Revealed! Obama's actual "death panel"
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Revealed! Obama's actual "death panel"
Obama really does have a "death panel", and the New York Times has found it:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.
The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.
To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the approval of the National Security Council, required no judicial review.
Today, Anwar-al-Awlaki.
Tomorrow, Granny.
Signing off on this will be Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Well, maybe not Granny. But who knows?
Comments (98)
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
Kill the terrorists, foreign or domestic. Stop this chidish discussion about US citizen or not. They don't make a distinction. And why argue with the sloth. It is like yelling into an empty bucket. Why encourage the moron.— georgel
i'm with lefty , just of the wanker, everybody can bleat about it for a week until the next outrage, meanwhile we are another islamic nutter less in the world which can only be a good thing. BTW great job Flyers hell of a comeback.— PAEnglish
Wow— RG- What's the problem? Whack the ba**t**d!— lefty
- ---}}} TPS -- I believe that the POLITICIAN's outrage was fake, and certainly few of them had the right to take a moral stand. The country's outrage, however was quite real. {{{--- Please note, Iggs, that Clinton's job approval ratings rose during the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment proceeding. The "outrage" was among a relatively few, most of whom were either seeking to gain political advantage or who were driven by partisan zeal.— Talking point sleuth
"He was never indicted for perjury, let alone convicted." TPS I would say that statement is shading the truth to a degree (appropriate when discussing Billy I guess). Clinton entered into an agreement with Arkansas (where the perjury occurred) to pay a fine and have his law license suspended for 3 years(??) his ability to practice before Supreme Court was also suspended for a period of time. The agreement was in exchange for the special prosecutor not bringing a federal perjury indictment.— bird11- ---}}} He lied under oath, and his purjury was demonstrated. {{{--- He lied about getting a bj. Hardly a matter of real consequence. He was never indicted for perjury, let alone convicted. He wasn't charged nor convicted because a perjury charge would not have stood up in court. What he did doesn't meet the legal definition of perjury for a number of reasons. You won't find me defending most of Clinton's policies, nor will I defend his lying - Clinton is as smarmy as they come; but you also won't find me worried about the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandal. Past presidents, and no doubt Clinton himself, have lied about matters of much greater consequence. And blaming Bush's executive-branch power grab on Clinton's "precedent" of lying about his sexual activities is beyond hilarious. Keep this up and you will be nominated for a spot in the Attytood Hall of Fame of Hilarity.— Talking point sleuth
- Wah, wah, wah- the messiah whines.........."Employing an "oh, poor me," theme on the economic situation, President Barack Obama came to Virginia recently and railed against the poor economic years under former President George W. Bush.......................... The Department of Labor's employment statistics tell a different story: --In Dec. 2000, the U.S. civilian labor force was 141 million and the number employed was 136 million. --In Dec. 2001, that labor force was 142 million and the number employed was 134 million. The Clinton recession was official as of March 2001 and the terrorist attack was Sept. 11, 2001..................... --In Dec. 2008, the labor force was 154 million and 145 million were employed. Obama, Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker, and Lawrence Summers all rolled into one with Alan Greenspan thrown in as window dressing cannot predict economic conditions years downstream. Between Dec. 2000 and Dec. 2008, 12.5 million were added to the civilian labor force -- of which 95 percent found employment. Not a shabby performance......................... The hiring of 10 million more people in eight years meant business was expanding. Since Obama contends that former President George W. Bush failed to use the government spending as a vehicle propelling job increases, perhaps he can explain how and why, according to the Department of Labor, employment increased by 10 million in the last eight years without massive government stimulus. D.E. Mosman.— Manny Trillo
- "LETS GO FLYERS!!!!!" Agreed, I want to see history made.— RG
- RG - mind if I start referring to you as Peter Tosh?? I definitely agree with the "legalize it" mindset myself. As to the innocent lives put at danger by drones I see the situation more like a Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge scenario than a drug drive by. I would want our government to be prudent in any action and to assess the need to apprehend/kill someone vs the potential loss of innocent lives. You'd also help that mistakes are kept to a minimum. Obviously these things didn't occur at Ruby Ridge but I put the moral blame more on Weaver because he ultimately had the power to protect his family by surrendering. IMHO the terrorist we are tracking have no concern for the loss of innocent life and might actually be happy to produce martyrs for the cause. (I aplogize in advance for the Ruby Ridge analogy - probably not the best worded analogy but I think you will get my point) LETS GO FLYERS!!!!!— bird11
- TPS - again the finer distinctions elude you so I am not sure why I bother. Of course Clinton was not the only President who lied. He lied under oath, and his purjury was demonstrated. That is criminal, and many people we all know have spent years in jail on that charge alone. And Montani, besides the fact it was the passage of Medicare that helped propel us on this road of increasing medical costs, what part of Medicare do you find so comforting?— Mirror
- Comment removed.
- "where gangs and drug wars put children playing at the same risk." And thats equally awful. But on side of the coin, the US gov't is doing the killing, on the other, drug pushers. I am a "legalize it" person, as I do think that prohibiting it, pushes the activity underground and actually increases its danger. However, that does not justify the rampant drug related violence we see.— RG
- "To appeal to emotion, imagine if it was your child playign in that area?"... RG, if you think about it we have the same situation in many of our larger cities where gangs and drug wars put children playing at the same risk.— bird11
- "If I was an ordinary citizen of Pakistan minding my own business," To appeal to emotion, imagine if it was your child playign in that area?— RG
- TPS -- I believe that the POLITICIAN's outrage was fake, and certainly few of them had the right to take a moral stand. The country's outrage, however was quite real. On this issue, the ability to kill an American citizen in another country is quite troubling, and your point about the "fire and forget" style of using the unmanned aircraft is also something we as a country really need to think about. As we've learned, there is hardly anything "surgical" about a missile or a bomb, and our enemies are hiding themselves in civilian areas. If I was an ordinary citizen of Pakistan minding my own business, I'd be highly upset if I was suddenly part of a drone missile attack because someone thought that there was a leader from Al Queda or the Taliban nearby...— IggleFan68
"but as I have said before, anyone with any passing familiarity with bureaucracy, especially the federal government knows that is where this will end up." . . . . . Yeah. It's called Medicare. The horror.- ---}}} TPS - I am glad you think Clinton's lie under oath it funny. {{{--- What I think is funny, Mirror, is your notion that Clinton's impeachment wasn't about political expediency on the part of Republican politicians, based on faux and hypocritical "outrage" about Clinton's sexual morality. But even funnier than that, despite a long history of American presidents lying and deceiving, you think that Clinton's lying set a "precedent" which somehow explains Bush's executive over-reach in violating existing legal restrictions on his powers, and Obama's recent policy positions. In fact, take next week off also. That post fulfilled your two-week quota.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS - I am glad you think Clinton's lie under oath it funny. And I am glad Will thinks Obama's order is funny, especially the insinuation about the death panels. No, there is no language about death panels in the bill; but as I have said before, anyone with any passing familiarity with bureaucracy, especially the federal government knows that is where this will end up. Yes, all very funny— Mirror
- You see, Plebby and his ilk are ACTUALLY the ones who hate America and Americans. They despise anyone religious, anyone who doesn't think the way they do. They hate cops, the military, guns, and anyone who rises to a position of power who they think are "beneath" them, since they are clearly the intellectual elite. Thus, the outrage and hatred of Sarah Palin, who libby loons consider the dumbest person on the face of the planet, and in doing so, add hypocrisy to the list of character faults they display on a daily basis. Here's a secret none of them know -- if the country ever turned majority liberal, it wouldn't be around long enough for any of them to enjoy. Throughout history, strong conservatives and strong men of conviction have guided this country to it's greatness, which can only be done as long as the country remains conservative-centric. Liberals are good to have around as a minority group -- they force debate on issues that need to be talked about, and move the country forward in areas that would otherwise be ignored (environmentally, etc).— IggleFan68
- "Expanding executive power didn't start 8 years ago." . . . . . Nor did terrorism, RG.
- ---}}} And I still don't see where you are finding the outrage. {{{--- You called it dangerous, and a violation of the constitution. You also called it more dangerous than other policies you found "almost outrageous." That's some serious hair-splitting, Mirror. As it turns out, however, we seem to be somewhat in agreement on this policy (although I find the drone policy a problem with non-citizens also because there is no solid accountability or oversight), as apparently we were on Bush's policy of violating standing FISA law to conduct wiretaps without warrants. My accusation of hypocrisy is hereby rescinded. That said, your connecting Obama's "GWOT" policy to the charade of Clinton's impeachment fulfills your hilarity quota for the week.— Talking point sleuth
- "Yeah, because it's not as if the last 8 years of trashing the Bill of Rights had anything to do with laying the groundwork." Expanding executive power didn't start 8 years ago.— RG
- "I simply recognize that his order has the potential for far more dangerous abuse than anything else in the last 40 years." . . . . . Yeah, because it's not as if the last 8 years of trashing the Bill of Rights had anything to do with laying the groundwork.
- Mirror, TPS doesnt need a reason he just likes to be outraged about everything. If theres no real reason he just makes one up, nobody pays any attention to him he's this blogs old uncle, you know the one , slightly deaf, incontinent, and mad as a bucket of frogs.— PAEnglish
- TPS - you may be surprised, but I was not in favor of Bush's approach to wiretaps against American citizens. And I still don't see where you are finding the outrage. In this particular act, I believe that Obama is on the right track in taking a harder line against terrorism. But once taken, to simply order the death of a US citizen without due process leads down the most dangerous road of all. Suppose tomorrow he wakes up and decides to listen to those who say that "those right wing radio guys" are dangerous to the country because "they are stirring up anti-american hatred" and orders their covert execution. It is a smaller step than you think. And in my opinion, the real precedent was set by Clinton. He was not impeached for untoward dalliances. He was impeached for lying under oath, and without consequence, distorting the rule of law.— Mirror
- Oi inky what happened to my nuke the region post ? , seriously WTF ?— PAEnglish
- "Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long. "I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas whether Holder has read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.......When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law." .....is Holder deciding Constitutional issues based on what he reads in Attytood????— bird11
- On a serious note, This Alwaki dude is he a citizen by birth or was he naturalilzed?. If he was naturalized he can lose his citizenship pretty damn easily. Any felony conviction means bye bye to the blue passport, he is clearly guilty of treason so take his citizenship away then will doesnt have to be shocked when we off him.— PAEnglish
- "There's just some things the government needs to do that we should not know about." . . . . If you believe that, then consider yourself a casualty of the enemy.
- Hypocritical? I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy. Hilarious? I'd say it's pretty funny - but doesn't quite reach the level of hilarity commonly attained by the typical post of an Attytood "conservative."— Talking point sleuth
- This is just another example of the absurdity of waging a "war" on terror. You can't define the enemy, the battleground, or even the criteria for victory. Haven't the terrorists, then, already won?
- There's just some things the government needs to do that we should not know about. Do we REALLY know everything about WWI and WWII and should we. And I'm what most of you who comment on here would call a card carrying liberal. Go figure.— Donnadpg
- A question for ya' TPS, just wondering what score mmaz24's post at 1209 gets on your hypocritical and hilarious scales?? I'll remind you of the best parts "I feel sorry for Obama......I can only imagine what other practices Bush 2 has left behind. War Criminal may be too light of a description."— bird11
- A question for ya' Mirror. What did you think of the Bush administration using the GWOT to justify an end-run around the standing requirement that intelligence agencies acquire warrants before conducting wire taps of American citizens? What was your feeling about the NY Times breaking that story?— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} I am not outraged by this action by Obama and nothing in my tone suggests outrage. {{{--- Heh! --snip-- this action by Obama is the most dangerous of anything in this administration. This kind of thing is exactly why the Constitution was written - no matter who is President. --snip-- OK. Dangerous and in violation of the constitution. Even more dangerous than healthcare, the bailouts and the budget, - all of which almost cause "outrage," but no "outrage" there with something that is even more dangerous than those policies. No "outrage" there. nosireebub. You boyz are hilarious. Tons o' laughs with each and every post.— Talking point sleuth
- What scares mw is what we don't know what other things are going on. Since Bush 2 set-up his own goverment and constitution what other things may be going on from that? I feel sorry for Obama for having to walk into that mess. Maybe it takes time to get a real feel for what is happening and dig out the facts. I can only imagine what other practices Bush 2 has left behind. War Criminal may be too light of a description.— mmaz24
- Umm, I will admit to being a defender of Bush's decisions regarding the war in Iraq, Guantanamo, DHS as far as removing barriers to access of information by different agencies, and treatment of terrorists. I do not support many elements of the Patriot Act, as well as the over-use of the national security exemption for documents. As far as outraged, I am generally an even-tempered guy, but I am close to outraged by what happened with Healthcare, the bailouts, and the budget. I am not outraged by this action by Obama and nothing in my tone suggests outrage. I simply recognize that his order has the potential for far more dangerous abuse than anything else in the last 40 years. And a note to RG - I have no problem revoking citizenship, even in abstentia, as long as due process was honored to get there.— Mirror
- "Mirror was a staunch defender of Bush's GWOT policies. Book it." That doesn't make him a hypocrite. Read his argument, he's saying civilians are entitled to due process. If he argued otherwise, you'd have a point, but the burden of proof is on you when name calling.— RG
- Calling all Bush protestors- Calling all Bush protestors!!!!! Where did you go? Gitmo- open- Iraq- on going- Afghan- on going- Drones- still killing- CIA targeting a US citizen- NEW- Wiretapping- on going- Liberals hypocritical- NOT NEW.— Manny Trillo
- ---}}} You are aware that Mirror is only hypocritical if you can show he took a different stance when Bush was prez? {{{--- Notice I didn't call you a hypocrite (at least on this issue), RG? Have no fear, Mirror was a staunch defender of Bush's GWOT policies. Book it.— Talking point sleuth
- "Nancy Salas was idolized and adored by family and friends as a successful student about to graduate from the University of California, Los Angeles. They didn't know she hadn't been enrolled since 2008. Police say it was pressure from family and friends that prompted her disappearance and her claim that she'd been abducted at knifepoint. "It's a tragic story," Glendale police Sgt. Tom Lorenz said. "She didn't know how to handle it and she fled." Salas was reunited with her family in Glendale late Thursday, nearly two days after she went missing, prompting a massive search. She was last seen around 6:30 a.m. Wednesday after telling her family she was going on her usual run. As the search progressed, investigators discovered that she had misled her parents by telling them she was attending UCLA. The university reported that the fourth-year student and sociology major was last enrolled in fall 2008. Salas turned up in a carpet store in Merced in central California on Thursday morning, Lorenz said. She told police she'd been abducted by a man at knifepoint during her run and was taken to Merced by bus and train, he said." Obviously she didn't say a Black man did it or this would be bigger news.— bird11
- "Mirror's hypocrisy is, indeed, plenty laughable." You are aware that Mirror is only hypocritical if you can show he took a different stance when Bush was prez? Just saying he is, doesn't make it so.— RG
- Heh! Sorry, birdie. I guess you're right. Mirror is the only Attytood "conservative" who has voiced outrage so far in this thread. As for the accusations of treason for criticism of Bush for similar policies, it happened in virtually every thread back in the day. Still, while he may be the only one, Mirror's hypocrisy is, indeed, plenty laughable.— Talking point sleuth
- ""That said, it is laughable to see conservatives "outraged" about Obama's actions here when they accused anyone who criticized Bush for similar policies as being treasonous." OK, now I understand TPS - Mirror is multiple people that is why you used the plurals "conservatives" and "they"...gee I thought only Glen Beck spoke for all of us.— bird11
- ---}}} before you resort to name calling. {{{--- Where did I do any "name calling." I only laughed at the selective "outrage" of one of our beloved Attytood "conservatives." Don't tell me that you thought I was calling you a chicken? Too funny.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} So no one is outraged? Is that your answer? {{{--- Huh? You asked who was outraged, and I posted a quote from Mirror. I know you're easily confused, birdie, but I thought that even you would be able to figure that out.— Talking point sleuth
- How come the focus is not on Osama Bin Laden? Whatever happened to that fiasco.."we will follow him to the end of the earth"..yea right...starting to think we are bowing down to his family for obvious reasons— Barryboy
- "So no one is outraged?" I'm always outraged, its my default setting. However, since I'm a libertarian extremist, I don't think I count.— RG
- "Because the WOT is unwinnable by any military definition of winning. We are doing exclty what they wanted us to. Occupying countries, alienating allies, spending massive financial and physical resources, curtailing civil liberties." RG, you just posted something with which I am in 100 percent agreement... so thanks for nothing. Life was so much easier when I could view our frequent conflicts in simple black and white terms.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- So no one is outraged? Is that your answer? We should have been outraged when Bush did it and we aren't outraged when Obama does it. How exactly does is that laughable? Did you get a good night sleep last night, TPS? Usually you do a much better job defending your absurd comments before you resort to name calling.— bird11
- ---}}} TPS who is outraged? {{{--- --snip-- a real conservative recognizes that this action by Obama is the most dangerous of anything in this administration. --snip-- No one here but us chickens, right birdie?— Talking point sleuth
- "That said, it is laughable to see conservatives "outraged" about Obama's actions here when they accused anyone who criticized Bush for similar policies as being treasonous." TPS who is outraged? A few sarcastic comments mostly wondering why we haven't initiated Truth Commission hearings but little if any outrage. I for one just hope that the CIA was clear what they were doing when then briefed Speaker Pelosi - maybe this time they used small words.— bird11
- "I have no enemies, everybody loves me!!" Can we put you in charge of foreign policy?— RG
- ---}}} The bill would expand the revocation law to anyone who provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the secretary of state. It also would apply to anyone who engages in, or supports, hostilities against the U.S. or its allies. {{{--- Disturbingly vague and open to interpretation. Already, there is a major problem in how decisions are made to target non-citizens for drone attacks. There is a lack of oversight and a lack of clear protocol. No doubt, us drones have and will continue to be used to settle domestic disputes between Afghans and Pakistanis (by virtue of manipulated intelligence). With this policy, the same can happen here domestically. There needs to be a clear system of oversight here - just as there should be with domestic wiretapping. That said, it is laughable to see conservatives "outraged" about Obama's actions here when they accused anyone who criticized Bush for similar policies as being treasonous.— Talking point sleuth
- " A good question to ask is: would you want your worst political enemy to ever wield this power?"...RG I have no enemies, everybody loves me!!— bird11
- Thanks bird. Sounds sensible on the surface, but like anything else its ripe for abuse. A good question to ask is: would you want your worst political enemy to ever wield this power?— RG
- So Will, are you saying the Pres should be brought up on charges for authorizing the killing of an American citizen? I doubt he was read his merenda rights. I hope he is not aerating villages like he accused our troops of doing under President Bush.— Bush3
- @RG " Americans working for foreign terrorist organizations and lone wolf terrorists could lose their citizenship under bipartisan legislation introduced Thursday in both houses of Congress. The proposal is a reaction to Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad, a native of Pakistan who became a U.S. citizen a year ago. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the proposal "sounds like a good idea," but the State Department urged that legislation only apply to those convicted of crimes. U.S. law identifies seven categories of acts that could result in loss of citizenship. They include serving in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with the United States, renouncing nationality when the United States is at war, and treason. Sponsors said the law needs to be updated to combat terrorism. The bill would expand the revocation law to anyone who provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the secretary of state. It also would apply to anyone who engages in, or supports, hostilities against the U.S. or its allies. As in current law, the State Department would make a determination that an individual has lost his or her U.S. nationality. The target of the action could seek a State Department review and also challenge the decision in U.S. district court. "I like the spirit of it," Pelosi told reporters."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "Citizenship means something!" Here's a question: Can they revoke his citizenship in absentia?— RG
- No, e-plebe, a real conservative recognizes that this action by Obama is the most dangerous of anything in this administration. This kind of thing is exactly why the Constitution was written - no matter who is President. Knee-jerk liberalism, for all of its reported "subtlety" in policy distinctions, usually don't have the ability to see finer distinctions. Citizenship means something! Treatment of illegal aliens, terrorists, foreign combatants is not the same thing as due process for a US citizen under the US Constitution.— Mirror
- War criminal, war criminal!!!!!! Murderer, killer- ARREST OBAMA- where is "Code pink" when you need them?— Manny Trillo
Is this who you voted for E.Plebnista? Are you that gullible?- "This is exactly what the marginalized minority believes - that the government should have the right to kill whoever it wants whenever it wants and face no review of any kind for its actions." Ummm, this is what the CiC and his admin believes. Unfortunately, they're not very "marginalized".— RG
- E.Plebnista - do you even bother to read what people have posted before you go on your rants?— bird11
- This is exactly what the marginalized minority believes - that the government should have the right to kill whoever it wants whenever it wants and face no review of any kind for its actions. This is your "unitary executive" at work. The only problem the Hate Americans Firsters have with this is that they didn't vote for the guy in charge. Pathetic and mendacious - the defining characteristics of today's faux conservatives.— E.Plebnista
- "I have to admit I have often wondered why we don't just adopt a complete isolationist policy." Militarily, I'd be fine with that. Economically, free trade helps boost economies. "just remove our troops from everywhere and sit back and play defense?" Yes. China and Russia combined couldn't take over this country. AQ is only a threat to our way of life if we allow them to be.— RG
- " Because the WOT is unwinnable by any military definition of winning."...so what is your suggestion? just remove our troops from everywhere and sit back and play defense? And I am not saying that sarcastically. I have to admit I have often wondered why we don't just adopt a complete isolationist policy.— bird11
- When will the liberals join the conservatives and throw off the stench of this horrendous president? He tells nothing but lies and half truths.
- "Like it or not al Queda's decentralization just makes the WOT even harder." Because the WOT is unwinnable by any military definition of winning. We are doing exclty what they wanted us to. Occupying countries, alienating allies, spending massive financial and physical resources, curtailing civil liberties.— RG
- "The Taliban's out of power and al queda's been decentralized. Time to leave.".. time to leave where? The guy we are talking about is in Yeman - we aren't even officially there. Like it or not al Queda's decentralization just makes the WOT even harder.— bird11
- If Anwar is not a terrorist, and is innocent, surely he has heard that he is now targeted by drones, why not turn himself in so that he doesnt get killed, if he is in fact not a terrorist? I dont see how this is that much different than targeting a foriegner in the same matter. How do we know some poor guy living in a cave is actually a terrorist, we dont but, reports give us strong information to that end, and we act on it. Its not as if we are sending a drone to this guys house in Ardmore or something, he is overseas, has some shaddy history, and obviously doesnt want to be found by the government. I am not saying thats its okay to execute him, but he's obviously guilty of something, hiding with suspected terrorists can do him no good, unless he is one of them.— Greg S
- Bunch guarantees the highest number of posts daily by continually taking positions contrary to his readers. The posts are usually more amusing and insightful than the author.— abnrgr
- "RG - probably is, but what would you like me to say?" The Taliban's out of power and al queda's been decentralized. Time to leave.— RG
- RG - probably is, but what would you like me to say? Trust me if I could figure out a way to fight war without collateral death or mistakes I'd be sitting outside the Pentagon waiting to tell the Joint Chiefs. Actually, I remember a Star Trek like that but it didn't work out well.— bird11
- Bird, it should never be a political issue, but especially it shouldnt be a poltical issue - depending on who is or isnt in the White House.— tr88
- "will be collateral damage to civilians which is unfortunate." I think this is a tad bit of an understatement.— RG
- Will your strating ot sound like the batsh*t crazy republican new makers. Lets keep this real and above all truthful.— Atlas
- @tr88 "Funny, I dont hear liberals clamoring for that 1000th American KIA in Afghanistan around election time this year." Let's hope that those few liberals who did take joy in the death of our military now realize that their hatred for former President Bush was so over the top as to blind them to what was really important. Hopefully now that "their guy" is in charge they have gained the proper perspective that "the military" is not the enemy but a group of wonderful young men and women who sacrifice for their country.— bird11
- I should add I fully support Obama on this.— tr88
- Pretty lighthearted Will. A year ago this week youAttytood linked a bit stronger condemnation of the practice on Daily Kos. Not quite the same media enthusiasm on this one is there? Where is he great Sy Hersch on Obama? Did he retire when Bush left? http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_executive_assassination_ring— tr88
- JMC - the same question should be ask of people like myself who defended the way the Bush administration handled the WOT. I have supported and continue to support President Obama's actions in the WOT and I'm glad he has not followed through on most of the "promises" he made during his campaign. Regardless of whether we use drones or conventional forces to hunt terrorist down there will be collateral damage to civilians which is unfortunate. What should be remembered is that this damage is the result of these terrorist imbedding themselves into the civilian population - I reserve my moral outrage for the terrorist because it is their actions and decisions which have put these innocent people at risk. As to the targeting of a "American citizen" - al Awlaki is a traitor actively engaged in attempts to kill Americans on U.S. soil. If al Awlaki was on U.S. soil doing this I believe the administration would attempt to apprehend him in conventional manner but since he has choosen to wage these attacks from Yeman the drone attacks seem appropriate - far better than sending U.S. Troops into yet another country to risk their lives. Again I pray that there is no collateral loss of innocent life and feel confident that our President will take the neccessary steps to limit that loss.— bird11
- Interesting, the Inquirer didnt see fit to print this story. Like it barely ever mentions the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funny, I dont hear liberals clamoring for that 1000th American KIA in Afghanistan around election time this year.— tr88
Will seems a bit light-hearted about this issue, compared to the way he reacts to wire tapping and waterboarding. I asked this same question on Dick Polman's blog a while back, so I'll ask it again here. If Bush is a war criminal for waterboarding, what is Obama for ordering the assassination of an American citizen?— jmc- Wow, some interesting logic on display here, T Rip. We've "been losing American lives for nine years in a police action that, if it had been fought as a war, would have ended with the Senior Bush!" Are you suggesting that rolling into Baghdad in 2003 landed us with a seemingly endless occupation and state-building mission, but rolling into Baghdad in 1991 would have instantly and effortlessly created a stable Iraqi democracy? "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, 9 outta 10 times... it's an effin DUCK!!!" 9 outta 10 times? So if out of ten hypothetical American citizens who get wasted under an order like this, one of them happens to be completely innocent of terrorist activities, that's fine and dandy with you? I'm telling you, the Oath Keepers sounded paranoid to me at first, but I'm starting to believe that they have a point.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- So the US government can now order a citizen's execution so long as they determine out of court that he is a "terrorist?" Government can deprive you of your right to life without due process because they call you a "terrorist?" To hell with that, that is worse than what Great Britain did to our ancestors. The CIA is criminal and illegitimate and has just announced its intentions to murder American citizens that it deems "terrorists." For anyone who buys into the Left/Right puppetshow, please note that this death order has been sanctioned under OBAMA. Bunch, that you make fun of this proves yet again what a lousy watchdog you really are.— Jimmy Madison Jr.
- The marginalized minority believes that the government has the right to do whatever it wants - assuming that they voted for the winner. The Hate Americans Firsters are all about disagreeing with a political process that varies from their Ivory Tower political theories. Reality offends their sensibilities.— E.Plebnista
- For those who dig Tom Clancy's novels like I do: Yes, it was awesome when Clark convinced the traitor to off himself in Without Remorse, but in the real world, American citizens get due process. Period. We fought the Revolutionary War in large part to make sure that reputed smugglers couldn't have their warehouses searched without a warrant or be tried by admiralty tribunals without juries. Having won, we attached a Bill of Rights to our new Constitution that contained five out of ten Amendments having to do with the rights of the accused. (The various folks who get theirs by spouting about the First, the Second, and on occasion the Ninth and Tenth really ought to check out Four through Eight sometime.) Are we really willing to put all that aside?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
I was originally glad to hear that we were knocking off the enemy with drones, although a bit concerned about the non-enemies standing nearby that apparently were being killed along with the targets. But the more we learned, the less attractive the program became. Now we hear it is inspiring car bombers to attack us. But clearly we are in over our heads when we aim at U.S. citizens. The problem is that people seem to believe that what they see in spy movies is sensible behavior.- Disturbing. It's bad enough that there is so little oversight in the drone-targeting process with respect to non-citizens. And it is equally bad to me whether a process with poor oversight results in the targeting of non-citizens as it is of citizens. (I don't believe that the lives of non-citizens are inherently any more valuable than are the lives of citizens.) But the reason why this is disturbing is that it enlarges the scope of potential targets, and the scope of potential reasons for targeting. With no oversight, the government can simply choose to execute people for domestic political expediency. Unfortunately, Obama is no more of a liberal than I thought him to be before he was elected. One can only imagine how many more of these terrible decisions we'd be dealing with had McCain been elected.— Talking point sleuth
- Ads another item to the long and growing list of disappointments from this balls-less Republican-lite administration.
- The fourth estate is an important thing. This may just be one of those things that our government does that we are better off not knowing about.— steverawthar
- He could turn himself in to American authorities.— Falls Ed
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: