Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[Gerald McGrew]

Or from right-wing media.

same thing.

Not always...at least where I live.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does this really surprise anyone?

Does anyone object?

Of course. You're not aware of the liberals who are speaking out against Obama's civil liberties record?

There are a lot of people on the so-called left that oppose obama. You just wouldn't know it if you get your "news" from the corporate media.

I wouldn't know it from most of the individuals who say they are "left," whether here in the brainwashed US or overseas in enlightened and knowledgeable Europe. You wouldn't know it from any of the "media", right, left, or in between. Well, you'll know it from guys like "infowars" and such, but they're hardly considered "left," and you'd know it from the libertarians, but they're hardly considered left, but you absolutely would never know it from the so called "anti-war" crowd, the Democrats, the Liberals, or the mass of the "left."

Folks like you do express opposition, but even you are muted about it, and do it far more gingerly than when you express opposition to the other folks in the political spectrum that you claim are equally as objectionable. IMO.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does this really surprise anyone?

Does anyone object?

Of course. You're not aware of the liberals who are speaking out against Obama's civil liberties record?

You wouldn't know it from the "Liberals" on this board. I'm liberal, and I speak out about it, but because of my opposition to most liberals on economic issues, I am constantly labeled "conservative," which I am not on most issues.

One -- liberals are not the same thing as left. I hear objections from Leftists like Sandinista. They are pretty clear that they hate the Democrats, not as much as Republicans, but they hate them both. And, they really hate the Libertarians most of all, although the Libertarians are an insignificant political force.

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

[sandinista]

Or from right-wing media.

same thing.

Not always...at least where I live.

example?

I wouldn't know it from most of the individuals who say they are "left," whether here in the brainwashed US or overseas in enlightened and knowledgeable Europe. You wouldn't know it from any of the "media", right, left, or in between. Well, you'll know it from guys like "infowars" and such, but they're hardly considered "left," and you'd know it from the libertarians, but they're hardly considered left, but you absolutely would never know it from the so called "anti-war" crowd, the Democrats, the Liberals, or the mass of the "left."

There is no left media, mainstream anyway. So, no you wouldn't hear it there. Of course you wouldn't hear it from so called "liberals" or democrats. You will, however hear it from a lot of people on the so-called "left". I do anyway.

Folks like you do express opposition, but even you are muted about it, and do it far more gingerly than when you express opposition to the other folks in the political spectrum that you claim are equally as objectionable. IMO.

I don't think I've been at all muted about it. Democrats, republicans, same thing.

One -- liberals are not the same thing as left.

That's for sure.

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

There's your problem right there, watching msnbc.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no left media, mainstream anyway. So, no you wouldn't hear it there.

But, there is "Liberal" media in the mainstream. And, I don't just follow the mainstream. Let's see the host of examples of vehement and vociferous outcry, comparable to what we saw in 2007. Links?

Of course you wouldn't hear it from so called "liberals" or democrats. You will, however hear it from a lot of people on the so-called "left". I do anyway.

I don't just follow US sources. Again, let's see some examples of vehement and vociferous outcry, comparable to what we saw in 2007. We are, after all, talking about extrajudicial executions of unindicted persons in countries where no authorization for force has been obtained whether from Congress or from the UN. We have people who have not even been formally accused of crimes being executed on orders of the President of the United States in places which have not been designated war zones -- other than, perhaps, as an extension of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism -- repeat -- an EXTENSION of that. An EXPANSION of that. If this was a Republican administraiton, I think we'd see "the Left" out in the streets turning over cars, and I think everyone here knows it, and I think you know it.

Where are the marches in the streets burning Obama in effigy (other than in Muslim countries)? Where are the "Obama is Hitler" marches and demonstrations from "The Left?" Where is Cindy Sheehan? Parked out in front of Obama's Chicago home, like at Bush's ranch? Where is Code Pink? Where is International ANSWER? Are they making scenes at Obama conferences and speeches, like they did under Bush? Of course not. Why do you think that is?

Folks like you do express opposition, but even you are muted about it, and do it far more gingerly than when you express opposition to the other folks in the political spectrum that you claim are equally as objectionable. IMO.

I don't think I've been at all muted about it. Democrats, republicans, same thing.

That's the worst you'll say about Obama, from what I've read. You said much worse about Bush and the Republicans. What I'm referring to is the way you do not lead any charges against Obama and the Democrats, IMO. Maybe I'm missing it. But, when you bitch about something the US is doing now, you refer to America in general, but when you were bitching when Bush was President, you bitched about Bush specifically, as I recall. That's the sense I have of it. Maybe you'll direct me to your scathing assaults on the Obama administration, specifically. If you could, that would be helpful.

One -- liberals are not the same thing as left.

That's for sure.

Well, at least you and I agree on one thing. Many Liberals do refer to themselves as "Left" here in the US. I always find that funny. I'm liberal. But, I'm not left.

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

There's your problem right there, watching msnbc.

That's just one source, but that source is extraordinarily biased. But, tell me what sources I should be looking at.

And, it makes my point anyway - because all of these sources, like MSNBC, were railing against the Bush Admniistration and they would be railing against the Bush Administration if this memo had come from the Bush Administration's attorney general. I mean -- that is so flippin' obvious, that I can't believe that at least SOME of the Democrats here won't at least go "yeah -- this is bullshit -- the Obama Admninistration is way off base here, and I oppose them on this." But, they don't. Do you see it here? I don't. The bulk of Obama supporters, overwhelmingly, just remain silent, because they are not willing to say anything out loud that criticizes their guy.

[Ian]

Or maybe some of us, rather than being unwilling to show any disagreement with the Obama administration (your pet theory) did not oppose everything the Bush administration did.

Aerial strikes against confirmed terrorists? I don't care if they were born in the US or not, and this is a precedent which goes back to Lincoln - which might help to explain why it was upheld. The law requires a verified threat, and if you actively take up arms against the US or American citizens, Uncle Sam has every right to consider you a threat and to act accordingly, regardless of where you grew up. A capture mission is fine if practical, but when the target happens to be ensconsed somewhere in eastern Yemen, then a missile strike (with the local government's blessing) is fully warranted.

The only worry here is that such power might be broadened and thus abused one day - but how exactly is that going to happen? I'd like to hear a realistic scenario other than mere paranoia.

[sandinista]

Maybe I'm missing it. But, when you bitch about something the US is doing now, you refer to America in general, but when you were bitching when Bush was President, you bitched about Bush specifically, as I recall. That's the sense I have of it.

Yah, you are missing it. First off, criticizing or reporting on does not equal "bitching". Not a good sign when you see criticism of a government or country as "bitching". Smacks of "shut up and obey". Besides that, I really don't think that I singled out bushy. If anything, I often pointed out that bush was simply a figurehead the same as all the other presidents since the end of ww2 and that he was nothing "special" when it came to US atrocities. I emphasized, when people would point the blame at bush individually that, in fact, the true power players are the corporate elite in america, hence, bush/obama...same same.

[Gerald McGrew]

Sand,

Examples of right-wing media that isn't corporate include much of the AM radio that gets played here in the inland NW. One of the funniest to listen to is "Dr. Stan" of Radio Liberty. He's a nut's nut, but definitely not "corporate" by any means. Then there's the litany of local talk show hosts who rail against just about everything and are very right wing.

The inland NW is rather peculiar in its brand of conservatism. It's not the Bible-thumping kind of the deep south, nor is it the wealthy corporatist type in the east. It's more of a libertarian, anti-everything, conspiracy-laden mentality.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or maybe some of us, rather than being unwilling to show any disagreement with the Obama administration (your pet theory) did not oppose everything the Bush administration did.

Some small minority of you. But, it's not so much a worry about what you objected to Bush about. It's the idea that this memo -- had it been issued under Bush - would most certainly have been objectionable to the extreme to almost all Obama supporters. They would have screamed bloody flippin' murder because this is far WORSE than waterboarding. Far worse. This is dropping bombs at Presidential essentially unfettered discretion on people not formally accused of a crime or even terrorism in countries where there has been no authorization of force OTHER THAN THE SAME AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE RELIED UPON BY BUSH TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ - which, of course, was characterized, when Bush was President, as an "illegal" war, and war crime.

Aerial strikes against confirmed terrorists?

aerial strikes in countries for which Congress did not authorize military action, and against people not "confirmed" by anyone except the President as terrorists. There is no counterbalance. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was as confirmed a terrorist as you can get -- was it permissible to execute the guy without a trial? FFS, man -- the Democrats were screaming that you couldn't pour water over his face or treat him harshly to get him to spill the beans! And, now all the President has to say is "shove a bomb up his ass, because he is a suspected terrorist" and they can drop bombs in Yemen?

[Ian]

The President can't do it on a whim, but he does not need to ask Congress for permission, nor should any President have to. It's a battlefield decision; not every enemy (confirmed enemy, not suspected) even can be brought to trial, and that's the way war is. Were union troops supposed to attempt to capture and try every confirmed rebel?

As for what is done with captured terrorists, that's a different matter. But they cannot all be captured. If guilt and thrreat are beyond question and the only options are to launch a strike or ignore them and hope that they'll be easier to capture some other time, I'd opt for the former.

I'm not saying the issue is no cause for concern, or that the oversight it has is surely good enough. Of course significant restraints must remain (and I think they're there now), and of course a close eye should be kept on this matter. But I also see no reason to start waving the Tyranny flag, nor would I if someone else were President. I would if I bought into slippery slope arguments, but I don't.

[Audley Strange]

You know, I actually agree with Coito on this. If Bush had done this sort of thing there would have been more of an outcry, especially internationally. I mean there has been some condemnation but it's a fart in an wind tunnel compared to the shit Bush used to get. Not that the Galoot and his crazed gang didn't deserve it, their actions deserved it, but Obama really has ramped up the idea of what is essentially robot death squads to be used against whomever the regime likes.

[Gerald McGrew]

Liberals, on the other hand, have shown themselves, by and large, to be waving the flag and carrying water for the Obama Administration. Witness the unabashed cheerleading from MSNBC with so called Liberals like Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz and whatnot.

Turns out you're wrong....again.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... /#50712700

[Gerald McGrew]

And the Daily Kos weighs in...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/0 ... the-matter

The Obama administration's use of targeted killings against suspected al Qaeda-linked individuals is coming under fresh fire from liberals, civil libertarians and other critics, and is likely to generate some heat in Thursday's Senate confirmation hearings for CIA director nominee John Brennan, the current deputy national security adviser at the White House. As head of the CIA, Brennan would be in charge of the drone planes used to fire missiles at suspects, including Americans, who are alleged to be senior operational leaders of Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Complaints about the government's policy of killing suspected terrorists has been rumbling along mostly out of public view for years, but Monday's leak of a constitutionally rickety administrative memo detailing justification for killing Americans abroad has added kindling to the objections. So much so that the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit in the matter Tuesday night.

[Seth]

Er, the simple solution to this is to invoke existing law which automatically revokes the citizenship of any person who claims allegiance with ANY other nation or who wages war on the United States.

If necessary a law can be passed by Congress which explicitly revokes the US citizenship of any citizen whom DHS has probable cause to believe is engaged in terrorist actions against the United States or any other country anywhere outside of United States territory.

Congress has full authority to so revoke citizenship.

Then they aren't citizens and can be "Droned" (new verb evidently) at will under the existing laws regarding the killing of terrorists in military actions.

[sandinista]

Sand,

Examples of right-wing media that isn't corporate include much of the AM radio that gets played here in the inland NW. One of the funniest to listen to is "Dr. Stan" of Radio Liberty. He's a nut's nut, but definitely not "corporate" by any means. Then there's the litany of local talk show hosts who rail against just about everything and are very right wing.

The inland NW is rather peculiar in its brand of conservatism. It's not the Bible-thumping kind of the deep south, nor is it the wealthy corporatist type in the east. It's more of a libertarian, anti-everything, conspiracy-laden mentality.

Never heard doctor stan. I suppose I should have been more specific, I was referring to television.