DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

[Doc91678]

By Glenn Greenwald
11 Feb 2013

Last week's controversy over Obama's assassination program forced into light many ignored truths that were long obvious

This past week has been a strangely clarifying political moment. It was caused by two related events: the leak of the Justice Department's "white paper" justifying Obama's claimed power to execute Americans without charges, followed by John Brennan's alarming confirmation hearing (as Charles Pierce wrote: "the man whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say whether or not the president of the United States has the power to order the extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United States"). I describe last week's process as "strange" because, for some reason, those events caused large numbers of people for the first time to recognize, accept and begin to confront truths that have long been readily apparent.

Illustrating this odd phenomenon was a much-discussed New York Times article on Sunday by Peter Baker which explained that these events "underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has embraced some of Mr. Bush's approach to counterterrorism, right down to a secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside forces." It began this way:

"If President Obama tuned in to the past week's bracing debate on Capitol Hill about terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of them himself.

"Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has sacrificed the country's core values in the name of security."​

Baker also noticed this:
"Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama's hands, not Mr. Bush's."
**snip**

Continue reading: -->
DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

Like we didn't already know this.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ah so you admit W was unprincipled too?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ah so you admit W was unprincipled too?

I don't recall W ever making such a declaration, but it's not as if Republicans aren't straight forward about wanting to blow everybody up. The Democrats pretend to be peacenicks until one of them is in the White House, then killing brown people in Africa is okay.

 

[mamooth]

The 2001 AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) was an open-ended declaration of war against Al Qaeda. Congress absolutely, positively gave any president authorization for targeted killings against anyone associated with Al Qaeda.

Congress, however, did _not_ give the president authority to torture people. Bush was criticized for torture, not for targeted killings. There's the big difference, and it's why the stupid "you liberals are hypocrites!" claim looks so dumb. It's the conservative hypocrites who need to explain why they gave Bush a pass for something illegal, while ripping Obama for something legal.

Now, just because congress authorizes something does not necessarily make it constitutional. There are sticky due process issues involved, as "due process" doesn't have a set definition. The administration says they're using due process, but to just trust them about it. And that's not good enough. This is where congress needs to step in and lay down specific laws for due process. Congress also needs to change the open-ended 2001 AUMF, but don't count on that, as doing would be classified as "soft on terrorism."

By the way, "drones" is a red herring, intended to get people worked up about scary mysterious robots. We can and do engage in targeted killing by aircraft bomb, mortar and bullet. The issue is targeted killings in general, not drones. Likewise, American citizenship is a red herring, since constitutional due process applies to everyone, not just US citizens. The issue is targeted killings in general, not targeted killings of US citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The funniest thing here is that the author of this thread supported drone strikes until Obama became president,

and then switched his position.

 

[Ernie S.]

DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

Like we didn't already know this.

Redundancy noted.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ah so you admit W was unprincipled too?

I don't recall W ever making such a declaration, but it's not as if Republicans aren't straight forward about wanting to blow everybody up. The Democrats pretend to be peacenicks until one of them is in the White House, then killing brown people in Africa is okay.

Like the ones who voted for the Iraq invasion? Sorry, killing brown folks has been a bipartisan policy since, well, forever. How did we end up with all this land anyway? Mannifest Destiny killed many brown skin people.

 

[Ernie S.]

The 2001 AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) was an open-ended declaration of war against Al Qaeda. Congress absolutely, positively gave any president authorization for targeted killings against anyone associated with Al Qaeda.

Congress, however, did _not_ give the president authority to torture people. Bush was criticized for torture, not for targeted killings. There's the big difference, and it's why the stupid "you liberals are hypocrites!" claim looks so dumb. It's the conservative hypocrites who need to explain why they gave Bush a pass for something illegal, while ripping Obama for something legal.

Now, just because congress authorizes something does not necessarily make it constitutional. There are sticky due process issues involved, as "due process" doesn't have a set definition. The administration says they're using due process, but to just trust them about it. And that's not good enough. This is where congress needs to step in and lay down specific laws for due process. Congress also needs to change the open-ended 2001 AUMF, but don't count on that, as doing would be classified as "soft on terrorism."

By the way, "drones" is a red herring, intended to get people worked up about scary mysterious robots. We can and do engage in targeted killing by aircraft bomb, mortar and bullet. The issue is targeted killings in general, not drones. Likewise, American citizenship is a red herring, since constitutional due process applies to everyone, not just US citizens. The issue is targeted killings in general, not targeted killings of US citizens.

I beg to differ Our Constitution applies within out borders and in matters concerning US Citizens. Non citizen enemy combatants do not enjoy due process.