So, it turns out Obama is worse than Bush

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote: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!

First, FDR did not declare war on Germany. According to the US Constitution -- a document that still has reverence in some quarters (apparently, a declining number, however) -- only the Congress has the power to declare war. Hence, Congress debated and the voted on the matter. Also, I am sure that if you give this a bit more thought, you will understand that there are significant legal and moral differences between the deaths of soldiers who die in the course of fighting a war (not much different than the occasional firefighter who dies in the course of his job) and a US citizen targeted for assassination with no due process whatsoever.

As a legal matter, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that US citizens detained as enemy combatants must have the ability to challenge their detention before a judge. In that case, Justices Scalia and Stevens actually dissented because they thought it was illegal to imprison US citizens without trial. I think that it is plausible that if the Supreme Court believes those who have been detained have the right to present their case to a court, those targeted for killing should have at least that protection.

It is significant that Bush did not attempt to authorized the assassination of US citizens. Obama has done so. Only by condoning the killing without due process of our fellow citizens can you consider that does not make Obama worse than Bush.

As for the matter of Anwar al-Awlaki, this should be one of the easier cases to handle legally and with transparency that the government is likely to ever face. The government monitored al-Awlaki's communications with Major Hasan. Al-Awlaki is said to have been involved with the Nigerian underwear bomber, who is in custody and cooperating. Any evidence gained from either Hasan or Abdulmutallab could easily be presented to a Court without compromising sources or methods (we already know the sources and methods). If there is sufficient evidence, the government could obtain an indictment. Than, an international arrest warrant could be issued. If harm would to come to al-Awlaki in the course of that warrant being served, well, that's his bad luck. But, that would be legal and based upon evidence of wrongdoing. What we are being asked to do now is to take Obama's word for it. I understand while some "liberals" might being will to put faith in Obama. I just don't understand why others are as well.

Regardless, this issue should not be looked at simply in terms of Anwar al-Awlaki. If we allow the president to be both his judge and executioner, then we allow the president to play those roles for any other US citizen. It doesn't matter if al-Awlaki is the worse guy on earth. What matters is that he has not had due process presenting evidence and allowing him to contest evidence that he is the worse guy. If this is allowed, neither will the next guy. Or the next. Eventually, the person targeted for death may not be someone that you can so easily write off because he has a beard and prays to Allah.

[Anonymous]

It seems the desire to close Guantanamo and to criminalize terrorist behavior has led to all sorts of wrinkles (that I predicted while you were all banging your pots to close Guantanamo). Now it's just KILL ON SIGHT. Isn't Gitmo looking kinda good now?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

First, FDR did not declare war on Germany. According to the US Constitution -- a document that still has reverence in some quarters (apparently, a declining number, however) -- only the Congress has the power to declare war. Hence, Congress debated and the voted on the matter. Also, I am sure that if you give this a bit more thought, you will understand that there are significant legal and moral differences between the deaths of soldiers who die in the course of fighting a war (not much different than the occasional firefighter who dies in the course of his job) and a US citizen targeted for assassination with no due process whatsoever.

As a legal matter, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that US citizens detained as enemy combatants must have the ability to challenge their detention before a judge. In that case, Justices Scalia and Stevens actually dissented because they thought it was illegal to imprison US citizens without trial. I think that it is plausible that if the Supreme Court believes those who have been detained have the right to present their case to a court, those targeted for killing should have at least that protection.

It is significant that Bush did not attempt to authorized the assassination of US citizens. Obama has done so. Only by condoning the killing without due process of our fellow citizens can you consider that does not make Obama worse than Bush.

As for the matter of Anwar al-Awlaki, this should be one of the easier cases to handle legally and with transparency that the government is likely to ever face. The government monitored al-Awlaki's communications with Major Hasan. Al-Awlaki is said to have been involved with the Nigerian underwear bomber, who is in custody and cooperating. Any evidence gained from either Hasan or Abdulmutallab could easily be presented to a Court without compromising sources or methods (we already know the sources and methods). If there is sufficient evidence, the government could obtain an indictment. Than, an international arrest warrant could be issued. If harm would to come to al-Awlaki in the course of that warrant being served, well, that's his bad luck. But, that would be legal and based upon evidence of wrongdoing. What we are being asked to do now is to take Obama's word for it. I understand while some "liberals" might being will to put faith in Obama. I just don't understand why others are as well.

Regardless, this issue should not be looked at simply in terms of Anwar al-Awlaki. If we allow the president to be both his judge and executioner, then we allow the president to play those roles for any other US citizen. It doesn't matter if al-Awlaki is the worse guy on earth. What matters is that he has not had due process presenting evidence and allowing him to contest evidence that he is the worse guy. If this is allowed, neither will the next guy. Or the next. Eventually, the person targeted for death may not be someone that you can so easily write off because he has a beard and prays to Allah.

I am still thinking hard about this issue of political assassination. However, I think I agree wholeheartedly with one point, namely that our freedoms are the result of our Constitution and the will of the people to hold it sacred. Every time we bend it, even when we think the cause is just, we cheapen it. This is a lesson that started with the Sedition Act - ironically created by our own founders in 1798 - and continues to this day with our post 9/11 world. History has shown that each time we go down this road, we pay for it in the end.

[Anonymous]

Don't you think, given expressed ideological bent, that if the Pres had a better option, he would exercise it? But he can't have this guy at large, he promised BIG to close Gitmo, his Holder led criminal cases have imploded, so there is no plan C. With kill on sight he avoids all the hassle and can still appear to be 'closing Guantanamo' yadda yadda. Wow, no one saw that corner he was about to be painted into? Compared to being blasted by a missile from the sky, makes GW's seize and detain look humane!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think, given expressed ideological bent, that if the Pres had a better option, he would exercise it? But he can't have this guy at large, he promised BIG to close Gitmo, his Holder led criminal cases have imploded, so there is no plan C. With kill on sight he avoids all the hassle and can still appear to be 'closing Guantanamo' yadda yadda. Wow, no one saw that corner he was about to be painted into? Compared to being blasted by a missile from the sky, makes GW's seize and detain look humane!

You keep brining this up. But, isn't it pretty obvious that there are plenty of choices between assassination and torture at Gitmo? Do you remember Mir Aimal Kasi? He's the guy who shot up a line of cars waiting to turn into the CIA headquarters. It took five years, but he was tracked down and arrested in Pakistan. He was brought back, tried, and jailed in the US. What he did is far worse than anything al-Awlaki has done.

I can list a number of similar cases. The president has better options than assassination. In fact, legally and morally, assassination of a US citizen shouldn't even be an option. Justifications offered by people like you simply enable Obama to put us on a very dangerous slope. If it's ok to kill Americans abroad, why shouldn't it be equally acceptable to kill them within the US? Just get the intelligence services to label someone a terrorist and there is no need for legal niceties anymore. We won't even need the Bill of Rights, though I guess you would oppose that because of the 2nd Amendment (the only one that seems to matter to anyone).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think, given expressed ideological bent, that if the Pres had a better option, he would exercise it? But he can't have this guy at large, he promised BIG to close Gitmo, his Holder led criminal cases have imploded, so there is no plan C. With kill on sight he avoids all the hassle and can still appear to be 'closing Guantanamo' yadda yadda. Wow, no one saw that corner he was about to be painted into? Compared to being blasted by a missile from the sky, makes GW's seize and detain look humane!

Every terrorist and dictator uses that logic. They think they have no other options, either. Doesn't make it right. We can't be a great nation if we use the moral framework of the world's lowlifes.

[Anonymous]

Right, but you elected Obama not me. And he convinced you that he was more morally legit than the last guy who made the choice you abhorred--seize and detain. Don't you think Obama would choose the better option than blast everyone from the sky if he HAD one? OH Wait...maybe the better option WAS seize and detain....
I mean, seriously, we're talking about Pres. Obama the most liberal pol ever. He painted himself into a corner by rejecting the uncomfortable policies of the last guy and now is in even a worse place. The funny thing is, I think President Bosh oftentimes bent over backwards to do the best morally in a horrible situation. President Obama just wants to make sure these people don't end up back on American shores because then he has to deal with them in all the much ballyhooed ways he and Holder have promised.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Right, but you elected Obama not me. And he convinced you that he was more morally legit than the last guy who made the choice you abhorred--seize and detain.

I have no problem with "seize and detain" and I don't know where you go the idea that I did. I have a problem with "seize, detain, torture, and never charge".

I agree entirely that Obama convinced me that he was more morally legit than the last guy. That's why i am as angry as I am about this.

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think Obama would choose the better option than blast everyone from the sky if he HAD one? OH Wait...maybe the better option WAS seize and detain....
I mean, seriously, we're talking about Pres. Obama the most liberal pol ever. He painted himself into a corner by rejecting the uncomfortable policies of the last guy and now is in even a worse place. The funny thing is, I think President Bosh oftentimes bent over backwards to do the best morally in a horrible situation. President Obama just wants to make sure these people don't end up back on American shores because then he has to deal with them in all the much ballyhooed ways he and Holder have promised.

Again, what makes you think that Obama has no other options? Of course he has options. I gave the example of Mir Aimal Kasi. I could give several more. It wasn't necessary to either blast from the sky or detain and torture. There are other options, whether you and Obama choose to recognize it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... I mean, seriously, we're talking about Pres. Obama the most liberal pol ever. ...

Do you truly believe Obama is the most liberal pol ever? I don't think he ever claimed that, and I doubt any of the liberals on this list consider him as liberal as we'd like to see. Do you really think a guy who bails out bankers, tosses away the public option on health care, and okays assassination is a flaming lefty?

Note, please, I am merely asking a question. No insult to your right to your opinion is intended.

[Anonymous]

This is awesome! Obama is now issuing Fatwas, how ironic.

[Anonymous]

Do you truly believe Obama is the most liberal pol ever?

Calling Obama a "leftist" is essentially a propaganda technique to move the political center to the right, but there are a lot of folks ignorant enough of history to believe it.

Funny that you hear this sort of imbicility almost as often as you hear "Obama uses a teleprompter." The policies of Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower, or even Nixon make Obama look like a far-right fringe character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... I mean, seriously, we're talking about Pres. Obama the most liberal pol ever. ...

Do you truly believe Obama is the most liberal pol ever? I don't think he ever claimed that, and I doubt any of the liberals on this list consider him as liberal as we'd like to see. Do you really think a guy who bails out bankers, tosses away the public option on health care, and okays assassination is a flaming lefty?

Note, please, I am merely asking a question. No insult to your right to your opinion is intended.

She wouldn't know a liberal if one hit her with a Saab... until they took her to a hospital where she got patched up for free. And later that year she paid 59% of her income in taxes.

[Anonymous]

Hee. I think Obama is extremely liberal. I also think if he had a better option he would take it except, oh, he's liberal and kind of politically expedient. I am not saying there are NOT other options, but that they are not politically expedient. And it is kinda ironic that for political expediency he is picking even LESS righteous options than the last guy... the big head puppet people should be clamoring outside the white house!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:the big head puppet people should be clamoring outside the white house!

Damn straight. I'd settle for someone besides me getting pissed off on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

of course Obama is worse than Bush in every respect. didnt think anyone thought differently anymore. Bush is a man of honor and conviction.