Some Liberals can be soooooo pathetic

Started Feb 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 43,615Gear list
Like?
Some Liberals can be soooooo pathetic
Feb 9, 2013

Here is Mr. Obama taking the ideas of Mr. Bush and running with them. And all of a sudden these violations of the Constitution are good and proper, whereas when they were done by Mr. Bush, they were the beginnings of a Police State.

Mr. Bush declared that he had the RIGHT to suspend Habeaus Corpus on his own. But to the credit of Mr. Bush he abandoned this premise. Mr. Obama has no only not abandoned the right to suspend Habeaus Corpus, but he now claims the right to actually KILL any American anytime he wants to without any Judicial Intervention.

I quote from an excerpt from an essay on this above subject. The link follows...

When liberals ignore injustice

Why isn't there more outrage about the president's unilateral targeted assassination program on the left?

Last year Brown University’s Michael Tesler released a fascinating study showing that Americans inclined to racially blinkered views wound up opposing policies they would otherwise support, once they learned those policies were endorsed by President Obama. Their prejudice extended to the breed of the president’s dog, Bo: They were much more likely to say they liked Portuguese water dogs when told Ted Kennedy owned one than when they learned Obama did.
But Tesler found that the Obama effect worked the opposite way, too: African-Americans and white liberals who supported Obama became more likely to support policies once they learned the president did…

"…Those ugly parentheses are made necessary by Michael Isikoff’s exclusive report on the Obama administration “white paper” that justifies its unprecedented claim to the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process on foreign soil. The New York Times and the ACLU had sued to get the administration to release the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion in the case of the targeted assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki by drone strike in Yemen last year. The administration fought that effort, but Isikoff was leaked a summary, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” It lays out a legal rationale far beyond anything the administration has claimed before.

Specifically, where Attorney General Eric Holder insisted such attacks would only be used to deter “imminent threat of violent attack,” similar to the rights police officers have to kill a suspect in a hostage situation or impending terror attack, the white paper clarifies what that means – or rather obfuscates – in chilling language:

The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.

So: the president doesn’t need “clear evidence” of a “specific attack” planned for “the immediate future.” How about little or no evidence of some vaguely debated attack at some point some day?
And while joining up with al-Qaida might be evidence that an American means his or her country grave harm, what about hooking up with “associated force”? The memo doesn’t define it. And it doesn’t restrict the power to make these judgments to the commander in chief either; it’s enough that an “informed, high-level official” deem the suspect an “operational leader” who presents the danger of an unspecified “imminent threat” – some day…

"…Opponents of Obama’s targeted assassination program have tried to galvanize some public outrage by pointing not to the killing of the senior al-Awlaki, who went public many times with his fealty to al-Qaida and his desire to see the U.S. attacked, but of his 16-year-old son, Abduhrahman, who was killed in a separate targeted strike two weeks later. We don’t know anything about the evidence against the younger al-Awlaki, and liberals who care about the rights of the accused, especially the minor accused, should be expected to care maybe a little bit more about the 16-year-old. Except many don’t. Most famously, when former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs was confronted by a reporter who questioned “an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial … And, he’s underage. He’s a minor,” he replied:

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
Liberals...

The rest of this essay make for fascinating reading.

As does an essay by Glenn Greenwald on he same subject.
Glenn Greenwald

My primary criteria in judging someones politics is whether they adhere to protecting the US Constitution. Neither Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama seemed to actually care much about their oath of office, although Mr. Bush, to his credit, was prepared to let the Courts make the final determination, whereas Mr. Obama claims the Courts have no business interfering with his decisions.

There are many members of the Left, including some Liberals, as well as Middle of the Road citizens, and even some Conservatives, who opposed BOTH Mr. Bush AND Mr. Obama.

I salute all of them as Americans!

Dave

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow