Obama orders an American murdered without due process

[Rooster]

Wow, this makes the evil Boosh (pronounced the way those crazy Muslims burning flags and whatnot do it) using Gitmo as a detainee holding pen look like a mere scuffing of human rights compared to the full-on abuse of this American citizen's rights.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns ... ork_times/

Yep, you read that correctly. Obama is going to kill an American living abroad without so much as a trial in absentia. No presumption of innocence here, not so much as a fair-thee-well to the time honored principle of at least attempting to capture this guy. No, they are gonna zap him but good. Niiiiice going, Obama. So much for those happy, fairyland ideals of undoing the nasty brutality of the previous administration. Hypocrites.

"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said."

So before we get any further, let's give the Jewish cocksucker his chance to pithily dismiss this in a two paragraph rant. As for the rest of you Libtards, I can't wait to hear how you rationalize this to justify the killing of someone without his due process.

[Goober McTuber]

He is actively involved with Al Qaeda, trying to kill Americans. Why do you see this as a liberal-conservative argument? It's war.

[Smackie Chan]

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

I don't see a problem. Ice the shitbag.

[Goober McTuber]

Just another hysterical right wing nutjob hoping to find any excuse possible to point fingers at those nasty liberals.

[Smackie Chan]

I suspect GWB would have done the same thing.

And Obama would've been criticized as being soft on terrorism (and probably accused of being a terrorist ally) had he not done it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

[Mikey]

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

You'd better start worrying.

[OCmike]

This is being done for two reasons:

- News outlets talk about something besides the health care joke
- He looks tough on terrorism

Standard DC bullshit.

[mvscal]

You mean our cymbal clacking affirmative action Chimp in Chief has lied again? Who could have guessed?

On June 12th, 2008 in reference to Boumediene v. Bush:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.

--Chimpy McNogroid the Lesser

On the floor of the Senate Sept. 27th, 2006:

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal:

"Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks."

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. . . .

This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. . . .

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe "actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."

This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:

"To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. ..... The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury."

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the "great writ" -- a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

I yield the floor.

--Dumbo McDoublespeak the Lesser

Good job electing a lying, hypocritical bucket of monkey spurt, you shit stabbing fuckwits. You know who you are.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

NGO

Leave my cousin out of this.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Good job electing a lying, hypocritical bucket of monkey spurt, you shit stabbing fuckwits.

Take heart. At least he's still a murderer. He can't be all that bad in your books.

[LTS TRN 2]

Exactly, B-juice.

I suspect GWB would have done the same thing. Nothing newsworthy here. Move on.

Anyone who frets and snits that Barry is some kind of "liberal" has yet to produce a single example--ONE policy...ONE action that somehow connotes a liberal. Go ahead find one, and I'll show you TEN where he's right in line in the Chimp and his handlers.

Obviously the swan dive off the high board into an empty pool--that is Afghanistan--will be Barry's legacy. And that's too bad, since at least he appeared to be a sane (i.e., not a religious loon) and sensible sort.

[PSUFAN]

NGO

Leave my cousin out of this.

I think I laugh at every one of your posts, ASS.