So, it turns out Obama is worse than Bush

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are other issues before the question of where to keep him even arises. Capturing him and removing him from Yemen without the government's approval would be logistically and diplomatically dicey, and I don't think the Yemeni government can afford to even appear to give approval. Recently a high level Hamas official was killed in Dubai. Everyone assumes it was done by Mossad, but there is no proof. I don't think they could have taken him out alive, and certainly not without leaving much more of a trail of evidence.

I'm sure that there are any number of things that would be easier for the President if he could ignore the Constitution whenever he felt like it. After all, if we replaced Obama with Mussolini, maybe our trains would run on time. "It's hard" was George Bush's excuse. I didn't accept it then and I won't accept it now.

I would be disappointed if you did, and there is no irony intended. I respect your position and intended only to point out something that may be part of the calculation behind the policy, and to say that I don't think fear that we could not handle him in either our prisons or courts is a factor.

[Anonymous]

Are we talking about what to do with individuals we catch on our soil, or are we talking about what to do with individuals we catch on the battlefield? Seems an apples and oranges argument being made.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Are we talking about what to do with individuals we catch on our soil, or are we talking about what to do with individuals we catch on the battlefield? Seems an apples and oranges argument being made.

The guy we are talking about is not currently on our soil. He is not exactly on what I would call a battlefield either. He is definitely not on a battlefield in which US troops are currently deployed.

[Anonymous]

So was the order kill on sight, or kill if sighted? I am having a hard time feeling sorry for an accidental American who is by his own words at war with America when America decides to fight back. Or is this supposed to be a war of words only - if so perhaps the cleric should make this clear to his listeners? I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am willing to consider that Obama and the NSC knows some thing or things I don't?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So was the order kill on sight, or kill if sighted? I am having a hard time feeling sorry for an accidental American who is by his own words at war with America when America decides to fight back. Or is this supposed to be a war of words only - if so perhaps the cleric should make this clear to his listeners? I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am willing to consider that Obama and the NSC knows some thing or things I don't?

Did you even read the thread? He is on a list of people who can be killed. Whether the CIA goes looking for him or waits for him to make himself available is up to the agency.

Whether you feel sorry for him or not is really not important. There is nothing in the constitution that says an individual's rights are suspended because you don't feel sorry for them. I don't feel sorry for the Hutaree militia guys, but I am not advocating their summary execution. Are you?

Did you also consider that Bush and the NSC knew a thing or two about Saddam's WMDs?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Did you also consider that Bush and the NSC knew a thing or two about Saddam's WMDs?

This is funny
Of course they knew.
That is why they have never been found.
Maybe he looked at the wrong country and got the geography all wrong.

Too bad for all of the soldiers who have to pay for the politicians folly with their lives

[Anonymous]

This topic is still bugging me, so thanks for posting it, OP.

Has anyone seen anything that goes in depth into this decision? Has the administration provided a legal rationale for action? Or have they just made a decision with no legal review whatsoever? Perhaps the cleric has renounced his citizenship or made an open declaration of war, but I don't know if he did or how that would affect him under the law. I think that either of those two things might make a difference to how I view the ethics of the decision, and maybe there are other considerations that I have not thought of. I am not trying to fish for justifications, but I would like an account of how this decision was made.

[Anonymous]

Well - holder is currently trying to bend criminal law to look more like military law. Hilarious! Does no one else see anything wrong with this ?????? Bleating and pointing at nasty miltary law and nasty guantanmo and then saying osama b l will never hear his miranda rights anyway, nor for that matter the times square bomber. I would MUCH rather they used military code fo terrorists and left our civil code alone for regular run of the mill good old thugs and felons. This administration makes the ruling class in animal farm look like novices for word - twisting cynicism.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:This topic is still bugging me, so thanks for posting it, OP.

Has anyone seen anything that goes in depth into this decision? Has the administration provided a legal rationale for action? Or have they just made a decision with no legal review whatsoever? Perhaps the cleric has renounced his citizenship or made an open declaration of war, but I don't know if he did or how that would affect him under the law. I think that either of those two things might make a difference to how I view the ethics of the decision, and maybe there are other considerations that I have not thought of. I am not trying to fish for justifications, but I would like an account of how this decision was made.

As far as I know, the administration has not said anything official about this. The information was "leaked" to both the Washington Post and NYT. Then, the topic sort of went off the radar. The only review mentioned was one by the NSC which was required because Alawaki is a US citizen. If he had renounced his citizenship, they probably wouldn't need to take this step. If he had made a declaration of war, he could be charged with treason. But, even traitor deserve trials.

Here is some speculation on my part which may be totally wrong. Not long after the Christmas underpants bombing attempt, there were two airstrikes against al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula targets (that's fact, not speculation). One of those struck a house in which Alawaki was believed to be in. At the time, it was said the attacks were by the Yemeni military with US intelligence support. Later, credible reports said that one attack (not the one against Alawaki) was actually carried out by the US. My speculation is that it is likely that both attacks were carried out by the US. Obama has shown himself very willing to order attacks -- especially via drone -- on alleged terrorist leaders. The conditions for launching attacks have been expanded under his administration so now even targets that are not identified can be attacked (they use "patterns of living" to identify targets -- so if you go to location A and then location B and then location C and that matches a pattern of terrorists, a drone will be headed your way). The idea of attacking a house in which Alawaki was staying probably came natural to Obama. The fact that he is a US citizen was simply a technicality. If he would have been killed, they probably would have said that he was not the target of the attack. Under Bush, the US attacked a car in Yemen, killing a US citizen. But, that guy was not the target of the attack (he was riding with a bigger fish).

When the attack failed, I think Obama wanted the PR benefit of having struck at Alawaki. But, to get that, they had to explain why they were trying to kill a US citizen. Hence, the leaks to the Post and Times. I'm sure that Obama predicted, correctly it seems, that nobody would care that he had appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.

Similarly, Eric Holder has decided that he can reinterpret Miranda rights. We used to talk about Bush/Cheney national security policies. I think we can not more accurately discuss Bush/Cheney/Obama national security policies. I also believe that the choice of Kagen for the Supreme Court reflects Obama's interest in continuing those policies.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:This administration makes the ruling class in animal farm look like novices for word - twisting cynicism.

I suspect that you and I don't agree on much, but I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This administration makes the ruling class in animal farm look like novices for word - twisting cynicism.

I suspect that you and I don't agree on much, but I agree with this.

As one who is still clinging to the hope that there is some difference between Obama's policies and Bush's, I admit that I don't have a rational basis for that hope. A question arises: Although I see plenty of mirror images of myself, folks who supported Bush/Cheney but cannot accept the idea that Obama is carrying out the same policies, what I haven't seen is the Jeff-reflections -- right-wingers celebrating Obama's conversion. Have any of you read about such people, or perhaps are any of our own conservative contingent of this cadre?

[Anonymous]

I'm a right-winger but not celebrating his 'conversion'. It's cynical and masked. Right -winger or not, I was hoping for greater transparency and straightforward protocol as we moved away from the post 9/11 havoc and mayhem. I thought if Obama would close Guantanamo, he would 'mean it'--not just move it. I thought if he would move terrorist trials to criminal courts, at the very least he would not then undermine our civilian code. I have a very hard time seeing how we are better off (if not worse) with the added subterfuge. By the way--I am fine with CIA methods, criminal court methods, military court etc. That's the right - winger part of me. I just don't want to be served a plate of BS, or told one thing is another. And I would like good legal minds to do the best we can do as American's to find fair, but pragmatic pathways. Anyway, I thought Obama actually might take us there. Nothing to celebrate with his weird doubling back to everything he condemned.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a right-winger but not celebrating his 'conversion'. It's cynical and masked. Right -winger or not, I was hoping for greater transparency and straightforward protocol as we moved away from the post 9/11 havoc and mayhem. I thought if Obama would close Guantanamo, he would 'mean it'--not just move it. I thought if he would move terrorist trials to criminal courts, at the very least he would not then undermine our civilian code. I have a very hard time seeing how we are better off (if not worse) with the added subterfuge. By the way--I am fine with CIA methods, criminal court methods, military court etc. That's the right - winger part of me. I just don't want to be served a plate of BS, or told one thing is another. And I would like good legal minds to do the best we can do as American's to find fair, but pragmatic pathways. Anyway, I thought Obama actually might take us there. Nothing to celebrate with his weird doubling back to everything he condemned.

Today there was a court ruling in favor of Obama that detainees in the US prison at Bagram in Afghanistan cannot petition courts for release. So, essentially, Obama has not only failed to close Guantanamo, he is actually running another Gitmo in Afghanistan. Thanks to this ruling, detainees at Bagram actually have fewer rights than those at Gitmo. This is the same prison in which it was recently revealed that the US runs a secret prison to which it denies access to the Red Cross.

Obviously, because this is Obama and not Bush, liberals will be silent, or worse, actually provide justifications for this policy.

Someone, perhaps the quoted poster, has been arguing for about a year that exactly this was going to happen. I have to concede that that poster was correct and prescient. While I always expected to be disappointed by Obama, this attack on civil rights -- both at home and abroad, is something I never expected.

[Anonymous]

Hey, look. Does the reduction of civil liberties suck? Yes. But let's not favorably compare the guy who let the barn door open and all the horses out with the guy who comes back later and hasn't put them all back in the barn.

The reason you don't create policies like this is because they're hard to reverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, look. Does the reduction of civil liberties suck? Yes. But let's not favorably compare the guy who let the barn door open and all the horses out with the guy who comes back later and hasn't put them all back in the barn.

The reason you don't create policies like this is because they're hard to reverse.

I am another who cannot equate Obama with Bush, but is there evidence that Obama has made ANY effort to reverse those policies?