Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 14, 2013

Glenn Greenwald: Commencing immediately upon the 9/11 attack, the U.S. government under two successive administrations has spent 12 straight years inventing and implementing new theories of government power in the name of Terrorism. Literally every year since 9/11 has ushered in increased authorities of exactly the type Americans are inculcated to believe only exist in those Other, Non-Free societies: ubiquitous surveillance, impenetrable secrecy, and the power to imprison and even kill without charges or due process.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

nullifidian

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Even as the 9/11 attack recedes into the distant past, the U.S. government still finds ways continuously to increase its powers in the name of Terrorism while virtually never relinquishing any of the power it acquires. So inexorable has this process been that the Obama administration has already exercised the power to target even its own citizens for execution far from any battlefield, and the process has now arrived at its inevitable destination: does this due-process-free execution power extend to U.S. soil as well? ...

Last week's 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director by GOP Sen. Rand Paul was one of the first -- and, from the perspective of media attention, easily among the most effective -- Congressional efforts to dramatize and oppose just how radical these Terrorism-justified powers have become. For the first time since the 9/11 attack, even lowly cable news shows were forced -- by the Paul filibuster -- to extensively discuss the government's extremist theories of power and to debate the need for checks and limits.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"All of this put Democrats - who spent eight years flamboyantly pretending to be champions of due process and opponents of mass secrecy and executive power abuses - in a very uncomfortable position. The politician who took such a unique stand in defense of these principles was not merely a Republican but a leading member of its dreaded Tea Party wing, while the actor most responsible for the extremist theories of power being protested was their own beloved leader and his political party."

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat - led, as usual, by the highly-paid DNC spokesmen called "MSNBC hosts" and echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it - degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad."

Imagine that?

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

This won't get much traction, but I applaud the post.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-12 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This won't get much traction, but I applaud the post. "

Why not? I'm sure the professional Democrats on this blog will want to defend President Awesome.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I despise neocons, but populist cons like Rand are suspicious to me as well.
What ever happened to the blue collar Democrat conservative of the 50's and 60's? If the Dems ever realized their power the party would dominate. All they have to do is dump the far left kooks.
The Pubs can't do anything as effective to redefine their party.

#5 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-12 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure the professional Democrats on this blog will want to defend President Awesome.
#4 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2013-03-12 08:50 PM

What's not to defend? He's Awesome!

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-12 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"but populist cons like Rand are suspicious to me as well."

I'm suspicious of his hair.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Greenwald would have sent the terrorist roses rather than "authorize the assassination" of the known terrorist who was sending bombers here.

Then, after the bomber had finally gotten one of his bombers through, he would have called for Obama's impeachment.... just like Rand Paul would have.

Funny how too far Right and too far Left tend to meet in Libertoonianville.

Of course, Greenwald wouldn't let Stalin get Left of him, and Rand makes Mussolini look like the Dahlia Lama


#8 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-12 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

All they have to do is dump the far left kooks.
#5 | POSTED BY DIABLO AT 2013-03-12 08:53 PM |

Sad thing is, the current Democrats in charge are right of center.

If a true liberal democrat was to emerge from the woodworks you would [moderate] yourself.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-12 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Greenwald would have sent the terrorist roses...

#8 | Posted by Corky

The shorter Corky: Greenwald is a traitor.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the current Democrats in charge are right of center.

Because the country is slightly Right of center; has trended that way for about 20 years now..... which is where Blue Dogs come from.

Look it up.

" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao... ain't no one going to make it with anyone anyhow!" (you know it's going to be, Alright)

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-12 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does anyone out there have a retort for Greenwald's article other than calling him a traitor and/or a communist?

Just wondering.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I bet Greenwald could not give a us a better plan for stopping this terrorist from sending more bombers here than.... any more than you could.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-12 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | Posted by ClownShack

Are you Chris Matthews?

#17 | Posted by KBM at 2013-03-12 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the current Democrats in charge are right of center.

The current Democrats in charge are power-hungry statist d-bags.

The only pols paying lip-service to a Constitutionally limted federal government hail from the GOP. The only pols forcefully articulating this are a small handful of increasingly prominent Tea Party GOP pols. Having said that, it's awfully easy to pine for Constitutionally-limited government when they are the ones not calling the shots. A Constitutionally-limited government is what we were supposed to get in 2000 and beyond. Instead we got NCLB, Medicare Part D, the Department of Homeland Security and mind-boggling deficits.

Rand Paul's filibuster was cool. Let's see if:

A. he still has that attitude when (big IF, actually) the GOP has full-control

B. If he does maintain his attitude let's see if he gets the same right-wing adoration if he chooses to filibuster a GOP-prez attempting an unconstitutional power-grab

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clownshack, if you think Obama is right of center... blah, blah, blah...
#15 | POSTED BY DIABLO AT 2013-03-12 09:15 PM | REPLY

No need to hurt your two brain cells Diablo, Obama is right of center. Its not my opinion, its a fact.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-12 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU lavishly praised Paul, saying that "as a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins". In particular, said the ACLU, "Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program." "

ACLU, the last honest liberals.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you Chris Matthews?
#17 | POSTED BY KBM AT 2013-03-12 09:23 PM

You can catch my show, HardBall, Mon - Friday on MSNBC

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-12 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama took Akawaki's own words to define him as a planner of terrorist attacks against Americans. Democrats have never not supported defending Americans from terrorists who openly proclaim their intention to kill Americans. Now, after our President has done what any President would have done in this circumstance, for the Republicans to attack him for it it, it ends really as a glimpse of the insane partisanship on the part of the GOP which exists today totally committed to political power but not the welfare of the American people. Every day that party proves itself to be a party of self-servers and not the servants of the American people they would pretend to be.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-12 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with Alawki is that he was an American citizen, Danni.

You will find very few conservatives and/or Republicans who oppose Obama's drone-program in regards to non-citizen terrorists.

The Alawki criticism is due to the Executive branch becoming judge, juror and executioner without any due process.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"for the Republicans to attack him for it it, it ends really as a glimpse of the insane partisanship on the part of the GOP "

Are you claiming that Greenwald and the ACLU are Republicans?

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | Posted by Corky
I bet Greenwald could not give a us a better plan for stopping this terrorist from sending more bombers here...

That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does.
Of course the President has no better plan either.
www.washingtonpost.com

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-12 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does.

I've never even heard of this Greenwald person, but the comment I just reproduced is the crux of the Paul filibuster and it's precisely why his filibuster created such a buzz.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

So when is the RNC going to denounce drone warfare, Jeff?

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | Posted by JeffJ
The problem with Alawki...

The problem was that his killing was justified on self defense grounds which simply did not apply in the circumstances.

There was no imminent threat. There was past cheer leading, advocacy and one known assistance with a bomb. At the time the button was pushed there was no imminent threat.

That let the genie out of the bottle. That is what Greenwald wrote about. That is what will bite the cheer leaders of rubbing that bottle in the butt later.

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-12 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The problem with Alawki is that he was an American citizen, Danni."

I honestly do not see how that makes it a problem, killing anyone seems to me to be the same problem regardless of nationality, the difference for Alawaki was that he had joined a terrorist organisation and was planning attacks on Americans. In our battle against the insane terrorists who are trying to kill Americans we do have to, sometimes, take out the ones who are leaders of that movement. I believe the attack on Alawaki was appropriate, do you? That is a question we should be asking our politicians. Take a stand, do you support it or not?

#30 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-12 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:


So when is the RNC going to denounce drone warfare, Jeff?

#28 | Posted by nullifidian

They won't. It's an extremely effective combat tool. The problem is that because it all-but eliminates blood-treasure it makes it easier for pols to morally justify perpetual war.

The GOP loves to bransish their national security creds by acting all tough.

This country faces real threats and our leaders should effectively argue as to why certain military actions are in our best interests. instead, they seek to minimize the loss of life for our soldiers. On its face that is a good thing. However it makes it easier for our government to perpetuate warfare when they face no political fall-out for their actions. If our troops aren't being killed or wounded the public becomes much more apathetic toward outward acts of war.

I honestly do not see how that makes it a problem, killing anyone seems to me to be the same problem regardless of nationality, the difference for Alawaki was that he had joined a terrorist organisation and was planning attacks on Americans. In our battle against the insane terrorists who are trying to kill Americans we do have to, sometimes, take out the ones who are leaders of that movement. I believe the attack on Alawaki was appropriate, do you? That is a question we should be asking our politicians. Take a stand, do you support it or not?

#30 | Posted by danni

The difference is 2-fold:

1. Alawki was a US citizen and is afforded due process under our Constitution. Said due process does not apply to non-citizen combatants. It's a Constitutional-issue.

2. So, indefinite-detainment and some rare rough treatment (enhanced interrogation) is horrible, yet killing an insane terrorist with a guided munition is somehow A-Ok?

My biggest problem with the drone program is it's being over-used. A lot of useful intel could be gleaned by capturing and interrogating some of these drone targets.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | Posted by danni
I honestly do not see how that makes it a problem...

I know you don't nor do others. I think because you are over looking the law that controls whether cast in domestic criminal law or the international law of armed conflict.

Like stand your ground self defense, the aggressor can run his mouth all day long but until he draws back his fist or pulls a gun there is no imminent threat. That he pulled his gun yesterday does not permit use of force today. That he might pull his gun tomorrow does not permit use of force today.

The same concepts apply in armed conflict with additional limitations surrounding identification of the enemy and a battlefield. The AUMF attempted to fit that bill at one time. Now it is construed to permit a perpetual war against anyone, anywhere for any reason with no end in sight.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-12 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | Posted by danni
I honestly do not see how that makes it a problem...

1. If you use the term "Honestly" or " To tell the truth" it tells me your lying when you don't say it. "Am I right or am I right!"

2. Democrats have never not supported defending Americans from terrorists who openly proclaim their intention to kill Americans.

You ever hear of Bill Ayers?

#33 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-12 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

-"That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does."

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.

You could have described Baby Face Nelson that way.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

"... aggressor can run his mouth all day long but until he draws back his fist or pulls a gun there is no imminent threat."

His active leadership in al Qaeda and his history of sending bombers here while he scoffs at American courts and hides out in Yemen plotting more bomber runs with other terrorists is evidence enough of an "imminent threat" to justify action.... especially when your lawyers present a good case that it is.

What do you want? A video admission prior to the bombing?

I can just see you as Pres 'splainin' to the American people and the Impeachment Committee that you had intel to stop the successful bombing that he manged to pull off this time, but you decided that no one could have predicted something like this might happen (Condolezza like).

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

The ticking time bomb scenarios from '24' were used by righties here to excuse torturing prisoners. Now they're used by lefties to excuse our constant violation of the sovereignty of other nations, and a secret list of assassination targets, some of whom are American citizens.

Partisanship is a mental illness.

#36 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-13 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

HAd to post to a couple of these:

"What ever happened to the blue collar Democrat conservative of the 50's and 60's?"
Well all those hard working indusrty types got the last shove out the door with GATT, CAFTA, and NAFTA...THANKS BILL!

"Sad thing is, the current Democrats in charge are right of center."

LOL.....PLease tell me your being facetious. Obama is right of Center? Biden is Right of Center? CLinton is Right of Center? Frank is right of Center? Dean is Right of Center? Holder is Right of Center? Napolitano is Right of Center? YOur either lying, or making a VERY subtle joke...

"His active leadership in al Qaeda" then why has it failed to drone strike former US Army soldier Eric Harroun, who is now fighting with the Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria?

#38 | Posted by GotTruth at 2013-03-13 04:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You ever hear of Bill Ayers?"

SOmething about being a Leading member of a terrorist group the Placed and detonated a bomb in the US Capital on MArch 1st 1971.....

#39 | Posted by GotTruth at 2013-03-13 04:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who gave the president the authority to use drones, ect?

Congress

Who can take it away?

Congress

Why hasn't a republican controlled house repeal the power it gave to the president after 9-11 if they now don't like the very authority it granted?

#40 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-03-13 07:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Considering the fact that congress could repeal the power it gave the president to survail in minutes ----- you have to question the motive behind Paul's grandstanding.

#41 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-03-13 07:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"1. Alawki was a US citizen and is afforded due process under our Constitution. Said due process does not apply to non-citizen combatants. It's a Constitutional-issue."

I do not believe citizenship has anything much to do with rights except the right to vote, work here, etc. The "right" to not be killed is not any more or less due to American citizenship. If you are an Al Quaeda terrorist plotting to kill Americans you have the right to die in any way we can devise to make that possible for you.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-13 07:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The ticking time bomb scenarios from '24' were used by righties here to excuse torturing prisoners. Now they're used by lefties to excuse our constant violation of the sovereignty of other nations, and a secret list of assassination targets, some of whom are American citizens."

Gee, I remember reading lots of posts here excusing Bush's failure to stop the 9-11 terrorists because Bill Clinton's missiles apparently arrived too late to kill Bin Laden. Now, it seems fashionable to see drones differenty than just regular old fashioned missiles. Ridiculous, they are basically the same thing, just different technologies.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-13 07:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why hasn't a republican controlled house repeal the power it gave to the president after 9-11 if they now don't like the very authority it granted?

The new Dem talking point of "it's the obligation of the President to push his powers to the absolute envelope and if Congress doesn't stop him he isn't accountable" is insane. Nobody afforded Dubya that luxury...and when did torture policy change? With an Executive Order from Obama...not Congress.

"I'm just following orders" works (in theory) when you're Charles Grainer torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It doesn't work when you're CiC.

#44 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-13 08:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

I do not believe citizenship has anything much to do with rights except the right to vote, work here, etc. The "right" to not be killed is not any more or less due to American citizenship. If you are an Al Quaeda terrorist plotting to kill Americans you have the right to die in any way we can devise to make that possible for you.

#42 | Posted by danni

Jesus Christ.

Have you EVER read the document?

If it's too much for you just google "Bill of Rights" and read only that. Then, maybe you'll understand why the Alawki killing is a big deal.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-13 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does."

People who don't know this are historically illiterate, and dangerous to civil liberties. Amazingly enough, some of them purport to call themselves "liberals," for some odd reason.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

#46 |People who still have no better solution than what was done to stop this terrorist bomber.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

-ticking time bomb scenarios from '24'

These happened to be several real life bombers and plots.... sorry you can't tell the difference.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bush used drones but, Obama has upped their use like 300% and made it global. Corky and Danni also float the lie that every drone strike is on terrorist. There is no way to know that. Obama allows these strikes based on flimsy evidence. Example, there are some age appropriate brown males digging on the side of the road? Blow em up!

#50 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by Corky
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.
You could have described Baby Face Nelson that way.

Wonder who wrote this? You guys and "context" will have to one day become familiar... or not.

The quote you find so stupid is within a passage describing cheer leaders not the one exercising questionable executive power.

Does the quote project a reflection? Is that why you find it "stupid?"

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-13 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

They did describe baby face Nelson that was which is why the FBI went from investigation to enforcement and started carrying guns. Hoover used the crime sprees of the time to expand the power of the FBI beyond what it was intended.

#52 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-13 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, it seems fashionable to see drones differenty than just regular old fashioned missiles. Ridiculous, they are basically the same thing, just different technologies.

They are basically the same thing, except you can can spy on people with drones in the states, but you're right.

The problem is two-fold:

One: Our government just doesn't respect the airspace of most countries and we think we can meddle everywhere.

Two: Americans, in general, are OK with our manifest destiny crap as long as it's "their" president doing it.

#53 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-13 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki):"

The tears being shed for this terrorist mad bomber are crocodile tears
(superficial sympathy), based more on Obama Hating or ideological pettifogging rather than the facts of his unique case.

He was offered a court date, refused it, claimed he was no longer subject to American law, hid out in Yemen where he was inaccessible to capture, and continued his real life work of sending bombers to this country.

I have yet to hear from anyone what their reasonable, rational, doable solution to the problem of stopping him would have been other than what was done.

Or an admission that had he been successful in his next real world (not "24") attempt, that the Executive would not be blamed for not acting, and rightly so.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person," Obama said in speech on the Senate floor in 2006. "By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit."

Hell he's talking about detaining them much less than blowing them up. He figured out there is more to being prez than campaigning I guess.

#55 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by Corky

There's that context thing again. That he was a bad guy is not the question. The question is whether, as you have described the "lawyers case," his actions fit self defense. It does not. Whether in the context of criminal law or LOAC both require imminence. When the button was pushed that legal element was not present.

What do you want?

Conformance with law when executing people.

I can just see you...

Careful that the straw man you lit does not cause an hysterical exodus of the theater.

#56 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-13 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why hasn't a republican controlled house repeal the power it gave to the president after 9-11 if they now don't like the very authority it granted?
#40 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES AT 2013-03-13 07:29 AM | FLAG:

They like the authority, they just don't like who has it. If they repeal it, it won't be there if they someday somehow get back into the Oval Office.

#57 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-13 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

-both require imminence.

Answered in #35.

So answer my questions regarding:

"I have yet to hear from anyone what their reasonable, rational, doable solution to the problem of stopping him would have been other than what was done.

Or an admission that had he been successful in his next real world (not "24") attempt, that the Executive would not be blamed for not acting, and rightly so."

What would you have done to stop him?

Would not the Exec been blamed had he not stopped him when he could have and he was successful in his next attempt?

Or are you just pettifogging the specific language of the law with no concern for the real world facts?

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"terrorist mad bomber"

That sounds scarier than simply "terrorist." Make it even scarier by using "Terrorist Mad Bomber who kills children(tm)" Just a suggestion.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#59

What would you have done to stop him?

Would not the Exec been blamed had he not stopped him when he could have and he was successful in his next attempt?

Answer the questions. Just a suggestion.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not a matter of stopping Al Awaki. He was a recruiter but, didn't build the bombs and he wasn't the bomber. My only suggestion would be for Obama to present some evidence or reasoning to a court when killing Americans. At a minimum he promised that while campaigning. And that was over detention not killing. And they weren't even Americans being detained.

#61 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

" "Terrorist Mad Bomber who kills children(tm)""

Better yet, make it "Terrorist Mad Bomber Who Kills Innocent Children(tm)"

#62 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He was a recruiter but, didn't build the bombs and he wasn't the bomber.

He plotted the attacks, gave the instructions on when and where to detonate the bombs. He did everything except go himself.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Would have sent the terrorist roses "

Didn't Dick Cheney say that?

#65 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't mean that he was innocent. I just meant future bombings are still possible. My main point is there needs to be court oversight and Obama could do that if he chose to. That's what he campaigned on when it came to non citizens and detention.

#66 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Null,

No. Cheney said the Iraqis would shower our troops with chocolates and roses.

It was a stupid comment.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-13 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't Dick Cheney say that?

#65 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag

Someone is thinking of a reason to flag that one.

#68 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#62 Would have sent the terrorist roses in an effort to stop him,

So corky is implying that having no solution to a Constitutional dillemma is all the excuse the president needs to trample it.

Wow

#70 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-13 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 Still no answer....

Let's see if you can provide one, corky: Do you agree that not having a solution is all the excuse a president needs to trample an American's rights?

#71 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-13 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:


I bet Greenwald could not give a us a better plan for stopping this terrorist from sending more bombers here than.... any more than you could.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-12 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag

Just have to laugh, corky attacks the messenger instead of the message.

What I really have to say is it is sad corky defends party over what he absolutely knows is wrong. No matter how we slice it, its wrong and corky knows it no matter how much justification he tries to give the party obama.

#72 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-13 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 You answer the question, then, MW, as no one else is capable.

What would you have done to stop him?

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

What would you have done to stop him?

Corky, you are trying very hard to priorty shift and you are failing miserably. The primary concern is that an American's civil rights were trampled and the president played judge, jury, and executioner.

That he isn't clever enough to find an alternative that doesn't trample the constitution is secondary -- a far and distant secondary matter.

Deal with it.

And I notice you don't want to answer my question. Can't say I blame you. Fifth amendment (if someone doesn't pull it out from under you!) and all that. LOL

#74 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-13 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No. Cheney said the Iraqis would shower our troops with chocolates and roses. "

Yes he said that, but he also accused opponents of Bush's Iraq invasion plans as wanting to send roses to the terrorists.

#75 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

He plotted the attacks, gave the instructions on when and where to detonate the bombs. He did everything except go himself.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag

So darn what! 8 years ago you were against this because the democrat party was screamin constitution and now you like it because the party obama is for it.

It is difficult to take anything you say now seriously because you're showing so much flip flopping of moral ethical character to party politics.

Do you support and believe in the constitution or not? Currently, I see you support and believe in the constitution only so far as your party leader.

#76 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-13 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

What would you have done to stop him?

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-13 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag

I would have done everything possible within the constitution, but that's just me.

We either abide by the constitution or we get rid of it. Apparently, you don't think so, party decisions are more important to you.

This is going to be an issue 10 years from now and it will be ugly, and I wonder where you are going to be, for the constitution or for declining liberties depending on which party is in power.

#84 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-13 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you agree that not having a solution is all the excuse a president needs to trample an American's rights?"

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

#85 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cork,

I don't know the best alternative way to get this guy.

Obviously the administration knew where he was. Yemen is the new hot-spot for terrorist hideouts. Swoop in and capture him? Would that have been too risky? I don't know.

Were he a non-US citizen we wouldn't be having this discussion.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-13 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | Posted by Corky
...the real world facts?

We just "know" the Unibomber will light another one. We just "know" Malvo and Lee will shoot another one. We just "know" someone with an "assault weapon" will commit a mass crime. Etc, etc...

Would not the Exec[sic] been blamed...

Most likely. However, that does not justify extra-judicial killing.

The legal elements of the proffered justification of self defense are not petty they are real world facts. If there was a temporal proximity of imminence your accusation might be correct. There was no such proximity. The act occurred much prior. There is no known second act that was prevented. That act is something you have invented. What epithet would you apply to that invention.

#87 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-13 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clintonite criticizes Obama's drone policy...

Obama should lift secrecy on drones
By John Podesta, Wednesday, March 13, 10:55 AM

John Podesta is chairman of the Center for American Progress and a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University. He served as President Bill Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 to 2001.

Clinton vs. Obama, who to side with? Decisions, decisions...

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-13 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the Al-Awlaki targeting was justified, given his actions and the fact it was the first time a president was confronted with the problem of an American citizen who had become an operational terrorist in a place like Yemen, away from the reach of any governmental authority. The framework the administration used to make the decision limited such targeting.

But this isn't a new situation any more, and the Obama administration is wrong to keep doing it without establishing court oversight. Also, some of Holder's statements suggesting it could be done to an American on American soil completely throw out the limiting framework.

Rand Paul and the ACLU are completely justified in freaking out over it, and more Democrats should have joined Paul's filibuster alongside Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.

#93 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-13 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 Now you will be asked if you want to send roses to the terrorist. I've been saying since this topic came up that all Obama had to do with Awlaki was go to a judge. He was on the list for months prior to him being killed. The real hypocrisy is that Obama went on and on about Habeus Corpus for people we detained after 9/11 that weren't even Americans but, no oversight in this case. And the fact that Holder couldn't just say no Americans could be killed on American soil is scary.

#94 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-13 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#91 | Posted by Corky
[...]

I did for you and anyone else. They follow the sentence you quoted. The tough part your silliness doesn't address.

#95 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-13 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | Posted by rcade

Not unreasonable. [...]

#96 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-13 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

What would you have done to stop him?

Like it's beneath us to pay Yemen to capture the guy and ship him to the US for trial?

Corky's "solution" is to trample the constitution, and violate yemens airspace, because both are expedient.

I must say, goatman summed it up in post #70 (and it hurt to admit that lol)

#97 | Posted by alexandrite at 2013-03-13 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Were he a non-US citizen we wouldn't be having this discussion.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-13 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag

That may be the saddest part of it all.

#98 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-13 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#97

"But, but.... I paid some dudes in Yemen to capture that guy who was sending bombers here... I did my job as CinC, raaally I did!"

Still no real answer.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#99 | Posted by Corky
Still no real answer.

To what, the straw man you created to demand an "answer" from anyone who dares to object to an extra-judicial killing of a citizen.

I "still have no answer" to the question I have asked of you several times on several threads. What was the imminence that justified the use of force in self defense? There is one known operation involving a bombing in December of 2009. The button was pushed 21 months later.

#100 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 01:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

What was the imminence that justified the use of force in self defense?

The imminence was the intelligence that made the U.S. conclude that Al-Awlaki had taken on an operational leadership role in Al Qaeda and was actively plotting and leading terror attacks on Americans.

The button was pushed 21 months later because it took us 21 months to find Al-Awlaki, and in that time we had no intelligence to indicate he had ceased his terror activities.

Given what happened on 9/11 and the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress that authorized war on Al Qaeda, a president who did not take action to stop a terror attack in the making would be abandoning his or her duty.

#101 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

The imminence was the intelligence that made the U.S. conclude that Al-Awlaki had taken on an operational leadership role in Al Qaeda and was actively plotting and leading terror attacks on Americans.


Then it should have been a no brainer to go to a court and dot the I's and cross the T's. That they didn't means quite clearly they did not know what you claim they knew, but rather thought and assumed.

#102 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

IT amazes me how people can argue for a secret government after almost a decade of bitching about Dubya's actions and voting for Obama to restore the office.

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The virtual panopticon is becoming a reality.

#104 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-14 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then it should have been a no brainer to go to a court and dot the I's and cross the T's.

At the time Al-Awlaki was targeted, there was no court that had authority to do that. It would take an act of Congress to give a court that power, just as a 1978 law set up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oversees requests for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign agents inside the U.S.

The only authority that could be relied upon when he was targeted was a president's authority to wage war. A president does not normally seek a court's permission to choose a valid military target in a war.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

#101 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2013-03-14 09:38 AM

We've drone bombed people for way less. Why bring him in to New York for a public court parade? Aren't you afraid that this might cause suicide bombers to attempt to blow something up in New York during the hearings?

#107 | Posted by T_Man at 2013-03-14 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Aren't you afraid that this might cause suicide bombers to attempt to blow something up in New York during the hearings?

I don't know what this has to do with my comment, but terrorists would attack us with suicide bombers today if they could. It has nothing to do with whether or not we jail terrorists or try them in court. We've had the 1993 WTC bombers in jail for many years.

#108 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

IT amazes me how people can argue for a secret government after almost a decade of bitching about Dubya's actions and voting for Obama to restore the office.

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 09:42 AM

It's par for the course at this point. The ever expanding power of the executive is now just fine and dandy to Obama pom-pom wavers. They'll pretend to be back on our side of this issue once a Republican gets back in office however.

#109 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

At the time Al-Awlaki was targeted, there was no court that had authority to do that.

Actually, there are courts with that power. Al-Awlaki was a US citizen with basic rights. The Government violated said rights and any court, literally ANY COURT could rule on that.

The only authority that could be relied upon when he was targeted was a president's authority to wage war. A president does not normally seek a court's permission to choose a valid military target in a war.


US CITIZEN. How do you keep skipping happily over that fact?

AMENDMENT 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

AMENDMENT 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

These are ABOVE OBAMA.

#110 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

AMENDMENT 14: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Obama violated that one too, unless you want to argue State doesn't mean government. Since it is capitalized, I would assume it does.

#111 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd to ask Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 how they'd go about stopping this mad terrorist bomber of maddening terrorific proportions?

No answer? That's what I thought...

#112 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-14 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

mad terrorist bomber

Wow...he got a posthumous promotion from inspiration to planner to bomber. You really get ahead in AQ after death.

I also love how Ft Hood was terrorism when it means killing a US Citizen, but is simply "workplace violence" when Obama looks at his record on terrorist attacks on US soil.

#113 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"As they researched the rarely invoked overseas-murder statute, Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman discovered a 1997 district court decision involving a woman who was charged with killing her child in Japan. A judge ruled that the terse overseas-killing law must be interpreted as incorporating the exceptions of its domestic-murder counterpart, writing, "Congress did not intend to criminalize justifiable or excusable killings."

And by arguing that it is not unlawful "murder" when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense, Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman concluded that the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike. They had not resorted to the Bush-style theories they had once denounced of sweeping presidential war powers to disregard Congressionally imposed limitations."

#11 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2013-03-10 12:21 AM

www.nytimes.com

The article is most informative.

The Executive had legal advice allowing the targeting, and he had the opportunity to take out a known terrorist who had proved himself to be eminently dangerous.

Not to do so would have been not fulfilling his Job 1 as CinC.

And had the next bomber in the series sent been successful, no amount of blaming the law would have exonerated him from dereliction of his duty.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

#106 Always the voice of reason.

(bet you never counted on that!, lol)

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"mad terrorist bomber "

Actually it's Mad Terrorist Bomber Who Kills Innocent Children (tm).

#116 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-14 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#116

Perhaps you are right, we should have gone with your alternative solution to make sure he didn't send any more bombers... what was that again?

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I also love how Ft Hood was terrorism when it means killing a US Citizen, but is simply "workplace violence" when Obama looks at his record on terrorist attacks on US soil.

#113 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag

That was done strictly for political purposes. I would love to see his reaction if asked that question in a press conference or interview.

#118 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-14 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

The imminence was the intelligence that made the U.S. conclude that Al-Awlaki had taken on an operational leadership role in Al Qaeda and was actively plotting and leading terror attacks on Americans.

LOL. That's an pathetically expansive definition of the word "imminence."

Every traditional definition of that word is "about to happen," "ready to take place," etc. Thus, when a person is an "imminent threat," it means that they are about to do something causing danger to others, and that that thing is ready to happen. There is simply no way to fit Al-Awlaki into that profile, unless you expand the definition to your own new partisan meaning.

#119 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-14 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, there are courts with that power. Al-Awlaki was a US citizen with basic rights. The Government violated said rights and any court, literally ANY COURT could rule on that.

That's not correct. When Al-Awlaki was targeted, there was no court that had the authority to tell the president it was OK to target him. The Obama administration had no judge to take that decision to, because there was no law giving a judge authority to make that judgment.

Even when Al-Awlaki's father and the ACLU filed suit to stop his targeting, the judge in the case ruled that the political question doctrine prevented him from making a decision on a matter that was fundamentally political and not legal. He cited El-Shifa v. United States, a case that stated, "[i]f the political question doctrine means anything in the arena of national security and foreign relations, it means the courts cannot assess the merits of the President's decision to launch an attack on a foreign target."

The matter is not as simple as you think it is. In order for a judge to decide whether an American citizen can be targeted for a drone strike, a law must give that judge authority to do so.

A court has authority to consider a lawsuit filed by someone regarding that targeting, but to make a decision in such a suit might not be within that court's power. Ultimately, Al-Awlaki's father had the suit dismissed because he lacked standing to file on behalf of his son *and* the court refused to rule on the targeting because it was a political question.

#120 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

LOL. That's an pathetically expansive definition of the word "imminence."

Would you prefer to wait until the terrorists are on the plane and it has taken off? I think it makes perfect sense to treat Al Qaeda leaders plotting acts of terror as an imminent threat, given what happened on 9/11.

#122 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

unless you expand the definition to your own new partisan meaning.

They did. See the White Paper.

#123 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"[i]f the political question doctrine means anything in the arena of national security and foreign relations, it means the courts cannot assess the merits of the President's decision to launch an attack on a foreign target.

We are talking about a US Citizen here, not a building in Yemen.

Ultimately, Al-Awlaki's father had the suit dismissed because he lacked standing to file on behalf of his son *and* the court refused to rule on the targeting because it was a political question.

Actually, the father did not have the suit dismissed; the courts refused to hear him.

it was a political question.

It isn't and they didn't. The Rights of a US Citizen are a legal question, not a political one.

#124 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The White Paper was actually the work of the lawyers Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman sans references to Al-Awlaki.

If you really want to learn something about this case, the NYT article in #114 is probably the definitive reporting so far.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The matter is not as simple as you think it is. In order for a judge to decide whether an American citizen can be targeted for a drone strike, a law must give that judge authority to do so.


That is cart before horse thinking. The law already gives US citizens protections the government cannot overrule without proving its case. To say that the courts must wait for the government to allow them to rule on what the government does is folly, sad, and foolish.

#126 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

-The Rights of a US Citizen are a legal question,

See the legal justification in #114.

#127 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

In order for a judge to decide whether an American citizen can be targeted for a drone strike, a law must give that judge authority to do so.

A court has authority to consider a lawsuit filed by someone regarding that targeting, but to make a decision in such a suit might not be within that court's power. Ultimately, Al-Awlaki's father had the suit dismissed because he lacked standing to file on behalf of his son *and* the court refused to rule on the targeting because it was a political question.

A judge is needed so a government elect leader can KILL a citizen without due process.......Does anyone actually think about this?

Lacked standing...really....does this ring of political hacking at the highest level and shows just how FEUDAL obama and his crones can be towards our way of life.

#129 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

We are talking about a US Citizen here, not a building in Yemen.

You're splitting hairs. The judge in the Al-Awlaki case cited El-Shifa v. United States and the reasoning I quoted in ruling that the decision to target Al-Awlaki was a political question.

To say that the courts must wait for the government to allow them to rule on what the government does is folly, sad, and foolish.

The proposal has been made that Obama should have sought a court's permission to target Aw-Awlaki. I was responding to that proposal.

Courts often have to wait for a party to take action before ruling on the legality of that action. An example is when a court can't stop a paper from publishing a story because that's considered prior restraint.

Whether a court could stop Al-Awlaki's targeting before he was targeting is a separate issue from what we were originally discussing.

#130 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

it was a political question.

If it is a political question they wouldn't need the legal courts to decide.

#131 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

If it is a political question they wouldn't need the legal courts to decide.

The judge ruled the court couldn't decide it precisely because it was a political question. Without a new law establishing court jurisdiction over targeting, he was saying he couldn't rule.

At this point, there without a doubt should be such a court. The lack of judicial oversight in targeting a U.S. citizen for a drone strike is not consistent with our Constitution.

#132 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Courts often have to wait for a party to take action before ruling on the legality of that action. An example is when a court can't stop a paper from publishing a story because that's considered prior restraint.

This answers your statement and shows the illegal targeting as a violation of rights.

#133 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

At this point, there without a doubt should be such a court. The lack of judicial oversight in targeting a U.S. citizen for a drone strike is not consistent with our Constitution.

#132 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag

Correct, and therefore the action taken was illegal. They needed to create a law before taking the action.

#135 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

" The lack of judicial oversight in targeting a U.S. citizen for a drone strike is not consistent with our Constitution."

I don't believe that citizenship is relevant to the question.

#136 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-14 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The matter is not as simple as you think it is. In order for a judge to decide whether an American citizen can be targeted for a drone strike, a law must give that judge authority to do so.

Again, you answered the question why the drone strike was illegal.

#137 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Correct, and therefore the action taken was illegal. They needed to create a law before taking the action.

I do not see how that could possibly be correct. The president has broad powers in carrying out a war, which includes the selection of military targets. An American who becomes a leader of Al Qaeda is clearly a military target, given the 2001 AUMF.

Lacking a law giving a court authority over targeting, such authority falls to the president.

#138 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The AUMF does not trump the Bill of Rights and we are talking about an accused US Citizen.

#139 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't believe that citizenship is relevant to the question.

Citizenship is relevant because Anwar Al-Awlaki has rights as a U.S. citizen he would not have otherwise.

#140 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The AUMF does not trump the Bill of Rights ...

No, it doesn't, but Americans who fight for an enemy in wartime have often been killed in our nation's history.

#141 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Basically, if one citizen can be labeled a terrorist by the government based on secret information that nobody has access to and kill them, then they can do it to anyone.

Would you trust Nixon with that power? Wouldn't you try to stop Clinton from using it if you knew Dubya was following him into office?

We can't see the future nor who will be leading this nation and making these decisions tomorrow, so it is up to US HERE AND NOW to place the proper limits on this before it gets too far.

#142 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, it doesn't, but Americans who fight for an enemy in wartime have often been killed in our nation's history.

#141 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:34 PM |

After a trial or by them wearing an opposing uniform or being in a battlefield.

The Rosenbergs weren't taken out back and shot. Johnny Walker Lynn had a trial.

#143 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

And Rcade,

The courts have ruled on this during the Bush years.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

#144 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

After a trial or by them wearing an opposing uniform or being in a battlefield.

Terrorists don't wear uniforms or operate only in battlefields. They present a new kind of threat to our safety and security.

Given what Al Qaeda has proven it can do to us, letting them plot and carry out terror attacks in lawless places like Yemen without a military response would likely result in further mass casualty events on our soil.

#145 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

[W]e necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.

#146 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

- being in a battlefield.

A known terrorist leader hiding out in a lawless state like Yemen while plotting new attacks is, "on the battlefield".

I have previously agreed that a court needs to be set up, but in this specific case, the Pres had the authority under the law and under the UAMF to defend the country and he would have been wrong not to act when the rare opportunity to do so presented itself.

#147 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Terrorists don't wear uniforms or operate only in battlefields.

So therefore the government can kill anyone it deems a terrorist? No need to prove said charges, even though the 5th and 6th Amendments clearly state the must?

#148 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants ...

Yes it did. But there is a difference between a terrorist who is in our custody and a terrorist who is out there continuing to plot and carry out attacks.

#149 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

See the legal justification in #114.

#150 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

who is out there continuing to plot and carry out attacks.

See post 146.

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.

No matter what you say about what you think he was or was not doing, the fact remains he was a US citizen and entitled to a day in court. The government cannot just make charges and follow through on punishment without having to prove its case.

As far as him not being caught, trials are held in absentia all the time.

#151 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

So therefore the government can kill anyone it deems a terrorist?

No. But when an American citizen is an operational leader of a terrorist group plotting and carrying out attacks on the U.S., and that citizen is in a place outside of any government authority that could reasonably achieve his apprehension, I think it would be reasonable for the president to target that citizen with a drone strike -- as long as there was judicial oversight in the decision.

#152 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

He refused to come to court when his day was offered.

#153 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

is an operational leader of a terrorist group plotting and carrying out attacks on the U.S.,

That would be a charge, not a conviction. If it is as clear a case as you say, then it should have been very simple for the Government to prove its case.

The first time it is done sets the precedent on how it can be done. It was vital of Obama to follow the law.

#154 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

as long as there was judicial oversight in the decision.

And there wasn't.

This is exactly what I have been saying and saying and saying.

#155 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

There was no court established for this purpose when the operation was done. There is legal precedent as in #114, and there is the UAMF which cave the exec this power in these cases.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have previously agreed that a court needs to be set up

#147 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 12:42 PM

Why does a court need to be set up?

#157 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.reuters.com

I'm so nice...

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Support grows for U.S. "drone court" to review lethal strikes
No need for that, everything done was perfectly fine.

#159 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. But when an American citizen is an operational leader of a terrorist group plotting and carrying out attacks on the U.S., and that citizen is in a place outside of any government authority that could reasonably achieve his apprehension, I think it would be reasonable for the president to target that citizen with a drone strike -- as long as there was judicial oversight in the decision.

#152 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag

The problem here is if they know where then reasonably achieving his apprehension is at hand.

#160 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#159 I think there needs to be more transparency (such as can be done with national sec issues) and a process under the law for future action.

But when this action was taken in this case, it was done legally and rightfully in my opinion.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

But when this action was taken in this case, it was done legally and rightfully in my opinion.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag

We know, and it is only party political.

#162 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

That would be a charge, not a conviction. If it is as clear a case as you say, then it should have been very simple for the Government to prove its case.

Are you suggesting that Al-Awlaki have been tried in absentia? I think that it would be a mistake for the U.S. government to do that, since it would run the risk of revealing a lot of intelligence we've gathered on Al Qaeda while at the same time making us no safer -- since Al-Awlaki would be free to carry out terror attacks during that time.

That's a lose-lose.

Al Qaeda would love that. They'd get a lot of intel on how we are hunting them down.

#163 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look the american people had a choice - OBAMA - a crappy lazy president, who sold out to wall street, insurance companies, and the terror-industrial complex.

OR McCain/Romney - who wouldve done ALL of those things, PLUS given more breaks to the people who don't need them at the expense of the poor, and hastened the destruction of the environment.

Obama is just the lesser of two evils.

Liberals aren't afraid of ashamed to criticize their leader - you'll find PLENTY of examples in the media of that so Greenwald needs to learn to use google - we just know that the alternative is so much worse.

#164 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-03-14 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you suggesting that Al-Awlaki have been tried in absentia?

Yes I am.

think that it would be a mistake for the U.S. government to do that, since it would run the risk of revealing a lot of intelligence we've gathered on Al Qaeda while at the same time making us no safer

They have ways of doing these trials as they have done them many times in the past. You are making excuses that I personally believe you would not have made under Bush.

Al Qaeda would love that. They'd get a lot of intel on how we are hunting them down.


Interesting. DO you think they hate the divide this has caused? Should we really base our rights and basic protections on what AQ would love?

That is akin to the funny Right wing spin that Kerry saying stuff against Bush during the 2004 election gave comfort and aid to AQ.

#165 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama was apparently sensitive to charges that he was dismissing Congress' oversight task in a fashion reminiscent of the previous White House, of which Obama was a critic when he was in the Senate.

According to a report by Politico, Obama told senators, "This is not Dick Cheney we're talking about here," referring to the former vice president who was infamously secretive and hostile to Congress.

This was Obama's response to being asked about secrecy and drones. Now all you have is I'm not Dick Cheney.

#166 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-14 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have so far posted two examples of US citizens accused of being AQ that were tried under Bush. We had trials. To say we can't in this case is folly IMHO.

#167 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look the american people had a choice - OBAMA - a crappy lazy president, who sold out to wall street, insurance companies, and the terror-industrial complex.

#164 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-03-14 01:13 PM

Probably wanted to send Alawki some roses.

#168 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you suggesting that Al-Awlaki have been tried in absentia? I think that it would be a mistake for the U.S. government to do that, since it would run the risk of revealing a lot of intelligence we've gathered on Al Qaeda while at the same time making us no safer -- since Al-Awlaki would be free to carry out terror attacks during that time.

That's a lose-lose.

So what is the win-win?

And proving guilt before killing him should be a requirement otherwise it is nothing less than murder and assassination.

#169 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-14 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

and the terror-industrial complex.

#164 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-03-14 01:13 PM


I think you mean the military industrial complex. See Ike's speech about creating false threats to justify spending money on new toys.

When we use soldiers, we pay soldiers and the money goes to them and their families.

When we use drones, we pay a company and the money goes to their investors.

#170 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#159 I think there needs to be more transparency

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 01:08 PM

That's a lose-lose.

Al Qaeda would love that. They'd get a lot of intel on how we are hunting them down.

#171 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#171 "I think there needs to be more transparency (such as can be done with national sec issues)"

Qualified that.

#172 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since we seem to mostly agree that we need oversight, let's stop fighting over spilt blood and try to make sure any more blood spilt is done above board. Deal? Al-Awlaki is dead.

#173 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since we seem to mostly agree that we need oversight,

#173 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:26 PM

Considering the actions taken were perfectly legal, so much so that to even question them is to sympathize with the terrorists, what is the point of adding more useless bureaucracy? That would cost money that could be better spent on more drones.

#174 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Considering the actions taken were perfectly legal

Obama found a grey area. Time to define it as Black or White.

#175 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

No matter what you say about what you think he was or was not doing, the fact remains he was a US citizen and entitled to a day in court. The government cannot just make charges and follow through on punishment without having to prove its case.

As far as him not being caught, trials are held in absentia all the time.

#151 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-14 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

You nailed it.

#176 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-14 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm always late to the party.

#101 | Posted by rcade

The imminence was the intelligence that made the U.S. conclude that Al-Awlaki had taken on an operational leadership role in Al Qaeda and was actively plotting and leading terror attacks on Americans.

Most likely true but it still begs the question. To permit an attack under the law of armed conflict requires imminence similar to domestic criminal law of self defense. The belligerent must be engaged in direct hostilities at the time of the attack. That the belligerent engaged is direct hostilities in the past is not predictive of future participation in direct hostilities.

The button was pushed 21 months later because it took us 21 months to find Al-Awlaki, and in that time we had no intelligence to indicate he had ceased his terror activities.

12/09 strike where Al-Awlaki thought to be. 05/11 strike where Al-Awlaki thought to be. Three weeks surveillance leading up to the strike killing Al-Awlaki. Whether or not he withdrew from activities is not the question. See, above.

Given what happened on 9/11 and the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress that authorized war on Al Qaeda, a president who did not take action to stop a terror attack in the making would be abandoning his or her duty.

The AUMF is problematic in this situation. It has lost its focus. But according to the white paper the justification was self defense not inherent constitutional authority of the President or the AUMF. Self defense is even more narrow that the law of armed conflict. That the President may take a political hit for inaction or action does not justify use of deadly force.

#177 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The legal case is made in #114.

Besides which the UAMF covers the action.

#178 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#150 | Posted by Corky
See the legal justification in #114.

You keep repeating that apparently without knowing what it means. The proffered justification is self defense. This was in response to concerns over the Foreign Murder Statute. There are two problems, first the Foreign Murder Statute applies to individuals not the government. Thus, the affirmative defense might be raised by individuals charged under that statute but that is not justification for preemptive use of deadly force by the government. Second, self defense has an established definition in law. Basically it permits use of force to prevent an imminent attack by another at the time the force is used (stand your ground analogies come to mind). Self defense does not permit use of force against a previous attack nor does it permit use of force to prevent attacks that may occur in the future no matter how certain you think that future attack may be. Similar law of armed conflict concepts apply when AUMF powers are relied upon for justification.

#179 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#176 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-14 04:56 PM

Excellent post.

#181 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-14 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are making excuses that I personally believe you would not have made under Bush.

That's not the case. I supported Bush ordering military strikes on Al Qaeda and supported the Afghanistan War because the Taliban were providing safe haven and support to the terrorist group. I was upset that Bush didn't pound Tora Bora with strikes when he had intelligence Bin Laden was there.

#182 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

To permit an attack under the law of armed conflict requires imminence similar to domestic criminal law of self defense. The belligerent must be engaged in direct hostilities at the time of the attack. That the belligerent engaged is direct hostilities in the past is not predictive of future participation in direct hostilities.

The law of armed conflict is changing because of stateless terror groups engaging in war against civilian populations. I am not disagreeing with you about the traditional definition of imminence, but it does not provide sufficient guidance on how a country should deal with a small decentralized terror cell capable of killing thousands of civilians.

When you consider that "thousands" could become "tens of thousands" or more as terrorists obtain loose nukes or other weapons of mass destruction, it does not leave much room for countries to wait until an attack is underway before responding with lethal force.

#183 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The law of armed conflict is changing because of stateless terror groups engaging in war against civilian populations. I am not disagreeing with you about the traditional definition of imminence, but it does not provide sufficient guidance on how a country should deal with a small decentralized terror cell capable of killing thousands of civilians.

True. However, the law is what it is now. It does not make exceptions for convenience or expediency. The default in cases of doubt is no action. Unfortunately, there is no forum to test whether an action is right or wrong. There is only the court of public opinion. That and Al-Awlaki's wrongful death action which in all likelihood will not succeed in being heard.

When you consider that "thousands" could become "tens of thousands" or more as terrorists obtain loose nukes or other weapons of mass destruction, it does not leave much room for countries to wait until an attack is underway before responding with lethal force.

When those groups obtain those weapons a more objective case for preemption can be made. After all, unlike radical rhetoric, WMD's have one and only one purpose. Al-Awlaki seems more a subjective case, especially so, at the time of the strike. That there have been no known additional strikes of that nature, hopefully, is a sign the administration learned something.

Revisiting the law of armed conflict is an ongoing process. It is being driven not only by terrorism but also cyber war and automated targeting by robotics. So, too, must the AUMF be revisited but I don't see a lot of interest doing in that.

#184 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

When those groups obtain those weapons a more objective case for preemption can be made.

We aren't likely to know for sure they have obtained those weapons until they use them. That's not a risk any country would take if it had the power to prevent it.

#185 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-14 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

- Al-Awlaki's wrongful death action which in all likelihood will not succeed in being heard.

And with good reason; it's frivolous considering the circumstances. I would like it to be heard just for that reason.

-The default in cases of doubt is no action.

Not as the CinC, whose Job 1 is National Security.

When in doubt about allowing a bomber to keep sending his stooges over here with bombs, the default when he refuses to come to court or even acknowledge his subjection to American law, and continues to hid out in a lawless state where he cannot be reasonably captured, and keeps associating with terrorists as a sr leader of al Qaeda and plotting more bombings, given every evidence of his past history of doing so...

... then the default is to do your job and take him out when you have that rare opportunity, especially when the law, as was pointed out in #114, is on your side, and you also have the current un-"Revisted" UAMF which authorizes the Exec to do just this sort of thing to protect the country anyway.

Either that or be rightfully impeached for not doing your job when one of those bombers does get through.

Can you even imagine what the "loyal opposition " would do to the CinC who did that, no matter the Party?

#186 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-14 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#185 | Posted by rcade
We aren't likely to know for sure they have obtained those weapons until they use them. That's not a risk any country would take if it had the power to prevent it.

Somewhat of a quandary. Sufficient intelligence can be gathered to kill a citizen yet can't be gathered to determine whether WMD's have been obtained. Or, go with they tried to get them in the past or might get them in the future-kill 'em.

It's always risk assessment and balancing never certainty. WMD's are more objective, radical rhetoric is more subjective. With Al-Awlaki there is no publicly known indication he was engaged in direct hostilities when the button was pushed. Default LOAC is no action.

#187 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

And with good reason; it's frivolous...

You formulated that conclusion based on what legal standard?

Not as the CinC, whose Job 1 is National Security.

Wrong. Read the oath.

Otherwise, your selective quote and response to my words is quite annoying. Much preceded and followed what you quoted. Admittedly, much of it is cast in buzz words you obviously don't comprehend. However, they were directed at someone who demonstrates fundamental comprehension of the topic.

To put it in cheer leader language; the law says NO. Now, see if you can figure out the rest of what I wrote.

#188 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-14 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

To put it in factual legal terms...

"As they researched the rarely invoked overseas-murder statute, Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman discovered a 1997 district court decision involving a woman who was charged with killing her child in Japan. A judge ruled that the terse overseas-killing law must be interpreted as incorporating the exceptions of its domestic-murder counterpart, writing, "Congress did not intend to criminalize justifiable or excusable killings."

And by arguing that it is not unlawful "murder" when the government kills an enemy leader in war or national self-defense, Mr. Barron and Mr. Lederman concluded that the foreign-killing statute would not impede a strike. They had not resorted to the Bush-style theories they had once denounced of sweeping presidential war powers to disregard Congressionally imposed limitations."

Nothing that proceeds or followed that quote altered it's fact; that top lawyers expert in this area of the law specifically defined the basis of the authority for the President to act in this case.

You don't even have to agree, thank God; it's enough that better legal minds than yours explain their finding simply enough for most people to understand it.... unless they are too busy thinking up lame ad hominem rather than retort.

#189 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#189 | Posted by Corky

Repetition, your last refuge?

The two paragraphs you continue to copy and paste don't necessarily say what you think, no matter who said it. That is also stated in the NYT article. I have added additional reasons. The reasons have been provided several times. Yet, you only repeat, "yeah, but these two paragraphs..."

BTW, those lawyers don't "define" authority. They interpret and opine on it. There is always another view. The client chooses his path.

#190 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-15 02:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

We really live in a world where Americans debate trial in absentia versus Monday Morning Quarterbacking remote control murder.

#191 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-15 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, and we can't really be bothered to officially Monday Morning Quarterback remote control murder until an ironclad agreement clears Congress.

Until then, John Brennan (and god knows who else) get to act like Gene Simmons in Runaway...because that's the pragmatic thing to do.

#192 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-15 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat - led, as usual, by the highly-paid DNC spokesmen called "MSNBC hosts" and echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it - degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad."

Imagine that?

#2 | Posted by nullifidian

LOL!!!

And we sit a wonder why we have a far Left Liberal in the White House and watch the Liberals defend him by saying he's moderate and accuse everyone of being racists!

LOL!!!

#193 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-15 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

a far Left Liberal in the White House

That would be nice, too bad it isn't reality.

#194 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

With Al-Awlaki there is no publicly known indication he was engaged in direct hostilities when the button was pushed.

He was not attacking the U.S. at the precise moment he was killed, no. But he was an operational leader of Al Qaeda who had sent the Christmas Day bomber to the U.S. and was plotting future attacks, according to U.S. intelligence.

#195 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-15 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

according to U.S. intelligence

The same intelligence that told us exactly where Saddam hid the WMD's?

#196 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

US intelligence seems to operate on the concept of "we think this, so prove it" over "find out what is going on."

#197 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The same intelligence that told us exactly where Saddam hid the WMD's?

If you want to assume that all U.S. intelligence is wrong, that's your prerogative.

But I see no reason to believe the intelligence on Al-Awlaki was inaccurate. In all the debate over his targeting and death, there's never been talk from informed sources that he wasn't an operational leader of Al Qaeda plotting future attacks.

#198 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-15 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you want to assume that all U.S. intelligence is wrong, that's your prerogative.

I don't take it as wrong, I realize it can be flawed and a US citizen should not have their rights removed simply based on it.

there's never been talk from informed sources that he wasn't an operational leader of Al Qaeda plotting future attacks

Nor that he was an OPERATION LEADER who was currently plotting future attacks.

It is all guesswork.

#199 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

But as I said yesterday, he is dead...the drone program is not. Let's do our best to make sure this type of grey area doesn't happen again. Let's make sure proof is required and not some Presidential secret kill list because one day there will be another Dubya or Nixon in the White House who you don't trust like you do Obama.

Presidents leave office, but their precedents tend to stay and grow.

#200 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The case I posted yesterday showed the SCOTUS saying quite clearly and plainly that the War on Terror does not allow the Government to ignore basic civil rights of US citizens.

#201 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reality is:
the Paul filibuster was the Paul Filibluster, calling attention to his own ambitions for president in 2016.

#202 | Posted by e1g1 at 2013-03-15 08:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one will convince me that 9-11 occurred because of 19 Arabs from Afghan caves with box cutters. The first example of a remote control murder was probably on 9-11 with remote control hijacked autopilots.

It represented the PNAC planned Pearl Harbor event touted and intended to convince the USA sheep that we need more wars not for our benefit, and more managed security, and our rights stolen, and the rich and the bankers enriched even further.

I remember the first time I came to that conclusion in late 2002 as though it was yesterday. Twelve years many more believe that today. The politicians that question how we got here and make people understand just how badly we've been screwed by the neocons will be winning the elections in the future.

#203 | Posted by Robson at 2013-03-15 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's truly cringe-worthy is all the democrat supporters who've posted a sneer at Rand Paul:

he gets it absolutely right on the subject of creeping federal government power, this time under the guise of drones "for your own good", or whatever. No wonder the authoritarian-liberals despise him. Team Blue(TM) says that drones are there to help!

while Paul may seem to me misguided on some issues, one cannot say the man isn't principled.

Meanwhile, "principled Democrat" ranks among the most laughable oxymoronic expressions of the time.

#204 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2013-03-16 03:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

#204 The term "liberal Democrat" is a smoke screen to give an elite segment a raw boost of political power for only their own kind and not FTBO of America. Parties want power. Liberal means neither compassionate nor open minded.

Yes there are some good honest liberals like Bernie Sanders. For the most part they are puppets to the wealthy non USA lobby that owns the DNC and the RNC. Anyone who runs a corporation knows that members of the BOD must offer shared ability and diversified views with a common goal. But what they can't offer are competing views that go against the fabric of the corporate mission. That's what the USA faces because we allow the Lobby to influence our government to the detriment of America.

#205 | Posted by Robson at 2013-03-16 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement