Obama and Civil Liberties

by Andrew Kaczynski

A Justice Department memo that surfaced this week providing legal justification for the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes against American citizens suspected of plotting terrorist attacks stands in stark contrast with the platform Barack Obama ran on in 2008 — and the civil liberties he championed as a young, liberal state senator in Illinois.

The memo, which was first reported by NBC News, argues that the U.S. government can legally use drone strikes to kill American citizens without due process if they are determined to be high-ranking al-Qaeda officials who show “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

“I can just say that this president takes his responsibilities very seriously, and first and foremost, that’s his responsibility, to protect the United States and American citizens,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday, defending the drone policy. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise. The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al-Qaeda terrorist, to ensure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life.”

But for a politician who made his name in the state Senate by fiercely advocating reforms to the justice system — including mandatory recordings of all police interrogations and confessions in capital murder cases — and later decried the Patriot Act as an assault to civil liberties, Obama’s defense of such drone attacks represents a remarkable departure from principles he championed not long ago.

Read “On Civil Liberties, a Tale of Two Obamas.”

BB

First mistake, assuming he has principles – other than Alynskiite ends justify the means
Franklin

A couple of barrages here, one for the slimy pols and the other for the sheepish writers:

(1) “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise,” says the despicable sycophant Jay Carney lapping his boss’ empty suit.

Yes, they are ethical as long as the collateral damage ain’t Jay, his wife or his two kids. But some foreign shopkeeper selling fabrics, or poverty-wrenched children playing with tattered dolls or homemade balls, well, they can be damned. Oh, hold on. I think they were children playing. I can’t really tell since the flesh is scattered about like pizza cheese that slid off the slice.

(2) “Obama’s defense of such drone attacks represents a remarkable departure from principles he championed not long ago,” writes buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski.

Oh, thanks, Andy. Your passion is overwhelming. I can get about the same pursed-lip “tsk, tsk, tsk” from the NPR crowd. Quite a “remarkable departure.” Ah, yes, quite. By George, it’s just remarkable. Hmm, indubitably. Where’s Stan and Ollie when you need them?

Remarkable, my eye! What is it with the journalistic right, who don’t have the cojones to let fly the outrage and the horrified repugnance. Innocent people are DEAD! Do you get it?! Maimed! Burned alive! Is that a “remarkable” enough “departure” for you?! And this White House scum, including the zombie, enslaved followers who are just as revolting, shrug shoulders and rationalize their evil. To call them hypocrites is kindly and meek. They are beneath contempt.
But “remarkable departure” is the acceptable banter, so we can clink glasses at the Old Ebbit Grill like true gentleman and ladies, intellectually stimulated for debating this in high brow fashion, sophisticated, while ordering their Kobe beef, remarkably prepared, medium rare, with the exterior nicely charred.
Like the bodies.
Anonymous

The web site of my local newspaper, The Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ), conducted an on-line poll on February 7 that asked the following question.

Do you support the use of drone attacks to kill U.S. citizens suspected of planning a terrorist attack?

Yes, they are engaged in war agaist this nation. 58.47%

No, as citizens they are entitled to due process. 35.30%

Hard to say. 6.23%

I answered “no”, and was I surprised when the results popped up. (Note: the above numbers are the numbers at the time I answered the poll.)
Anonymous

no matter how benevolently he may want to rule above all he intends to rule
Franklin

Yes, precisely.
And this is the response to the quibbling, evil, war mongers, who imply that it all serves ‘em right(!) if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time: Remember that, if your mother’s or your child’s limbs, teeth, scalp, intestines, eyeballs, ears, and bowels are dispersed and distributed over the landscape.

The NY Times crowd would respond with faux sophistication, “Oh, that kind of melodramatic offensiveness is not acceptable in a civilized forum for debate.”

But why should I be surprised? When the anti-nullification crowds (yes, I throw them all in the same bucket) of generations past watched the enemy du-jour tortured, they responded with a shoulder shrug — war is hell and it’s the law of the land, as long as those corpses weren’t in the family. So many wonderful memories from which to choose — Japanese rounded up, Cambodians mowed down by the millions, Jews gassed, Armenians murdered, Bosnian, Irish, Hindu….. Well, I must stop, there’s not enough room to continue with the next several hundred ethnicities.
And besides, it would be too much melodramatic offensiveness.