dagblog - Comments for "Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor"

1. There has been no

Libertine — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:30:05 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

Whoa!!! Really? So what is next Fred? Summarily killing drug dealers because certain drugs kill Americans? I look at it there is nothing that gives him permission to do that. MY POV is based on the notion of the rule of law, habeus corpus and the innocent until proven guilty. And the 'argument' that the president has the right to do that since 'we are at war' doesn't cut it either. Up until Bush a state of war were acts of aggression committed by sovereign nations. I reject the Bush administration redefining what 'war' is. So are you saying all the president has to do is utter the word 'war' and he can do whatever he/she wants?

1. There has been no

Purple State — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:20:56 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

And what provision has been cited that gives the president this authority? You have a very weak understanding of our Constitution, Fred. The president does not, under our system, have all powers not explicitly denied him by the Constitution. Rather, he has only those powers explicitly granted him. I don't see this "power" of the President to target individuals for assassination anywhere in the Constitution. What I do see, however, is a statement within the Constitution that clearly denies the government (including the president) the power to suspend habeas corpus (except during an invasion or insurrection, neither of which is occurring presently). And to target an individual for execution without any due process is clearly to suspend habeas corpus. So it seems to me that the Constitution no where grants an assassination power to the president--yet it does prohibit him clearly from suspending habeas corpus. If you are trying to derive this assassination power from the war powers or the president's role as commander in chief, you'll need to make a stronger argument for your case, because applying the war powers to specific individuals is indeed a novel--and I'd add quite dangerous--idea. Yes, you can kill combatants on the battlefield as a tactical necessity. But as the Geneva Conventions make clear, even a combatant accused of war crimes or other criminal activity has a right to due process before being punished. This idea that we can convict and kill without any process other than the president's command is novel, pernicious, and clearly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

1. There has been no

Karl the Marxist — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:28:22 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

1. There has been no Constitutional provision or law cited that nullifies the president's authority to attack one or more individuals trying to kill Americans from outside the country.

Are you familiar with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? There is a thing in there about killing people.

Anyway, reverse the argument: if these "individuals trying to kill Americans" have, say, a law that allows them to kill Americans, does that make it OK to do so?

Might want watch those

Jason Everett Miller — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:31:42 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

Might want watch those assumptions. I qualified expert on both the 9MM and the M16 as recently as 2001. Granted, not the most up-to-date quals, but it's like riding a bike.

No surprise that you missed the underlying point of my comment, which is that allusions to vast conspiracies and Obama as some sort of Manchurian Candidate sound as unhinged as the Tea Partiers you are so quick to denigrate.

Despite the fact that you have friends with those leanings, which typically causes one to doubt their prejudice not dig in further.

Unlike some big talkers

kgb999 — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:45:43 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

Unlike some big talkers around here, I actually don't have to sling a bunch of hypothetical shit about getting along with the "other side" while never leaving my own comfort zone - I already have plenty of "Tea Party Pals". This is Ron Paul country, only way NOT to have a few such friends is to be a raging dickhead. That's one reason (of many) I know 99% of what TPMers think they know on the topic is absolute bullshit (yourself included).

And I'm a pretty damn good shot already, thanks. Come on out to Idaho - I've got a great .45 trap gun that would be perfect to teach a tenderfoot like yourself some basic firearms skill.

Brilliant rebuttal.

Jason Everett Miller — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:08:59 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

Brilliant rebuttal.

oh, and- Saying Greenwald is

diachronic — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:41:36 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

oh, and- Saying Greenwald is trying to 'prove' that Obama is worse than Bush is pretty damn uncharitable, because it's piss-poor 'proof' to use someone else's anon source as any kind of proof of a contention that is unprovable anyway. At most, he is being rhetorically excessive in his use of a non-anonymous source (there is a name at the top of that NYT article, isn't there?).

Meant to say, of course, that

diachronic — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:32:13 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

Meant to say, of course, that "senior legal official's" words aren't flattering to Bush, either.

The quote from the NYT is not

diachronic — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:29:42 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

The quote from the NYT is not an example of Greenwald using anonymous sources, technically; it is him using the NYT.
It doesn't matter to me if Bush is better or worse than Obama. I suspect that this does matter to many, so he is using this 'source' (again, the NYT) for rhetorical purposes- how it is 'partisan?'
I'm not sure. Is he trying to preach to the converted (progressives who want to damn Obama with the words 'worse than Bush?") or is he trying to appeal to liberterian Repubs, or to moderates who think Bush went too far? Probably all of these groups.

Greenwald has his agenda. So do I. So does the NYT. I think my speculations above are plausible guesses into why Greenwald would throw 'anonymous source' into his "source." Why would the NYT want to protect this anonymous source? Why would the source want to be anon in the first place?

Maybe the source is an ongoing one, whose info is given on the conditions of anonymity, and this just happened to be something said by the source under these conditions. Maybe the source- the "former senior legal official in the Bush admin"- wants a job in a pro-Obama think tank. Or an ultra-conservatative one- it isn't to Bush either.

I appreciate your attentiveness to details, and your sarcasm (no snark here). The source may be Gonzo. Like me, though for vastly different reasons, he is concerned about his employment status.

Tea and Soma? You buyin',

wendy davis — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:02:40 +0000

In reply to Assassinations Of Citizens On Orders From The Emperor

Tea and Soma? You buyin', jason! Some for me, pleeze... ;-)