Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obama talks about due process « previous next »
Page: 1

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« : February 06, 2013, 02:19:17 PM »

Then explains Drone usage.... http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/06/drone-strikes-waterboarding-and-moral-preening/

Contentions
Drone Strikes, Waterboarding, and Moral Preening
Peter Wehner | @Peter_Wehner   02.06.2013 - 10:50 AM

On May 29, 2009, President Obama gave a speech at the National Archives in which he said the following:
Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.

The president went on to trumpet the fact that he banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, saying, “I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Mr. Obama argued that (among other things) they undermine the rule of law. And during the 2008 campaign and shortly thereafter, Obama insisted that his policies would “regain Americaʼs moral stature in the world.” This was a common Obama theme: He would act in ways that respect international law and human rights and remove the stain from Americaʼs reputation.

I thought of all of this in light of this report by NBCʼs Michael Isikoff. Thanks to Isikoff, weʼve learned that “a confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be ʻsenior operational leadersʼ of al-Qaida or ʻan associated forceʼ even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.”

According to the memo, “The condition that an operational leader present an ʻimminentʼ 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.”

In addition, it states an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” But as Isikoff point out, the memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
You can be excused if youʼve (a) missed Mr. Obamaʼs much-heralded due process element in all of this and (b) have a hard time reconciling Mr. Obamaʼs presidents-should-not-have-blanket-authority-to-do-whatever-they-wish-lectures (see the National Archives speech for more) with his Justice Departmentʼs expansive executive powers memo.
So what do you think Senator Barack Obama would have said if President George W. Bush had pursued these policies? And how do you think the press and the political class would have reacted?

Let me suggest as well that a man who feels wholly at ease with drone strikes that have killed American citizens suspected of engaging in terrorist activities without the benefit of a trial and which have, in the process, killed hundreds of innocent people should be a tad bit more careful when it comes to lecturing about the immorality of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). Joe Scarborough, for example, argued that what Bush did with EITs is “childʼs play” compared to what Obama has done.

To put things in a slightly different way: During the 2008 campaign and much of the early part of his presidency, Barack Obama obsessively argued that waterboarding all of three individuals–September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al-Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri–was a violation of human rights and a grave moral offense. Hereʼs the thing, though: unlike Mr. Obamaʼs drone strikes, no American citizens, no terrorists and no innocent children have died due to waterboarding. Yet the presidentʼs press spokesman is defending Mr. Obamaʼs policies as “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise.”

Which leads me to two conclusions. The first is that itʼs not always easy to navigate the murky waters of law, morality, and war and terrorism, at least when youʼre in the White House and have an obligation to protect the country from massive harm. (After they were revealed, I had several long conversations with White House colleagues trying to sort through the morality of waterboarding and indefinite detention.)

The second is that it is true that there is a serious argument to be made that during wartime targeting terrorists, including Americans, with drones is justified. But that justification probably best not come from someone who has spent much of the last half-dozen years or so sermonizing against waterboarding, accusing those who approved such policies of trashing American ideals and shredding our civil liberties, and portraying himself as pure as the new-driven snow. Because any person who did so would be vulnerable to the charge of moral preening and moral hypocrisy.

Pretty clear it all depends upon who is in the chair....

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #1 : February 06, 2013, 03:45:27 PM »


 " So what do you think Senator Barack Obama would have said if President George W. Bush had pursued these policies? And how do you think the press and the political class would have reacted? "


Yeah, but Bush wasn't hopey or changey.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17020
Online
« #2 : February 06, 2013, 08:36:18 PM »

So it's now ok to kill americans without due process also.


What was Comrade Black Hole telling us about the constitution being our "real protection" again  ?

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7035
Offline
« #3 : February 06, 2013, 10:42:23 PM »

All this demonstrates is that it is easier to be critical and sanctimonious when you don't actually have to make the decisions.

Personally I don't have a problem with killing terrorists no matter what nationality they are. I do find it really funny seeing die hard liberals like Toure rolling out the arguments he used to laugh at when they were used for Guantanamo, and I do find it funny that the likes of SE Cupp have found a new found outrage about killing people in foreign lands when they were fervently against reading rights under Bush. Now it is slightly different I admit, Afghan citizens (for example) v US Citizens. but as far as I am concerned if you are a bad guy, and there are set limitations and guidelines, it's open season no matter where you were born.

Just to clarify though, if they (US citizens) are in mainland USA, that is a different matter.
« : February 06, 2013, 10:47:04 PM spartan »

mwk

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 8
Offline
« #4 : February 07, 2013, 12:59:40 PM »

All this demonstrates is that it is easier to be critical and sanctimonious when you don't actually have to make the decisions.

Personally I don't have a problem with killing terrorists no matter what nationality they are. I do find it really funny seeing die hard liberals like Toure rolling out the arguments he used to laugh at when they were used for Guantanamo, and I do find it funny that the likes of SE Cupp have found a new found outrage about killing people in foreign lands when they were fervently against reading rights under Bush. Now it is slightly different I admit, Afghan citizens (for example) v US Citizens. but as far as I am concerned if you are a bad guy, and there are set limitations and guidelines, it's open season no matter where you were born.

Just to clarify though, if they (US citizens) are in mainland USA, that is a different matter.

Exactly Spartan, that is one of the problems with this policy. Without due process, the President can pretty much kill anyone he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. If he says so and so was a threat, who is to say that the now dead American was not what the Government says they were?

mwk

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #5 : February 07, 2013, 03:15:54 PM »

All this demonstrates is that it is easier to be critical and sanctimonious when you don't actually have to make the decisions.

Personally I don't have a problem with killing terrorists no matter what nationality they are. I do find it really funny seeing die hard liberals like Toure rolling out the arguments he used to laugh at when they were used for Guantanamo, and I do find it funny that the likes of SE Cupp have found a new found outrage about killing people in foreign lands when they were fervently against reading rights under Bush. Now it is slightly different I admit, Afghan citizens (for example) v US Citizens. but as far as I am concerned if you are a bad guy, and there are set limitations and guidelines, it's open season no matter where you were born.

Just to clarify though, if they (US citizens) are in mainland USA, that is a different matter.


The problem is allowing one person (Obama) or group (BHO's Cabinet) to be judge jury and executioner.

This is somewhat hyperbolic but suppose:

BHO hates Rush Limbaugh because of his constant criticism. Limbaugh plans a trip out of country. Obama's Security adviser says "we can FIND evidence that Limbaugh is collaborating with bad guys" BHO says "do it" and they "find" evidence. Limbaugh is killed and Obama says "we had indisputable evidence he was a bad guy. Of course the evidence is classified Top Secret so I can't show it to you but it doesn't matter cause he was out of the country anyway."


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46187
Offline
« #6 : February 07, 2013, 05:59:14 PM »

I don't believe indisputable evidence he was a bad guy is required JG?

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
  Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obama talks about due process « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools