Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.
Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.
Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial
The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that were even having this debate at all. It should be self-negating self-marginalizing to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because as one can see the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that its much easier to normalize: very few of the Partys followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.
And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.
Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.
Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial
The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that were even having this debate at all. It should be self-negating self-marginalizing to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because as one can see the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that its much easier to normalize: very few of the Partys followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.
And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.
So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?
Okay.
I am not.
The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.
Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.
Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.
Oh, ceding US sovereignty.
I feel like what enrages the tricorn hat crowd the most about Obama is that he's taught more con law than they'll ever take.
Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.
Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.
Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial
The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that were even having this debate at all. It should be self-negating self-marginalizing to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because as one can see the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that its much easier to normalize: very few of the Partys followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.
And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.
So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?
Okay.
I am not.
The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.
According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.
This is a major war on the Constitution.
Examples, please.
Here's two of mine off the top of my head:
Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
The only difference - a rather big difference - is that Obama HAS violated the Constitution since being in office. The right has not. And, those warrentless searches by the last administration are supported by this one.According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.
This is a major war on the Constitution.
Examples, please.
Here's two of mine off the top of my head:
Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
interestingly, i think the war on the constitution is being waged from the right who wants to violate women's rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies, despite the protections of the constitution and already settled caselaw.... they want to violate the first amendment's guarantee that the "majority" religion will be kept out of my life to the extent i choose to have it out of my life
let's see... what else... warrantless searches begun by the last administration violate the fourth amendment... should have been done away with. unfortunately they weren't.
i haven't seen anyone lined up and shot here...
i'd be more concerned about the fact that we had hundreds of people locked up in gitmo from 2000 throug 2008 and they're still there...