So, yes, upon rereading at home Wiredgeek's second link was indeed pretty much irrelevant to the notion of assassinating US citizens based on the President saying "he's a bad guy". As for the links I noted:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
"At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually
implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of
Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric
Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list."
Emphasis mine. From the New York Times article linked to in the same post:
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be
approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal
official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of
any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former
president. . . ."
So, if it's true that Bush did indeed do the same thing, at least when the story broke and I first posted it here everyone did not believe so. And once again, if he did, so what? That was seven words of my first post. How about you focus on the rest of it, and on the fact that the President of the United States claims the accountability-free right to order an American citizen to be killed without trial?
I will include here the text of the 5th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, part of that Constitution thingy that the US President's oath is to defend:
"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation."
Anwar al-Awlaki is not in the land or naval forces or in the militia, and even if he was, the United States is not at war, and it is hard to argue there is any "public danger" from a man hiding out in Yemen while the United States fires missiles at him. So it is beyond doubt that, aside from being evil, President Obama's actions are absolutely and utterly unconstitutional. And even if they weren't, who exactly is comfortable or sanguine about the idea that the President has the power to declare any American a Bad Guy and have him killed? Weren't leftists supposed to be upset that the US government imprisoned people indefinitely without trial or charge (which Obama is still doing, of course, but that's another matter)? Aren't rightists supposed to be supporters of small government and strict interpretation of the Constitution? If you're cool with the President having the power to execute any American he or she likes without trial, what power are you not comfortable with the President having?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
"At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually
implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of
Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric
Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list."
Emphasis mine. From the New York Times article linked to in the same post:
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be
approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal
official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of
any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former
president. . . ."
So, if it's true that Bush did indeed do the same thing, at least when the story broke and I first posted it here everyone did not believe so. And once again, if he did, so what? That was seven words of my first post. How about you focus on the rest of it, and on the fact that the President of the United States claims the accountability-free right to order an American citizen to be killed without trial?
I will include here the text of the 5th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, part of that Constitution thingy that the US President's oath is to defend:
"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation."
Anwar al-Awlaki is not in the land or naval forces or in the militia, and even if he was, the United States is not at war, and it is hard to argue there is any "public danger" from a man hiding out in Yemen while the United States fires missiles at him. So it is beyond doubt that, aside from being evil, President Obama's actions are absolutely and utterly unconstitutional. And even if they weren't, who exactly is comfortable or sanguine about the idea that the President has the power to declare any American a Bad Guy and have him killed? Weren't leftists supposed to be upset that the US government imprisoned people indefinitely without trial or charge (which Obama is still doing, of course, but that's another matter)? Aren't rightists supposed to be supporters of small government and strict interpretation of the Constitution? If you're cool with the President having the power to execute any American he or she likes without trial, what power are you not comfortable with the President having?