Has Obama totally fucking lost the plot?

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top national security lawyers in the Obama administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers - CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson - did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 1-10-42-54

I would agree with that reasoning, outside the boundaries of the United States and its territories.

I'd go one step further and say that any American citizen who takes up arms against the United States by joining with another army or terrorists has forfeited his US citizenship entirely, and I'd support a constitutional amendment or law saying exactly that.

I have no doubt you do support those things.

What I find curious is that if this kind of announcement was made while Bush was President, there would be brush-fires all over this forum, and similar forums, with "liberals" railing against the fascist regime. Now that Obama is President, there are no such concerns. Now, it's "Oh, the executive branch holds people in indefinite detentions without trial? Of course they do! We trust Obama." And, "Oh, the executive branch reserves itself the right to declare any American citizen an enemy of the State and have that person executed extra-judicially, without due process, without trial? Of course! Obama is President! It's not fascist if Obama does it."

[Ian]

Bollocks.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bollocks.

Not at all. Direct me to some of the threads started by people other than me excoriating the Obama policies on the "war on terror."

Look at the tepid discussions over Libya. You know darn well that if Libya happened under Bush's watch, the "liberals" around here would be starting a new thread every day about it. Here, the party line about the war being about "protecting civilians from genocide that might happen in the future" was accepted with hardly a question. No arguments were made about internal sovereignty, and that "Libya never attacked us" and all that sort of thing.

[Ian]

Bollocks.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bollocks.

Not. You know it. The criticism of Obama on this forum is almost non-existent, except from a couple of people. And, the bulk of those who were railing against Bush's policies run to the defense of the Administration, looking for every way to justify and excuse his policies.

If that's not the case, then where are the people saying:

I think the Obama Administration's policies are wrong, and here's why:

[Ian]

You're looking for what the media calls "false balance": the idea that the same sort of criticisms apply to different situations. For example, comparing Libya to, say Iraq, is nothing but a silly exercise in futility. They're completely different scenarios. I still find it bizarre that you continue to defend the invasion of Iraq while inferring that intervention in Libya was unwarranted and an abuse of power.

Further, the drone strike against Awlaki is no precedent set by Obama, and is no more an abuse of power than Lincoln sending troops against Confederates. It was completely legal and completely justified, did not set any new precedent, does not represent a slippery slope towards something that can be abused with any ease, and I for one would've expressed no grief over the decision had it happened three years ago under Bush instead of recently. You're just assuming that liberals would be all up in arms about it, but that's crap - us sniveling liberals like to see terrorists taken out as much as the next guy.

And nobody who ever used the term "fascist" to describe the Bush administration ever mattered. I'd describe him as naive, strategically and fiscally reckless, an international disgrace, and a candidate for future historians to label "the American Commodus", but fascist was never accurate.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're looking for what the media calls "false balance": the idea that the same sort of criticisms apply to different situations.

Nope. I'm looking for the same sort of crticisms in similar situations.

For example, comparing Libya to, say Iraq, is nothing but a silly exercise in futility. They're completely different scenarios. I still find it bizarre that you continue to defend the invasion of Iraq while inferring that intervention in Libya was unwarranted and an abuse of power.

No, I've been clear that I am o.k. with both. What I describe are all the arguments we WOULD HAVE HEARD from the same people championing the war in Libya, had Bush been President.

Further, the drone strike against Awlaki is no precedent set by Obama, and is no more an abuse of power than Lincoln sending troops against Confederates.

I agree, but he and most "liberals" were suggesting that Bush was committing a war crime by HOLDING people indefinitely. Extrajudicial executions without arrest or trial, however, are perfectly fine.

It was completely legal and completely justified, did not set any new precedent, does not represent a slippery slope towards something that can be abused with any ease, and I for one would've expressed no grief over the decision had it happened three years ago under Bush instead of recently. You're just assuming that liberals would be all up in arms about it, but that's crap - us sniveling liberals like to see terrorists taken out as much as the next guy.

That's not crap. I heard it for 8 years. Guantanamo Bay was a war crime. Now it's not. Obama is running the same jail, and nobody considers him a war criminal. Why? Because he didn't start it? So what? He is the President now and has had the power to shut it down since February, 2009. If it was a war crime in January, then it's a war crime in February. Continuing a war crime is still a war crime.

And nobody who ever used the term "fascist" to describe the Bush administration ever mattered. I'd describe him as naive, strategically and fiscally reckless, an international disgrace, and a candidate for future historians to label "the American Commodus", but fascist was never accurate.

I'm referring to the message boards, and why the same or similar conduct doesn't light up the message boards like it used to.

[Ian]

Because conduct really isn't all that similar. Obama is up to his neck trying to clean up the fiscal mess left by the last guy - instead of asking where's all the outrage on this forum over Obama, why not ask yourself where was the Tea Party and all the people hysterical about national debt while the lion's share of it was being rung up under Bush?

One point about Gitmo though: if you think he can simply close it by written decree, I'd invite you to have a closer look at the issue. His efforts towards Gitmo have been stymied by Congress (particularly Republicans) since he came in office.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... f-torture/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... rendition/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ombatants/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-center/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... s-militar/

[Coito ergo sum]

Because conduct really isn't all that similar. Obama is up to his neck trying to clean up the fiscal mess left by the last guy - instead of asking where's all the outrage on this forum over Obama, why not ask yourself where was the Tea Party and all the people hysterical about national debt while the lion's share of it was being rung up under Bush?

The tea party isn't running the country, no matter how much people want to pretend that they are.

One point about Gitmo though: if you think he can simply close it by written decree, I'd invite you to have a closer look at the issue. His efforts towards Gitmo have been stymied by Congress (particularly Republicans) since he came in office.

He runs the federal jails, particularly Gitmo. If he wanted to move them to another facility, or release the prisoners upon whom a war crime is being committed by holding them, all he needs to do is either put them somewhere else or move them. Congress can keep Gitmo "open", but it can't keep prisoners there.

Bottom line: Gitmo wasn't a war crime then, and it isn't now.

[Ian]

I more or less agree about the bottom line. However, Congress has used the power of the purse to prevent Obama from doing anything sustantial about the detention center. The "all he needs to do" part of your statement requires funding, and that's been something Congress has used as leverage against Obama. Checks & balances in action.

[Coito ergo sum]

I more or less agree about the bottom line. However, Congress has used the power of the purse to prevent Obama from doing anything sustantial about the detention center. The "all he needs to do" part of your statement requires funding, and that's been something Congress has used as leverage against Obama. Checks & balances in action.

No no. It doesn't. If indeed, the horror of Guantanamo was what Obama and his supporters said and implied it was - if had to be "immediately" shut down - then let the wrongfully detained prisoners go. That takes no funding.

Heck - I had to choke down vomit, and still do, when people pretend that "most" of the Gitmo prisoners aren't really thought to have done something wrong. They were just randomly picked up and thrown in the pokey. The thing is, if that's what people believe, then why aren't those people still railing against Gitmo? Why is it o.k. now? Why don't they say - enough already! Let those non-criminals go!?

[Ian]

The few people who actually think that are the same as those who honestly thought Bush was a fascist. They don't matter. Much like those who honestly think Obama is a Marxist also don't matter (are you reading this, Seth?)

Nevertheless, there are some legitimate concerns about the process for detainees at Gitmo, and people are still concerned about them. As a personal anecdote, I can't talk to my cousin in Norway without him bringing up Gitmo as proof that the US has turned back the clock on human rights. I think it's hyperbole, but the kernel of truth (in this case, a kernel of concern) is not totally unfounded. It's entirely possible for somebody innocent to be apprehended and sent there for a long period of time without proof of wrongdoing, and there have been some cases along those lines.

[Seth]

The few people who actually think that are the same as those who honestly thought Bush was a fascist. They don't matter. Much like those who honestly think Obama is a Marxist also don't matter (are you reading this, Seth?)

Well, let's see, Obama was the child of Marxists, he was raised by Marxists, many of his influential adults were Marxists, his friends are Marxists, his acquaintances are Marxists...so, if it walks like a Marxist, and quacks like a Marxist, I don't think it's unreasonable to call him a Marxist...and a progressive...however closeted his Marxist ideology may be at the moment.

[Ian]

Sounds like you need some re-education, Comrade.

[Pensioner]

The few people who actually think that are the same as those who honestly thought Bush was a fascist. They don't matter. Much like those who honestly think Obama is a Marxist also don't matter (are you reading this, Seth?)

Well, let's see, Obama was the child of Marxists, he was raised by Marxists, many of his influential adults were Marxists, his friends are Marxists, his acquaintances are Marxists...so, if it walks like a Marxist, and quacks like a Marxist, I don't think it's unreasonable to call him a Marxist...and a progressive...however closeted his Marxist ideology may be at the moment.

So much bullshit in so few words. You are sad fucker if you believe that any president of your country has ever been a Marxist or a socialist. If you believe in what you post you have been brainwashed from an early age. Sad fucker.