You can’t even make the weak argument that the executive at least has to claim this power in the course of protecting national security. Because it doesn’t matter. Obama is arguing that he has the right to keep everything about these executions secret — including the reasons they were ordered - merely by uttering the magic phrase “state secrets.” In other words, that this power would only arise under a national security context is deemed irrelevant by the fact that not only is Obama claiming the president’s word on what qualifies as “national security” is final, he’s claiming the power in such a way that there’s no audience to whom he would ever need to make that connection.
MG11: The Magnificent Swiss Maxim Gun
20 hours ago
7 comments:
Hmmm.
Don't know the ins and outs here, but I think I disagree with you. There are some comments on that link that explain why, probably better than I can...but the critical issues are the question about his citizenship when he has aligned himself with an enemy which is determined to attack the US any/every where possible. Second, if he really wants _legal_ prosecution, he could always surrender to US authorities - the alternative would be to send troops into Yemen to "arrest" him. Good luck with that.
In other words, he's being treated as an enemy combatant - the citizen issue is something he seems to have used when it suited him as a means of deceiving the enemy. In other words, his citizenship is merely infiltration cover.
I know there are issues here, but the fact remains - he is the enemy.
tryanny. Plus quislings like suek. We're fucking doomed.
suek, you make noises about seeing the whole picture here, and yet you cannot seem to dislodge from what is actually the central issue: the "I became what I beheld" problem.
I saw the Agitator article today as well, and had to chime in.
As Chris Floyd so eloquently said back when the current Administration first articulated its "anyone, anywhere, any time, for any reason" policy:
The state can murder whom it pleases. This is the system we have. This is what you support when you support Barack Obama. You cannot escape this logic, this judgment. If you support Obama now, in this, then there is no crime he can commit that you will not support.
You just keep telling yourself that others are the enemy, if it makes you feel better.
Ok...so help me understand.
As I see it, the guy is a declared enemy of the US. Obama is CIC and the one job I grant him is the defense of the US. I see this as an action that _is_ in defense of the US. What justifies calling the killing of an enemy "murder"?
What action would you want him to take?
Maybe we should start at the beginning...
Do you agree that we are at war with islamic terrorists? Or do you think we should pull all troops out of the ME?
My assumption is that we are actually at war, and what's his name is an enemy combatant without a uniform.
Ahem.
"Quisling" is unnecessarily abusive language. Feel free to disagree all you want here, but if there's any namecalling I'll start it. And at least have the decency to use your name or handle if you're gonna pick a fight.
Suek, I don't know who "we" are. The government claims to be at war with terrorists - I don't recall that they specified only Islamic ones - but the way they're prosecuting that "war" looks pretty damned peculiar to me.
Now, I don't know anything about this guy Balko's talking about, beyond what I read on Wikipedia. Maybe he's a bad, bad man. But as far as I know all he's done is talk - just like me, and I'd rather not be on a CIA kill list. As it is, the Constitution - which I believe the president takes an oath to preserve and protect - specifies a heavy penalty for treason but offers no alternative to due process. So they can catch this guy, try him with all due ceremony and then hang him, or they can shoot him in battle. But those are the only legitimate choices open to the government. They don't get to have it both ways - they either submit to the rule of law or they don't. The word for a government that chooses that second thing is tyranny. And that's the real subject here.
I thought quisling was a bit strong...however...
The problem is that he has apparently been involved with individuals who have been directly tied to terrorist acts. Add to that that he is presently in Yemen, theoretically training other terrorists. If Yemen doesn't assist in capturing him, catching him would in itself require invasion of another country. He can turn himself in to the US Consulate if he wants a trial. To no one's surprise, he doesn't seem to consider this a desirable option.
Let's do this another way. How about OBL...ok with you if he's on the kill list?
I'm going to assume a yes answer. If it _is_ yes, then the problem is the citizenship issue, right? I understand that...but how likely is he to abrogate his citizenship? And if he won't abrogate his citizenship, and if he won't surrender, and if we can't get Yemen to turn him over, we should just shrug our figurative shoulders and let it go?? Talk about a Catch 22...!
Post a Comment