is citizenhood cheap?

[silverwhisper]

short version: last week, president obama publicly confirmed that he has authorized the assassination of a US citizen outside of US territory. the person in question is an extremist muslim cleric. long versions here and here.

commentary: i've been disappointed increasingly by the actions and rhetoric from the president, but this disgusts and horrifies me.

the idea that just b/c a US citizen is alleged to be a terrorist, the executive branch can: 1) breach due process with the magic "he's a terrorist" card and proceed straight to execution without that time-consuming, troublesome thing known as a trial, 2) usurp the role of the judicial branch, 3) have the US military attack and kill a US citizen on foreign soil. none of the alleged facts about al awlaki have been determined by any US court to be true.

when bush proposed anything of the sort re: gitmo, i was horrified and disgusted. but for obama--who taught law at one point--to do even worse is quite possibly a nightmare.

and here's the really funny thing: those tea party folks who just love to hate obama are probably the only ones who'll think this is a terrific idea. yet this is the only decent piece of proof any of these guys will ever have to support their anti-obama agenda.

if i weren't so damned disgusted, it would be almost comical.

ed

 

[fire_breeze]

short version: last week, president obama publicly confirmed that he has authorized the assassination of a US citizen outside of US territory. the person in question is an extremist muslim cleric. long versions here and here.

commentary: i've been disappointed increasingly by the actions and rhetoric from the president, but this disgusts and horrifies me.

the idea that just b/c a US citizen is alleged to be a terrorist, the executive branch can: 1) breach due process with the magic "he's a terrorist" card and proceed straight to execution without that time-consuming, troublesome thing known as a trial, 2) usurp the role of the judicial branch, 3) have the US military attack and kill a US citizen on foreign soil. none of the alleged facts about al awlaki have been determined by any US court to be true.

when bush proposed anything of the sort re: gitmo, i was horrified and disgusted. but for obama--who taught law at one point--to do even worse is quite possibly a nightmare.

and here's the really funny thing: those tea party folks who just love to hate obama are probably the only ones who'll think this is a terrific idea. yet this is the only decent piece of proof any of these guys will ever have to support their anti-obama agenda.

if i weren't so damned disgusted, it would be almost comical.

ed

Question: is it the President himself who gave the authorisation or his administration? While the two are intrinsically linked, they are not the one and the same.

I don't know how US covert policies work. What I do know is that throughout the world and throughout history, this type of, um, political actions, to be diplomatic, is not unheard of. Governments do, have, and will continue to assassinate their own citizens for a myriad of reasons, justifiable or not. Maybe there is something that we don't know that propelled the these actions.

What we don't have is the full picture, nor do we have the full information as to why this man was assassinated. Such is the unfortunate nature of politics - we will never know the complete story.

By the way, there is no way in hell am I condoning this behaviour. It's low, it's cheap, it's completely unpatriotic and history has proven time and again that political assassinations (especially if made public) rarely, if ever, work and solves any problems. It is usually indicative of a larger problem that has been stewing for years. I truly believe that if a government will condemn someone, then they should bring that individual to trial. A person has the inalienable right to look into the eye of country who is his/her political accuser. If a person is charged with a political crime, then the lowest, unbravest thing to do is the kill him/her in the back.

The thing that most people forget about political assassinations is that it inevitable will make a martyr/hero of the individual (and in some very limited cases, for the assassin). So too will this individual.

Just my inflated 0.02$. At par.

 

[silverwhisper]

FB queried:
question: is it the president himself who gave the authorisation or his administration? while the two are intrinsically linked, they are not the one and the same.

i am not entirely certain i understand your question. i believe the general logical framework was advanced by obama's immediate predecessor, the unlamented george w. bush.

i should point out that the individual in question is not believed to be dead. it's entirely possible the confirmation president obama offered was in fact a form of saber-rattling, such as we yanks are accustomed to doing. :>

ed

 

[fire_breeze]

i am not entirely certain i understand your question. i believe the general logical framework was advanced by obama's immediate predecessor, the unlamented george w. bush.

i should point out that the individual in question is not believed to be dead. it's entirely possible the confirmation president obama offered was in fact a form of saber-rattling, such as we yanks are accustomed to doing. :>

ed

This is what happens when I don't pay attention . I was just wondering how these things work: if it was on the President's say-so (let's off this individual!) or his administration.

My mistake

 

[infinity706]

Well, most likely, if it did happen, they had pretty definitive proof that there was going to be a terrorist attack. The likely case is that someone fucked up on some legal technicality and they couldn't legally get a charge for anything and would just have to let the guy off. There's a lot of red tape with legal procedures and if you make one little slip up, someone could literally get away with murder. Now, you could be right. It's possible that it was a political assassination, but it's unlikely. If it were political, they'd probably have other chances to nail the guy on something.

 

[silverwhisper]

FB: no big deal. :>

infinity quoth:
they had pretty definitive proof that there was going to be a terrorist attack. the likely case is that someone fucked up on some legal technicality and they couldn't legally get a charge for anything and would just have to let the guy off. there's a lot of red tape with legal procedures and if you make one little slip up, someone could literally get away with murder.

i'm just curious: is there something factual upon which you are basing these statements, or are you just making excuses for the obama administration?

infinity quoth:
now, you could be right. it's possible that it was a political assassination, but it's unlikely. if it were political, they'd probably have other chances to nail the guy on something.

dude, what are you reading?

ed

 

[infinity706]

I'm not reading anything. It just makes sense. If you had a huge intelligence force like that, why else would you risk assassinating someone? There are much better ways to do things. Of course, I can't prove it and I certainly can't say assassination is a great option.

 

[love_chocolate]

Look back in history and see how many heads of state have been assassinated, how many countries were once our friends, until we turned our backs on them, our record is not pretty, but it has been going on for ages. Of course, there are much better way, but sometimes Intelligence (CIA - FBI - NSA) would rather take to easy way. Also, remember the old saying, "The only thing lower than a child molester is a person in politics".

 

[love_chocolate]

Also "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", the very nature of being answerable to anyone, make you sort of like a small God, and your head swells, when you think that you can get away with anything!

 

[love_chocolate]

Sorry small correction in last post. I meant "unanswerable", please excuse, as I got excited!

 

[fgarvb1]

The majority of the people who voted wanted change and they got it.

The trouble is, what they received was a cheap ass imitation of a man of integrity and leadership.

People should have listened closer to what he said, what he stood for and his voting record.

But, NO. All we could hear was Change...and anybody but Bush...not that he was even running.

You asked for it ...you got it.

Some people will pay a higher price then others.

Let this be a lesson tous all for next time.


Voting for a leader is a grave responsibility to be undertaken with much thought and investigative consideration.


My God have mercy on us all.

 

[silverwhisper]

fgarvb, this wouldn't have been possible if not for the expansions in presidential authority under the urging of obama's predecessor. he did after all expand the federal bureaucracy by adding a whole new department, established dangerous precedents re: unlawful combatants and gitmo, etc.

what obama's doing here specifically is terrible--but it builds on what has come before.

ed

 

[bronzeage]

fgarvb, this wouldn't have been possible if not for the expansions in presidential authority under the urging of obama's predecessor. he did after all expand the federal bureaucracy by adding a whole new department, established dangerous precedents re: unlawful combatants and gitmo, etc.

what obama's doing here specifically is terrible--but it builds on what has come before.

ed

Any person has the ability to put themselves above the law or take the law into their own hands and create their own justice.

The difference with the President is that he has many more opportunities to do this and a very large group of people ready and willing to do this for him.

It is his decision and the repercussions are his as well. He may be called to explain his actions, and maybe even to pay for them. If his decision was correct, that is very unlikely.

When the President does something illegal or immoral that accomplishes the goal, we seldom hear about it. Right or wrong, it is on his shoulders.

When his actions fail, it is on our shoulders. Right and wrong do not really enter into the calculations.

 

[silverwhisper]

bronzeage quoth:
any person has the ability to put themselves above the law or take the law into their own hands and create their own justice.

you do know about former president nixon, right? :>

ed

 

[fgarvb1]

fgarvb, this wouldn't have been possible if not for the expansions in presidential authority under the urging of obama's predecessor. he did after all expand the federal bureaucracy by adding a whole new department, established dangerous precedents re: unlawful combatants and gitmo, etc.

what obama's doing here specifically is terrible--but it builds on what has come before.

ed

**************************************************************

As an observant person would know I did not agree with many things President George W. Bush did...or rather the decisions he made about the way he did them.

I understand that after 9/11/2001 things had to change, and that meant that we had to "Tighten" up on the almost non-existent security issues.

As for the "War on Terrorist" and Guantanamo Bay detaining facility, well we are fighting an unconventional war . I might point out that some that were released from there went right back to what they were doing before which was trying to kill us.

Holding a criminal trial for a irregular solder still in a active conflict in not only damned hard to do and almost doomed from the start to failure but not very smart makes our enemies very grateful by exposing things their side doesn't need to know and giving them a platform to spread their propaganda.

Hell, they would pay us to do if we would!

**************************************************************

But using the presidency to push forth a socialist liberal agenda when the majority of Americans from both parties no longer think it's a good ideal or
in the best interest of our country to strip our freedoms and rights away, well!

What will be, will be.

And I pry for it to be swiftly.

 

[silverwhisper]

fgarvb quoth:
an observant person would know i did not agree with many things president george w. bush did...or rather the decisions he made about the way he did them.

political discussions in HT cafe are few and far between and i rarely venture outside of HT and HT cafe. so while i'm sure that's true, you'll notice that you and i have never had such a conversation.

fgarvb quoth:
holding a criminal trial for a irregular solder still in a active conflict in not only damned hard to do and almost doomed from the start to failure but not very smart makes our enemies very grateful by exposing things their side doesn't need to know and giving them a platform to spread their propaganda.

what intelligence might be gleaned from a trial?

fgarvb quoth:
but using the presidency to push forth a socialist liberal agenda when the majority of americans from both parties no longer think it's a good ideal or
in the best interest of our country to strip our freedoms and rights away, well!

ah, tea party rhetoric. what specific freedoms are being stripped? what specific rights are being removed? how is any of this more objectionable than the loss of civil liberties bush perpetrated, or the expansion of federal government that he oversaw?

ed

 

[fgarvb1]

political discussions in HT cafe are few and far between and i rarely venture outside of HT and HT cafe. so while i'm sure that's true, you'll notice that you and i have never had such a conversation.
**************************************************************
True but my views aren't exactly a secret either.
**************************************************************
what intelligence might be gleaned from a trial?

That depends on Their attorney doesn't it. One would think a demand to see any and all intelligence that that had anything to do with the time, place and circumstance of their clients "arrest" say...just like if YOU were arrested would be in order and not unreasonable either.
**************************************************************

ah, tea party rhetoric. what specific freedoms are being stripped? what specific rights are being removed? how is any of this more objectionable than the loss of civil liberties bush perpetrated, or the expansion of federal government that he oversaw?

ed

**************************************************************

Well, I do drink both hot and Iced Tea... how I fix it is pretty much MY choice.

The only other thing I know about "Tea bagging" is a whole other subject and I don't know you that well.

What them other people do, I also have warned people making assumptions about them so I see no need to repeat it here.

As for the rest of it , if you don't already know the answers to the questions then why are you giving ME such a hard time?

 

[Ohiorob]

If a president truely wants someone eliminated, they would not broadcast it to the world.