• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dick Cheney's revenge

Whitewing

Well-known member
Will the author of the Obama administration white paper on killing U.S. citizens please report for his war crimes trial right away?

If he served in the George W. Bush administration, someone would already be agitating for his extraordinary rendition to The Hague. The white paper outlines why the Obama administration believes that it can kill U.S. citizens without due process if they are senior members of Al Qaeda or an affiliate. This is not a merely theoretical legal question, as Anwar al-Awlaki found out from the business end of a Hellfire missile a few years ago in Yemen.

The left is still furious that the Bush administration waterboarded three captured terrorists in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. Yet, with a few exceptions, it has blithely accepted the Obama administration’s extrajudicial assassination policy that has killed about 1,000 times as many people.

During the Bush years, a small army of former Democratic officials, law professors, op-ed writers and bloggers blasted the Bush administration as dangerous and un-American for asserting the executive branch’s war powers in the fight against Al Qaeda, aka “trampling the Constitution.”

Barack Obama was going to be different. We had this on the highest possible authority: Barack Obama. As the junior senator from Illinois in 2007, he set out his alternative vision: “The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

In a speech as president in 2009, he said we are at war with Al Qaeda and must update our institutions to deal with it. “But,” he added, pointedly, “we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
(At this point OT felt movement in the boiler room)

The white paper outlines how that looks like in practice. If an “informed, high-level official” of the Obama administration determines that a U.S. citizen is one of the “senior operational leaders” of Al Qaeda or “an associated force” and “recently” involved in “activities” related to a violent attack against the United States, well then, he can be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Note that the high-level official has to be “informed.” This must be what Obama meant when he insisted his policies would respect “due process” and “checks and balances.” He would never allow “poorly informed” officials to decide when the U.S. government can kill a U.S. citizen. That would be outrageous.

The white paper has ignited not quite a firestorm (again, this isn’t the Bush administration), but at least a smoldering ember of brow-furrowed consternation among the president’s supporters and journalistic sympathizers who find the document “chilling.”

They rarely say what their alternative would be. Does a U.S. citizen get an exemption from targeting if he joins Al Qaeda at a high level? Should his status be litigated before he can be targeted, and if so, by whom and for how long and on the basis of what evidence? Can he show up in the court room to confront his accusers, a basic element of the Anglo-American system? Should al-Awlaki have gotten a court-appointed lawyer (assuming Gloria Allred wasn’t available) and access to all the intelligence about him so he could properly contest it? Maybe over Skype from somewhere in the badlands of Yemen?

It is self-evidently absurd. Civil libertarians lament that the argument of the white paper parallels the reasoning of the Bush administration. No kidding.

It’s not for nothing that the author of the white paper sounds like he could have worked for Dick Cheney. The Obama administration’s approach reflects the logic of the laws of war, the structure of American government and the exigencies of the fight against Al Qaeda.

It is well-established by the courts that an American citizen who is an enemy combatant can be treated as an enemy combatant. It is also well-established by the courts that it is not the role of the judiciary to interfere in the executive branch’s conduct of war. When an American citizen joins a shadowy band that is at war with America and operates in areas beyond the reach of law enforcement, he is a legitimate target for our forces.

This is not to say that the white paper is beyond reproach, or that it made sense to keep it secret for so long, but the basic point would seem obvious. Democratic partisans might be confused.They considered Bush a threat to America’s liberty because of his defense of his war powers, yet their hero stands on similar ground. How to resolve the contradiction? Easy. Conclude that they were wrong the first time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/cheneys-revenge-87291.html?ml=po_r
 

Texan

Well-known member
War crimes? I remember when there was a lot of interest in things like that. Where are these people now:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26555
 

Texan

Well-known member
Wow, some of this stuff in the archives is mind-boggling:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26422
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution.... :( :mad:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Texan said:
War crimes? I remember when there was a lot of interest in things like that. Where are these people now:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26555

:lol:

This one was a classic from that thread:

OldPreciousConstitution said:
The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

Today? Not so much.

How he can even show his face here these days is beyond me. Oh wait, he hardly shows up any longer....only for drive-by bare-handed turd throws.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Another good one. Look at the title to the thread - the guy that wrote it must have been having an Obasm:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296969
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Texan said:
Another good one. Look at the title to the thread - the guy that wrote it must have been having an Obasm:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296969


Oldtimer said:
A Chance for our country to return to the Rule of Law and the Constitution that our forefathers set up over 200 years ago and that many brave men have died defending.... :)



Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Louis D. Brandeis

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Louis D. Brandeis



snick_bunny-1.gif
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Texan said:
Another good one. Look at the title to the thread - the guy that wrote it must have been having an Obasm:

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296969

The old fool drops a gem in every thread, doesn't he:

OldINoLongerCareAboutThatPreciousConstitution said:
A Chance for our country to return to the Rule of Law and the Constitution that our forefathers set up over 200 years ago and that many brave men have died defending....

And remember, those quotes come from the guy who, when I asked if he'd have supported the King of England or the American Revolutionaries in 1775, refused to answer because there were just too many variables and unknowns. :lol:
 
Top