shit: they knew the conclusions they wanted to draw, and they cherry-picked any information that supported those conclusions. All of this well-known to anyone who isn't still drinking the kool-aid, or who has paid any information whatsoever.

To argue that "US Intelligence services believed Iraq had WMD" is the height of dishonest hackery or ignorance. Read a book.

[Anonymous]

Start here:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

Oh, right, The New Yorker is an evil Islamo-socialist-fascist-liberal propaganda rag. Better to ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Agreed 19:59 - IT SURE IS!!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think it is very telling that the thread about Obama's census response has 53 replies while this one has less than 10. And, most of those are about what you should call a group of people whose protest movement was launched by mailing tea bags to members of Congress and the President. In fact, the term "teabagger" originated with that very movement and it was only after they found liberals laughing at them that they decided to drop it. Too late.

So, I guess if you prefer to stand by while US citizens are summarily executed because you are pissed off about terminology, I'll have to respect that. We all have priorities after all.

I think the reason you didn't hear much is that most people have not thought about the morality of assassination much at all. It's not as common a topic as war, torture, the death penalty, and the like subjects of the state use of violence. Also, most people also are unfamiliar with the specifics of the cleric's situation. So to the extent they might rely on situational ethics, even there they don't have much to go on.

If on one hand, this is an individual accused but not proven of committing a crime, and he is to face "trial by cruise missile", that would be a clear violation of his U.S. civil rights and his recognized human rights. If on the other hand, he has openly declared war against the United States, that would, by his own declaration, make him a person at war with the country and then it's hard to say whether a missile is assassination or just a wartime bombing.

So I am not trying to justify what Obama is doing. I am suggesting that the lack of a reaction may be due to some unfamiliarity with the subject, and not just tacit approval.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure where I stand on this one.

I don't support the death penalty, and I am certainly not comfortable defending assassination. But since I think FDR was totally justified in declaring war on Germany despite the fact that thousands of Americans were sure to die fighting that war, can I then say a president is not justified in ordering one death based on what he believes to be convincing evidence that this person has committed acts of war against the country? In his place I think I might consider it a violation of my oath to do otherwise.

One thing I am sure of is that even at those times when my gut says "this is wrong", I don't see it as surpassing GWB!