Cheney: Obama owes apology for security criticism of Bush administration

[sabrina 1]

Cheney: Obama owes apology for security criticism of Bush administration

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney praised the Obama administration Sunday for using a drone strike to kill American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, but said President Barack Obama should now apologize for criticizing former President George W. Bush's actions against suspected terrorists.

"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union." But "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."

Obama "in effect said that we had walked away from (America's) ideals," Cheney argued. "I think he did tremendous damage. I think he slandered the nation and I think he owes an apology to the American people."

....

Republican critics of the administration claim it is hypocritical for Obama to approve the killing of Americans without due process while criticizing Bush officials for signing off on the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such waterboarding.

I thought hell would freeze over before I would ever be forced to agree with anything this war criminal said, but sadly, and extremely reluctantly, the actions of this President of continuing Bush's policies has placed those of us who vehemently opposed them and still do, in the position of having to either admit that Bush was right, or continue to oppose them which places us in the position of opposing a Democratic President.

I have asked many Democrats who are now supporting Bush's policies, if we owe Bush an apology after all. I am still asking. And I am furious that War Criminal Cheney has been given this opportunity to go after Democrats.

Obama was our hope to reverse these policies. I am seeing people use the AUMF as a defense for extra-judicial killings by the US Government. We opposed the AUMF back then knowing how it would be used by the Bush administration.

Cheney is vicious, cruel war criminal and it shows the harm done by this administration's adaptation of Bush's anti-Constitutional policies when a unindicted criminal like Cheney can now call Democrats 'hypocrites' and justify Bush's policies.

What a disaster this is. How do we defend this? What do we say to Republicans who will for once have an actual point? All I can do is say I am as opposed to these policies as I always was.

I feel as though we have disarmed, not by the enemy, by our own side.

I am interested to hear what those who support Bush's policies now of the right of a US president to order the killing of even a US citizen, will have to say to Cheney. I am at a loss frankly.

[Pisces]

1. More like a big Fuck You for leaving such a mess.

[blueknight]

23. jesus christ

HOW IN THE FUCK IS THIS GUY STILL ALIVE? HE MUST BE A FUCKING CYBORG OR SOMETHING....

[shanti]

149. cheney, go fuck yourself~

that is all!

[rhett o rick]

162. I am praying daily that he stays alive until he gets thrown in jail.

I guess the fact that I am not religious might make my prayers a little useless.

[msanthrope]

2. Wow. To criticize Obama, you've had to seek approval from Cheney and Ron Paul.

I mean, really....

[sabrina 1]

5. To defend Obama, you have to resort to defending Bush's policies!

I need no one's approval to know what is right or wrong. And I don't base those decisions on whether I like the person doing wrong or not.

Cheney was given a weapon and he's using it. I don't like handing weapons to War Criminals to use against me. Apparently there are now democrats who support Bush's policies because a Democrat is using them.

[msanthrope]

20. Unfortunately, Bush didn't do targeted killing. Otherwise, OBL would have been long dead.

Bush could have done targeted killing and saved us a war.

[sabrina 1]

37. Eh, yes, he did. Where in the Constitution is this covered?

And when it leaked out that Bush was claiming the right to kill anyone anywhere without trial, the Left went wild. What has happened to change the minds of those who now support these Bush policies? Was Bush right after all?

[msanthrope]

46. Well, I can only post the AUMF. I can't make you read it.

And if you can't figure out that many things aren't in the Constitution but are constitutional, then I can't really help you.

[newspeak]

165. actually I think OBL alive was more advantageous for little boots

He probably could have taken OBL out at Tora Bora. Remember when little boots publicly stated that OBL didn't matter anymore? Because little boots WANTED war, especially with Iraq. OBL was a great excuse to push that agenda.

[ixion]

11. You and Cheney agree that Obama did the right thing

which tells me all I need to know about you.

[Bladian]

19. Sure is easy seeing things in black and white, huh? n/t

[ixion]

60. In this particular case, yes, it is.

[msanthrope]

22. Obama did what he had to do--what the Congress charged him to do, in the AUMF.

Is it right or wrong? I think it has more layers than simple labels, doesn't it?

[sabrina 1]

28. Democrats opposed the AUMF. When did it become acceptable to

Democrats? Bush forced that vote on Democrats before the election and then used it, as you are now doing, to justify every war crime he committed. Many good Democrats voted against the AUMF, others thinking it would cost them politically not to vote for it, went along. Most of those Democrats were slammed by the Left at the time. And many refused to vote for them when they ran for the Presidency. It was MY reason for never supporting Hillary Clinton eg.

So, what DO we believe in anymore? And again, I will ask, 'was Bush right after all'? Why is no one willing to answer that question?

[msanthrope]

34. Dear Jeebus---the AUMF passed with only a single dissenting vote in the entire Congress.

One. Single. Dissenting. Vote.

The AUMF wasn't before an election, either.

Do you even know which piece of legislation that's being discussed?

Look, yesterday I had to remind you that Al-Awlaki hadn't been in this country for a decade, even though you had claimed, in multiple posts, that he had been here only a couple of years ago, and could have been arrested then....

Google. Your friend....

[sabrina 1]

104. I said 'democrats' I did not say 'politicians'. The AUMF was

another tactic used by Bush and forced on weak and frightened politicians to MAKE legal what was not Constitutional. That is why democrats and civil libertarians opposed it.

[ixion]

62. it is wrong. Period.

No matter who does it, no matter when, no matter how many layers. In several thousand years of human history, allowing a single individual to be judge, jury and executioner has always been bad, and it's still true today.

[sabrina 1]

105. Thank you, I agree ~ and we are in good company as Constitutional

lawyers and Civil Libertarians also agree.

[Mz Pip]

3. I dunno

I think starting a war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, was kind of a big overreaction.

[sabrina 1]

6. And we're still there.

I thought extra-judicial killings were wrong and I still do.

[spanone]

4. fuckdick

[sabrina 1]

8. Exactly. And that's putting it mildly.

But he was handed a weapon and he picked it up and is using it against Democrats. Is this what we wanted when we supported Democrats?

I can't seem to get an answer to the question 'Was Bush right after all'? Because if he was, we owe him an apology, and if he was not, then neither is Obama. It cannot be both. But no one seems willing to answer the question, of those who now support Bush's policies.

[spanone]

16. bu$h* was not right after all. and Obama is not right. killing is killing is killing.

no one owes cheney or bu$h* any type of apology whatsoever.

[Marr]

98. Yeah, it's the same unprincipled stance I usually expect from right-wing loons.

They always claim to be making a principled stand, but those principles spin around 180 degrees as soon as their team is in power.

[Autumn]

7. Cheney approves.

It was probably his idea. Wonder if Obama will call him to apologize.

[sabrina 1]

10. So does Perry the executioner.

Why wouldn't they? They supported Bush's anti-Constitutional 'laws'. Now apparently so does the 'left', or at least some on the 'left'.

I have asked those who agree now with Bush's policies if we all should apologize to Bush. I have asked it over and over again, but no one has answered the question. Now we have Cheney the war criminal given the opportunity to demand an apology. What a position to be in.

[Autumn]

13. Gingrich also approves.

We are in between a rock and a hard place.

[malaise]

9. Fuck Dick Cheney

he should be in the Hague

[ixion]

12. And he's not why?

because Obama is "looking forward" :argh:

[sabrina 1]

17. So many missed opportunities and because these war criminals

were protected by this administration they are free to go on TV and claim they were not war criminals after all, that WE were wrong.

I am livid with this administration for the position they have placed us and this country in.

[MedicalAdmin]

24. We are still free to act unless...

you equate the two party system with america. I feelmwe are better than that, and if not then perhaps a democratic country will take action.

[sabrina 1]

26. Yes, other countries are have and are dealing with their war

criminals now, decades after the crimes were committed. Spain did attempt to prosecute some of our war criminals, but as we now know, the Obama administration pressured them into not doing so.

If it ever happens, it will not be in the near future. Because to prosecute them would mean prosecuting anyone who used their policies also.

All the hopes we had of holding them accountable, are gone at least for the foreseeable future. Cheney et al only have to point to the US Government's continued use of their policies as a defense against any government action against them.

But maybe in 40 years or so, if the country ever restores the rule of law, as has happened in other countries, it might happen, posthumously for most of them.

Which is why I do not understand any Democrat supporting this administration's use of those policies. In doing so, they are absolving the Bush war criminals, there is simply no other way to look at it.

[MedicalAdmin]

119. There is a big difference between personal carte blanche ...

... and legal absolution. Normally and historically war criminals are not punished by the countries that created them. There are exceptions, but I think that it will take international pressure and perhaps an international boycott to bring those in question to justice.

In other words, it can be done, they aren't absolved, but I'm not holding my breath.

And yes, it is a shameful thing. It's no different than harboring any type or kind of war criminal.

[sabrina 1]

14. Absolutely and how sad it is that he has been handed an opportunity

to justify Bush's anti-Constitutional policies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Obama owes an apology for not bringing Dick and Dickhead to justice and embracing their policies.

[sabrina 1]

18. Obama owes those of us who supported an apology.

I never dreamed three years ago that Dick Cheney's war crimes would be justified by a Democratic President. It is a nightmare scenario. How can anyone prosecute these war criminals now? Ever?

[Deep13]

21. Dear Mr. Cheney, ...

Go fuck yourself.

[Kalidurga]

41. This is a horrible would you rather situation.

But here it goes. Would you rather mourn the deaths of hundreds or thousands innocent citizens or be outraged at the extrajudicial killing of two?

I don't think either is right. I hate hearing about people dying in terror attacks. It is bad enough when people die in combat, but it is worse when people die because someone wants to make a political statement. Perhaps even a soldier can be put in that category, but at least the soldier signed up for it.

Then there is that vow to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Which quite frankly I don't understand the meaning here. I don't see how anyone could destroy the constitution except by interpreting it wrongly and that would mostly be a power held by a judge. I think it would be more important to protect US citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic. In any case, I do not know how you can do either and still not run afoul of some legality or law of morality.

[Deep13]

43. I think they were all killed in battle. nt

[sabrina 1]

45. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The problem with your sentence is that we have no evidence that Awlaqi did anything other preach extremist hateful anti-American rhetoric. We do know that he was barely known in the ME so didn't have much influence anyhow. He SAID a lot, but what did he do? Who did he kill? Is there a shred of evidence that anyone ever took orders from him to kill anyone?

Also, since Yemen's president cooperated in this killing, why not ask him to arrest Awlaki and hand him over so we could get answers to all these questions?

And if it is right for Obama to do this, then why did the Left believe it was wrong for Bush to do it?

Again, thank you for thinking about the question. Too many people are simply supporting it our of party loyalty without thinking of the future ramifications for this country.

Eg, what if Perry were to win in 2012? He will have these powers to declare an American Citizen an enemy combatant and go find him anywhere in the world and kill him. Do we want that? People died to protect our Constitution. I think it's worth protecting.

[Itchinjim]

25. 230...

[SidDithers]

123. +1...

I love what you're doing :thumbsup:

Sid

[johnd83]

27. Apology? Seriously? How about a pair of handcuffs?

[sabrina 1]

29. Ask Obama. We've been asking for years. Why did Obama

protect them from prosecution?

[johnd83]

31. There are at least two obvious war crimes:

1. Torture
2. Pre-emptive war

Both are illegal under international law. We try other leaders but not our own. Not exactly a way to gain credibility.

[sabrina 1]

30. Lots of silent unrecs but no answer still to my question

'Was Bush Right after all'? To the silent unrec'ers. Why is it such a difficult question to answer? If you take a position on something as important as this, there must be some way to defend it other than silently unrec'ing a thread. I am coming to the conclusion that the answer is 'yes Bush was right after all and we do owe him an apology'. Because he can't have been wrong while Obama is right. That is simply not logical.

[msanthrope]

36. No--Bush wasn't right. He started a war, when targeted killings could have been more effective.

The AUMF gave Bush the power to do what Obama did.

So why did Bush choose to go to war in Iraq, and not use targeted killings, taking out Al-Qaeda?

I think that's a question worth revisiting, rather than adopting Cheney's meme.

[sabrina 1]

39. The AUMF was Bush's baby to give himself those powers.

WE were outraged at the transparency of what he was doing. Now you are using Bush's tools to defend Obama, and you are using exactly the same arguments Republicans used to defend Bush. Do you have some argument that is NOT a Bush defense?

We are moving forward, or did you not know that? We don't look back, which is why Cheney is free to go on TV and now use the Obama administration's endorsement of Bush policies to exonerate himself and his war criminal friends.

And why was Bush was NOT right when he claimed these powers, yet Obama is? Were you around when this all first happened?

How was Clinton able to arrest and try a far more dangerous terrorist, one who actually did attack this country, without resorting to Bush anti-Constitutional policies? Why did Obama not return to Clinton policies rather than Bush policies?

Please don't use Republican defenses for this. There has to be a Democratic defense if we are to accept that Bush was wrong while Obama is right.

[msanthrope]

47. I would not have been outraged if Bush had killed OBL. Really.

And you are the only one accepting Cheney's meme. Not me.

[sabrina 1]

56. I am accepting facts. Awlaqi was not OBL. He was a nobody, and

an American citizen. Did you support Bush's claims that he had the right to order the killing of US citizens without trial simply by declaring them to be enemy combatants? I never saw a single Democrat on this board defending that. Now all of a sudden, here you are, defending Bush's policies. What is different about one president or another being granted these powers?

Will you support Perry if he goes after a US citizen on foreign soil and kills them?

[Major Nikon]

72. You got several answers and must have ignored them

Obama was right. Shrub and Dick not only walked away from American ideals, they ran away from them and punted to the Israel first neocons. They invaded and conquered two countries with no exit strategy, and the best reason they could come up with for invading one was god told them to do it.

Furthermore Obama voiced his support for targeted killings before he was ever nominated. Anyone who is surprised now must either not been paying attention during the debates or incredibly stupid.

Shrub and Dick pissed away over a trillion dollars on a completely unnecessary war, shredded American credibility, and put the economy in the toilet. And now Dick thinks he's owed an apology by Obama for doing something he said he was going to do before he ever got elected? That's just fucking nutty.

[indepat]

32. Cheney surely never did anything that would slander this nation

No siree! :patriot:

[sabrina 1]

33. So why did Obama protect him and his war criminal cohorts from

prosecution? It's no use now to say 'he is a war criminal' when he can justifiably point to this administration's continuation of Bush policies, policies that do violate our laws and International.

But pursuing those policies, it has placed Democrats in a corner, and Cheney has jumped on it to justify his crimes. How do you argue against what he is saying? Most Civil Libertarians are saying the same thing. Isn't it infuriating that we who wanted them prosecuted, have been placed in this position?

[indepat]

53. If it were true that prosecution was not pursued out of fear of a coup, what is or

isn't being done out of such fear. If it were that one's oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America could not be upheld out of fear of a coup, what would that portend? :shrug: :patriot:

[sabrina 1]

102. It would mean a coup has already taken place I think.

Which some people think is the only way this president's actions can be explained. Maybe the president is just a figurehead and has not say in all of this, but for appearances sake, s/he is the public face. I never feel that Obama is comfortable with these decisions. He always seems strained when he announces them. Bush otoh, was really into killing people so even if he was just a figurehead, he enjoyed the role.

Who knows, but no one seems able to explain the reason for the killing of Awlaqi, not even the WH Press Secretary.

[indepat]

116. It certainly would explain so much of the inexplicable

:patriot:

[rhett o rick]

163. You asked why. Like in Damn Yankees, Obama sold his soul to the devil to become president.

He promised not to prosecute the war criminals and not take on Wall Street and not repeal the Bush tax cuts, etc.

[lefthandedlefty]

35. All He owes Bush and Cheney

Is a jail cell

[sabrina 1]

42. So why won't he do that? Why is he protecting them from prosecution?

[SidDithers]

38. Who the fuck cares what Dick Cheney has to say?...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

44. Well, he has praised Obama for continuing Bush's policies

and apparently now, he has been restored to legitimacy and can now claim that he and Bush were right because Obama has endorsed their policies by using them, and has refused to prosecute them, claiming to want to 'look forward'. Ask Obama why HE cared enough about them to protect them from prosecution. We were ready and waiting.

[peace13]

40. Boo hoo and Dick I don't mean to be rude but I have seen corpses that look better than you!

Retire already and let the planet heal from you dark dealings!

[blkmusclmachine]

48. "Luke, I am your father."

n/t

[Bloke 32]

49. Mr Cheney is an absolute nutter!

He seems to have no realisation of what he and Mr Bush did to America and the world.

[thelordofhell]

50. Sure thing asshole

As soon as you apologize to the Clinton administration for completely ignoring their warnings on possible terror attacks.

[thelordofhell]

51. "I'm sorry I have to clean up your mess.".......President Obama

Are you happy now Cheney?

[sabrina 1]

52. But does he have to do it by using there anti-Constitutional policies?

And why did he protect them from prosecution?

[thelordofhell]

95. If I knew the answer to those questions

I'd be a Senator

[chill_wind]

54. There have been no meaningful consequences for this man

or any of the other men like him for what they did.

Now we're looking at the cost of those choices of not exposing and confronting them and their underlings, and preserving instead their machinery for the next installment.

He's been left to go in public life fully free to say these things, so it's no surprise that he will. And he'll keep saying them now. And over more time, he'll be enjoined by more and more like him. Cheney haters will just need to get used to that idea. GWOT+Bush Doctrine has become one big economic and political gravy train, an American Idol spectator show in which the spoils belong to the victors who can brag about the most notches of dead under their belt.

Since GWOT doesn't have any geography or battlefields and we'll go wherever we have to go, in whatever manner we say we will, it's not over until they tell us it's over, which as far as we can tell, it's never going to be. What a brilliant concept has been sold us, eh? A brilliant formula for governing for some long time to come, and why should Obama or Democrats reinvent the wheel, when all that it needs is a little technocratic tweaking and perfecting?

Of course Cheney's jealous. And that's what's currently going to matter to most of the sports fans. Until his mates eventually get the ball again, which they will, because there's that whole other half of America that can't seem to get enough of this shit, either-- and then I guess his cohorts will show us how it's really REALLY done.

War is a racket. And then some.

[Robb]

55. Cheney's just pissed off the latest edition of "Inspire" is going to be late.

[sabrina 1]

59. He has made a point that many people are making, Civil Libertarians

and others, that Obama has now legitimized Bush's policy that granted unchecked powers to the POTUS. A policy that Democrats furiously opposed when Bush was in power.

YOU may make fun of it, but it will resonate with many people because he's not the only one saying it.

Aside from which, he has been handed a weapon that not one of us would have imagined him being given by a Democratic administration three years ago.

So, I will ask you, 'was Bush right after all and were we wrong and do we owe him an apology'?

I was asking this question before Cheney asked it. And it is infuriating that as a Democrat I have to stomach this war criminal now being able to justify his war crimes.

[Robb]

61. If you think Cheney's "point" holds water, I don't know what to tell you.

Were it me, and I found myself agreeing with Cheney and Ron Paul about something, I'd examine my position more carefully. I'd look up if either of them told me the sky was blue.

And I'm amazed we're even having a discussion that begins with, to paraphrase, "You know, I think Cheney's got a point here."

The problem with blunt instruments is that they can be co-opted so easily.

[sabrina 1]

64. Interesting response.

Seems familiar for some reason.

However, Cheney might be dismissed on this point if he was not getting support from every Civil Libertarian who has opposed giving these powers to a POTUS without exception. He is a despicable war criminal and has just been handed a weapon which he quickly grabbed and used against the man who has protected him from prosecution for war crimes. That is a fact.

I'm amazed to see anyone here defending Bush's policies. So we are both amazed. But that doesn't resolve the issues and the questions.

You did not answer my question. Are you supporting Bush's policies now? I know I would be worried if I ever found myself doing that, especially after being so opposed to them for so long.

[Robb]

65. You're sidling up to Cheney, but *I'm* supporting Bush's policies?

Okey dokey.

[sabrina 1]

67. Well, if you want to twist it that way, who am I to stop you?

Still didn't answer the question though. But never mind, I have to run. I think I have the answer anyhow. And rather than play internet games, and try not to be clear, I will tell you what I have learned. It's okay if a Democrat does it, not okay if a Republican does it. If I am wrong, then I'm sure someone will let me know with evidence to back it up.

[Robb]

68. To have learned today something you've said time and again?

My memory, while shakier perhaps than it was ten years ago, is still better than that. The machine at the batting cage works on the same principle.

[ProSense]

66. That's

"He has made a point that many people are making, Civil Libertarians"

...bullshit. Cheney is pissed that people, including the now President, criticized the administration for invading Iraq and torturing people (one edit) in response to 9/11. That's his only beef.

"So, I will ask you, 'was Bush right after all and were we wrong and do we owe him an apology'? "

Feel free to apologize to him if you want to, but stop insisting that others follow this flawed logic.

[sabrina 1]

69. I don't have to apologize to him, I still disagree with his policies

I am asking those of you who opposed his policies and now support them when this president implements them. Were YOU wrong back then? Because you have all given Cheney this weapon. He could not say what he said to ME since my position is still the same. Yours appears to have changed. Unless you supported Bush then, which of course exempts you from the question.

[ProSense]

71. Actually,

"I am asking those of you who opposed his policies and now support them when this president implements them. Were YOU wrong back then? Because you have all given Cheney this weapon. He could not say what he said to ME since my position is still the same. Yours appears to have changed. Unless you supported Bush then, which of course exempts you from the question."

...sounds like confusion. When your mind is clear, deal with the facts:

The ACLU praised the Obama administration for ending Bush's torture policies

President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

[sabrina 1]

75. ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in July on behalf of Awlaki’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki, challenging the government’s authority to target American citizens for killing outside clearly defined battle zones, and without an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens. The ACLU accused the government of, among other things, disregarding the Fifth Amendment, which states that no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the organization has yet to decide whether to file a new court challenge.

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war. In the past, the authority to kill American citizens has been restricted to fixed geographical boundaries of conflict and to periods in which the U.S. was at war with a clearly defined enemy. “The authority the administration is claiming is not an authority that is limited to the battlefield. In their view, the battlefield is anywhere, therefore terrorists can be found anywhere,” Jaffer said. “That’s dangerous.”

Jaffer also sharply criticized the administration for failing to live up to the expectations many civil liberties organizations had when Obama ran for president in 2008. Obama, Jaffer said, has continued many of the aggressive counter-terrorism policies embraced by the administration of George W. Bush, including the use of surveillance and other provisions of the “Patriot Act.”

And they are not the only ones. As they say, this is a dispointing continuation of Bush policies and a blow to Civil Libertarians who supported this president hoping for a reversal of this dangerous precedent set by the Bush administraion.

I respect the ACLU, as I see you do also. Those were all good policies, but have nothing to do with THIS issue. So, are the ACLU wrong now also, and were they wrong when Bush was doing it?

I would think you would have to agree with them on this, since you clearly agree with them on those other issues. I agree with them on all of the issues.

My mind is perfectly clear. It has not been confused by the letter after the President's name. I suggest you take your own advice maybe and remember that the ACLU and I and many, many others have maintained the same principles all along and will not be changing them due to confusion over the letter behind any president's name.

[ProSense]

77. Hmmm?

"ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent"

Is the ACLU demanding that President Obama apologize to Cheney?

The ACLU is trying to define a battlefield, that's fine. But invoking al-Awlaki's U.S. citizenship and claiming that the killing of a terrorist in any situation is off limits is nonsense. He was a terrorist.

ACLU Lens: American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process

Today in Yemen, U.S. air strikes killed American citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Al-Aulaqi has never been charged with a crime. Last year, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights represented Al-Aulaqi's father in a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. We argued that such killings violate the Constitution and international law, but the case was dismissed in federal court last December.

In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.

<...>

(emphasis added)

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

<...>

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

<...>

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights argued on behalf of Aulaqi’s father last year that there is no “battlefield” in Yemen and that the administration should be forced to articulate publicly its legal standards for killing any citizen outside the United States who is suspected of terrorism.

<...>

That's basically the ACLU's argument, that there is no "battlefield" in Yemen, and that's debatable. That argument is also the basis of the claim that Obama has expanded the policy, but, again, it requires accepting that there is no battlefield in Yemen.

When Clinton bombed a target in Afghanistan in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden in 1998, was the country a battlefield?

Any member of al Qaeda can surrender, but it's clear that members of the group risk death because of their ongoing activities. That's not a novel concept, nor is it one limited to post 2001 counterterrorism.

From the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

<...>

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

<...>

In 1996, Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

<...>

The Congress finds that—
(1) international terrorism is among the most serious transnational threats faced by the United States and its allies, far eclipsing the dangers posed by population growth or pollution;

(2) the President should continue to make efforts to counter international terrorism a national security priority;

(3) because the United Nations has been an inadequate forum for the discussion of cooperative, multilateral responses to the threat of international terrorism, the President should undertake immediate efforts to develop effective multilateral responses to international terrorism as a complement to national counter terrorist efforts;

(4) the President should use all necessary means, including covert action and military force, to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy international infrastructure used by international terrorists, including overseas terrorist training facilities and safe havens;

(5) the Congress deplores decisions to ease, evade, or end international sanctions on state sponsors of terrorism, including the recent decision by the United Nations Sanctions Committee to allow airline flights to and from Libya despite Libya’s noncompliance with United Nations resolutions; and

(6) the President should continue to undertake efforts to increase the international isolation of state sponsors of international terrorism, including efforts to strengthen international sanctions, and should oppose any future initiatives to ease sanctions on Libya or other state sponsors of terrorism.

<...>

(emphasis added)

[sabrina 1]

78. So the ACLU is not questioned when it SUPPORTS this president

but when it doesn't, wow, that's a lot of work to try to discredit an organization whose credibility you just endorsed with not one, but with several blue links, without question, just moments ago. Lol!

Regarding Clinton and OBL, OBL was directly responsible for the bombing the US Embassies and for the Riyad bombing and he claimed responsibility for those bombings. He was indicted by this government, although NOT for 9/11 since there was no proof of his involvement in that attack. And he was not a US citizen.

What did Awlaqi do? Did he claim responsibility for any attacks on this country? Is there evidence of any kind, other than his ranting online, that he was responsible for any such attacks? And how about the 'battlefield'? Is the World our battlefield as Bush claimed, and which we on the left totally opposed? I just read a very garbled attempt at an answer to that question from the WH press secretary, and frankly, it is very disturbing to read.

I will ask you again. The ACLU's position on this one issue has never changed. Did you defend Bush against them then, the way you are now attempting to defend this president? I cannot seem to get an answer to this question. Was the ACLU wrong about Bush after all? Were we on the Left, wrong about Bush on this issue? Nothing about it has changed, except for the letter after the president's name. Of course maybe you supported Bush's right to kill US citizens back then, which would at least make you consistent, if wrong.

But what was your position then?

[ProSense]

79. Hmmm?

So the ACLU is not questioned when it SUPPORTS this president

but when it doesn't, wow, that's a lot of work to try to discredit an organization whose credibility you just endorsed with not one, but with several blue links, without question, just moments ago. Lol!

Regarding Clinton and OBL, OBL was directly responsible for the bombing the US Embassies and for the Riyad bombing and he claimed responsibility for those bombings. He was indicted by this government, although NOT for 9/11 since there was no proof of his involvement in that attack. And he was not a US citizen.

...more excuses for Clinton. What's that called: libertarians for "neoliberalism"?

Clinton bombed Afghanistan, Sudan and engaged in covert operations in several countries.

"I will ask you again. The ACLU's position on this one issue has never changed"

A very detailed response is posted here

Now, to my question: Is the ACLU asking President Obama to apologize to Cheney?

[sabrina 1]

81. You are assuming I agreed with Clinton bombing other countries.

In the case of OBL however, there were different circumstances and they in no way compare to the case of Awlaqi. If you want to argue about Clinton's justification, we can do that. But it will not have any relationship to this case.

Cheney is asking Obama to apologize to him. He is using Obama's adaptation of Bush's policies against him. This is one of the dangers of supporting anything put in place by the Bush administration. It undermines our claims that Bush was a war criminal and a destroyer of the Constitution. We expected these policies to be rescinded when we elected Democrats and one day they will be. No democracy can be sustained under such policies and still call itself a democracy.

I already read your detailed response and commented on it. It sounds very much like the Bush administration's defense of its own policies, they 'consulted with lawyers etc etc.' Again, you have not answered the question. Were you opposed to the ACLU's position on the Bush claim that the POTUS has the power to kill a US citizen when Bush was president. It's a simple question, no need for long detailed responses.

I will answer it simply. Yes, I agreed with them then, and I agree with them now.

What was your position back then? A simple yes or no will do.

[ProSense]

82. So

"You are assuming I agreed with Clinton bombing other countries...Cheney is asking Obama to apologize to him."

...you didn't agree with Clinton and you're agreeing with Cheney that Obama owes him an apology because Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq and tortured people?

Twisted!

[sabrina 1]

85. Um, no. And you still haven't answered the question. It's like pulling

teeth to get those who are now defending Bush's policies regarding the powers of the presidency, to give a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Why is it so hard for you to do?

Re Clinton, I agreed with the way he handled the first terror attack on the WTC. That is how a democracy handles terror attacks. I agreed with his attempts to get Osama Bin Laden before he could strike this country as he intended to do and because he had already confessed to attacking the US and promised to do it again. However, I would have preferred the capture and trial of Bin Laden, as was done with Sheik Rahman, Ramsey Youssef et al. We used to know how to do these things in accordance with the law.



Cheney has taken Obama's adaptation of Bush's claims of the ultimate power of the president to do whatever he wants if he can declare someone to be an enemy combatant and used it against him. He is a devious, war criminal and has done as I would expect someone as despicable as he is, IF SOMEONE GIVES HIM THE AMMUNITION! Obama gave him the ammunition, he used it. When you criticize someone, rightly, for doing wrong, then you do the same thing, expect them to point it out and to ask you for an apology.

Should Obama apologize to him you ask? Lol! This is what he should do. He should now begin an investigation into the Cheney/Bush war crimes and start the long overdue process of putting him and the rest of the war criminals where they belong. He should contact the Spanish Court and take back his request that they not prosecute the Bush torturers. At which point they will be totally discredited as far as commenting on what this president does. That would be the perfect and only viable response to Cheney's taunting.

However, that will not happen because Obama made the mistake of continuing to use some of those same policies and has placed himself in a position where Cheney CAN taunt him. That is a fact, as you can see if you are not blind.

[ProSense]

87. This

"Um, no. And you still haven't answered the question. It's like pulling teeth to get those who are now defending Bush's policies regarding the powers of the presidency, to give a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Why is it so hard for you to do?"

...is a lame tactic. See this "A very detailed response is posted here," again.

Re Clinton, I agreed with the way he handled the first terror attack on the WTC. That is how a democracy handles terror attacks. I agreed with his attempts to get Osama Bin Laden before he could strike this country as he intended to do and because he had already confessed to attacking the US and promised to do it again. However, I would have preferred the capture and trial of Bin Laden, as was done with Sheik Rahman, Ramsey Youssef et al. We used to know how to do these things in accordance with the law.

Excuses and a hmmmm?

"You are assuming I agreed with Clinton bombing other countries."

Seems you went down the path of agreeing with Cheney and are now employing his logic.

[sabrina 1]

88. Did Obama use Bush's policies to go after Awlaqi or not?

The ACLU and Jonathan Turley along with many others say he did. I agree with them. Cheney is elated because he did. 'Agree with Cheney'. The ACLU, Jonathan Turley, Obama himself, all agree with Cheney on this point. Are you saying he is lying about it, that all of them are lying? Why do you think that to acknowledge something is a problem simply because of who said it?? Should I refuse to accept the facts simply because Cheney jumped on the bandwagon? Blame Obama for Cheney. Obama gave him the ammuniation, not me, not the ACLU, not Jonathan Turley.

Your link does not answer the question. Yes or no, it's simple. But so hard for you for some reason. Easy for me because my principles remain the same. If Obama were my father, brother, husband, I would still be saying he was wrong to adapt Bush's policies.

So, did you agree with Bush then or not?

[ProSense]

91. Um

"Did Obama use Bush's policies to go after Awlaqi or not?"

...no, but you and your new hero apparently are looking for vindication.

You, from the OP: "I thought hell would freeze over before I would ever be forced to agree with anything this war criminal said, but sadly, and extremely reluctantly, the actions of this President of continuing Bush's policies has placed those of us who vehemently opposed them and still do, in the position of having to either admit that Bush was right..."



Yikes!

[sabrina 1]

93. Still no answer!

I wrote that, why are you reposting it? I completely stand by it and no doubt will say it again, and again if necessary until someone proves me wrong.

Now you are resorting to calling Cheney 'my hero' Back that up please. The comment you posted of mine, demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim.

I have remained civil to you despite the frustration of your evasive responses and refusal to answer a simple question. There really is no need for me to call you, eg, a Bush lover just because you support the president's support of Bush's policies.

That would be exceedingly childish of me.

[ProSense]

94. Hmmm?

"The comment you posted of mine, demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim."

You started an OP titled: "Cheney: Obama owes apology for security criticism of Bush administration"

In it you stated: "I thought hell would freeze over before I would ever be forced to agree with anything this war criminal said, but sadly, and extremely reluctantly, the actions of this President of continuing Bush's policies has placed those of us who vehemently opposed them and still do, in the position of having to either admit that Bush was right..."

In the OP, you continued: "I have asked many Democrats who are now supporting Bush's policies, if we owe Bush an apology after all."

Seem fairly conclusive to me: You agree with Cheney that President Obama owes him an apology.

Like I said, feel free to apologize to him, but maybe you should stop insisting and asking others to adhere to twisted logic.

[sabrina 1]

101. That was the headline. Did you not click the link? That was not me

talking. It was the author of the article reporting on what Cheney was demanding.

As for the rest of your comment, my questions are rhetorical. Since the left opposed these policies when Bush was president, what is their reasoning for the flip flop? The 'left' has changed its mind. So, Cheney used this flip flop to imply that now the left's President has endorsed his and Bush's policies regarding presidential powers. Did you really not understand this?

Again, I do hate repeating myself. I am not the one who needs to apologize. I opposed Bush on this and I still oppose it. Just changing the letter next to the president's name doesn't change the reasons for opposing this policy.

Are you pretending you do not understand, or is it that complicated that you actually do not?

Again, did you or did you not agree with Bush when he claimed the power to kill a US citizen without due process?

Lots of people are asking this question. There needs to be an answer. So far I am having an incredibly difficult time getting one. And apparently I am not alone. See the WH press secretaries attempts to explain it eg, in the video forum.

He cannot explain it either.

[GreenArrow]

124. An explanation:

"Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.<1> It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of Newspeak."

“ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

You can't have any kind of legitimate discussion with that particular poster.

[sabrina 1]

157. Thanks, it gives me a headache just reading that. Imagine

how it must feel to actually do it? :-)

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawson Leery]

57. Apologize for what?

S**trag!

[ProSense]

58. Hmmm?

"I thought hell would freeze over before I would ever be forced to agree with anything this war criminal said, but sadly, and extremely reluctantly,"

Sure.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

70. Truth hurts, doesn't it? You can't laugh it away. You all have

given the most vile war criminal in this country vindication and naturally he picked up the weapon you threw down and is using it against Democrats. I don't see the humor in that frankly. I also don't believe in lying, so sorry if the truth offends you.

[ProSense]

73. Oh

"Truth hurts, doesn't it? You can't laugh it away. You all have given the most vile war criminal in this country vindication"

...the irony!

Says the person who wrote: "I thought hell would freeze over before I would ever be forced to agree with anything this war criminal said, but sadly, and extremely reluctantly, the actions of this President of continuing Bush's policies has placed those of us who vehemently opposed them and still do, in the position of having to either admit that Bush was right..."

[joshcryer]

109. The only person here "vindicating" Cheney is the person saying that Cheney is being truthful.

He's not, he's fucking lying to the core. Obama's criticisms were specific, not broad, and some of the targeted killing policies that he's continued go as far back as Clinton (note: I am against targeted killing, but I am against dishonest campaigns that put Cheney in a truthful light).

[sabrina 1]

115. No, he was not being truthful, he was being deceptive but using

a fact to attempt to vindicate himself. People do have a hard time with nuance. He is a lying ghoul, he outed an undercover agent, he killed untold numbers of people and ordered the torture and deaths of innocent people and enjoyed it. He has been treated in this country like an elder statesman because he was not prosecuted for his crimes.

To see him on TV USING this policy that was Bush's knowing how the left slammed Bush for it, is beyond infuriating and we are in that position for several reasons. This president decided to protect him from prosecution. And then decided to use Bush's policies that allows a US President to order the killing of an American citizen which unless you were in a coma you know caused the entire Left in this country to go practically insane with anger when Bush did it.

But NOW I see people on the left attempting to excuse what they once condemned, and so does Cheney. I was not in the least surprised to see him jump on this. It was more than predictable.

The proper response to this would be for this president to direct the DOJ to start investigations immediately into Cheney's torture program. But he won't. Why? For years we waited to see these criminals held accountable. Instead we get to see them profit from their crimes and justify their actions by pointing at this administration's continuation of their policies.

[joshcryer]

161. Uh, you're the one who's posting a dilemma where we must agree with a fucking liar.

Cheney is a liar. There is nothing to agree with him about.

As far as "Obama doesn't do what I want him to do," stuff, he's a politician. There are things that you might not like about politicians, like, for instance, they don't usually give up power once they have it (Chavez is a big example of that, but it goes even deeper). And that ultimately (in a democracy) they want to get reelected above all else. Of course Obama isn't going to stir the boat in his first term, it is absolutely asinine to believe that a "middle of the road" "building bridges" type of campaigner would ever do that in their first time.

I doubt he'll do it in his second term, too. But he never campaigned that he would and it was fully expected to me. It'd be nice to be wrong on that count.

[joshcryer]

97. Obama's administration has certainly uncovered the biggest flip flopping turncoats...

...I've ever seen in my life.

[GreenTea]

63. Pigshit Cheney!

[Tx4obama]

74. Cheney and his daughter owe Obama an apology for bashing him Sunday morning

They were disgusting sitting there bashing Obama every two seconds during that show,
it's pretty ridiculous for him to say that it is Obama that owes him/BushAdmin an apology!

Can't these GOP assholes see how damn disrespectful to President Obama they are every time they open their mouths!!!

[sabrina 1]

76. Prosecuting them for war crimes would have prevented us from

having to endure seeing them treated like elder statesmen and women on national television. But the President refused to do that. Now, they are looking to vindicate themselves from accusations of war crimes. And the adaptation by this president of one of the most criticized policies of the Bush administration, has handed them a weapon to justify their crimes. It is a shame that we who so fiercely opposed this policy when Bush claimed the right to kill US citizens anywhere in the world, should have to listen to Cheney now using this as proof that he was right. He was not right. But how are you going to tell people that it's okay if a Democrat does it but not okay if a Republican does it?

[Major Hogwash]

99. Especially since we are at war.

Wasn't that what that fucking pussy Cheney said when he was VP, that Americans shouldn't criticize the President at a time of war?

[AverageJoe90]

80. thelordofhell is definitely right on one thing.

If anybody should be apologizing, Sabrina, it's Bush & Cheney and co. for repeatedly ignoring Clinton's warnings about the possible terror incidents......although I must say that of course, Obama is nowhere close to perfect, that's for sure.

[sabrina 1]

83. Lol, you're kinder than me, AverageJoe, I think both of them belong

in jail for life for what they did to this country. They owe the country an apology along with the people of Iraq and wherever else they were secretly killing and torturing people. Which is why it is so disturbing to see this president, who I supported so passionately, adapt some of their policies and give them the opportunity to bash him, especially when he refused to prosecute them.

Cheney knows they committed crimes, that is why he keeps trying to defend their policies. I sincerely wish this administration had moved, as we expected them to do, to reverse all of Bush's unconstitutional policies. Instead he was used the powers Bush gave himself to go after terrorists, and Cheney has been handed a weapon to use in his own defense. Naturally, devious as he is, he grabbed it.

[Major Hogwash]

84. I don't remember President Obama saying anything bad about Cheney specifically.

And I think that's what's bugging ol' Dick.

[Brigid]

86. To quote Cheney himself: "So?"

Why does anybody care what he thinks anyway? :grr:

[louslobbs]

89. Hi Sabrina, is that the same Dick Cheney who has yet to utter the words "I'm Sorry" for any of his

misdeeds and crimes against humanity? I seem to remember, that even the person he shot in the face a few years back, ended up apologizing to him (Cheney) instead of the other way around. How does that Christian prayer go? Something about "Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." I think that's the prayer I'll say for Mr. Cheney, just like all those "good" Christians who say it for President Obama. Amen.
Lou

[sabrina 1]

121. I know, we've been saying that prayer for a long time, but even

without a heart, he is still here, and apparently still believes he is in charge.

My response to this latest diatribe from him were I the President, would be swift. Direct the DOJ to begin the long overdue investgations into war crimes. That would keep him busy as he scrambled, as he did in the Plame affair, to try to cover his crimes. Either that or hand him over to the Hague or the Spanish court.

However, none of that will happen. We have been told to 'look forward'. When I do that I keep seeing Cheney in the future, doing what he has always done, justifying torture and lies about war as our useless MSM treats him like a rock star.

I would like to be president for just one day! Lol, I KNOW it would be a very busy day, but you all would never have to worry about seeing Rummy, Cheney, Bush, Condi et al on TV selling books anymore!

:-)

[TeamsterDem]

90. Cheney should apologize to humankind. nt

[joshcryer]

96. Incredible.

[chill_wind]

100. It's very depressing, Sabrina, to watch so many people pretending

to misunderstand your points. To pretend in all distraction that they literally believe you are defending Dick Cheney. But most of all, the avoidance of the obvious disconnect here-- on how we "liberals" went so quickly from abhorrence at seeing so much power increasingly amassed and concentrated in the hands of the executive authority-- to unquestioning acceptance of it now.

You tried. You have company. Thank you for trying.

:hug:

[sabrina 1]

103. Thank you chill wind. The pretense is a tactic. I encountered it many

times when Bush was president on rightwing sites so I am very familiar with it. It's just very sad to see it here. I would respect someone who supported this kind of thing when Bush was president even if I disagreed with them, but if it was a sincere belief they held and were consistent about.

But no one so far has answered my question, not one, 'did you support this when Bush was president'. There have been all kinds of distractions but no simply answer. At least the Civil Liberties organizations and Constitutional lawyers are still consistent, other wise I would think I dreamed that once upon a time, the left had principles, or said they did.

I appreciate your support and your consistency. I have no problem being in the minority so long as I believe I am doing what is right. I also know that in the future, these laws will all be rescinded and those who used them will have to live with how history records this period, or their legacies will.

[joshcryer]

108. Your question is "loaded." Talk of principles from you is hilarious to the core.

Any premise that begins with Cheney truthfully framing a situation is a non-starter. The man is incapable of honest framing of a situation.

[sabrina 1]

113. Cheney is a liar. And a war criminal. Handing him ammunition

like this, using Bush's policies which the Left so totally opposed, gave him a weapon to use and he used it.

I'll try this again. Did you support Bush's policies which gave the POTUS the powers of a king when he was president?

And what are principles to you?

[joshcryer]

159. Obama has rejected more of Bush's policies that he's adopted, and most come from Clinton.

I do not support Bush's policies, I support intellectual honest. Cheney is a fucking liar. He's fucking lying that Obama followed through with Bush's policies on this topic. Obama is following the Clinton doctrine in that respect.

[joshcryer]

107. Most respondants notice the absurd false equivalence and abhorrent agreement to a liar like Cheney.

Cheney is a fucking liar and Obama did not continue Bush's policies where he disagreed.

[sabrina 1]

114. Most respondents believe in the 'my party right or wrong' philospohy so no

surprise they would struggle with the point.

This was a valuable thread for what should be obvious reasons.

[joshcryer]

160. I dispute that. Most people are pointing out Cheney's outright lies.

Obama ended torture as a policy, tried to end gitmo but was blocked, etc.

[Firebrand Gary]

106. The only thing the Obama administration owes the Bush administration indictment.

[flvegan]

110. Surely, you've seen

various Blue Links of Change that have alleviated your concerns, right?

Someone should trademark/copyright that. Comedy shouldn't be stolen and used elsewhere.

And yes, I realize this will at some point be deleted.

[sabrina 1]

158. I have seen them, but they have not answered the questions

no matter how many I have clicked ... :-)

[BlueCheese]

111. He does make an uncomfortable point.

If we're allowed to kill an American citizen whom we suspect of being a terrorist without due process, why aren't we allowed to waterboard a non-US citizen we suspect to be a terrorist? I know torture is wrong, but honestly, I'd rather be waterboarded than killed by a Predator strike.

[Major Nikon]

112. Nothing uncomfortable about it other than this shitbag was one pretzel away from the presiduncy

Like it or not, targeted killings as they have been implemented under this administration are legal per US and international law. Like it or not, Obama's position on targeted killings has not waivered since before he was even nominated, much less elected or assumed office. Like it or not there is no widespread international condemnation for targeted killings by the US government. Obama won the Nobel prize the same year he authorized numerous targeted killings.

Torture is a completely different subject. It isn't legal. It isn't supported by international law, and it is widely condemned by the international community. Someone can't be tortured unless they are in custody. If they are in custody, they are no longer an imminent threat. Furthermore Obama's position on torture hasn't waivered one iota.

The notion that just because you agree with one aspect of the Bush administration policies, you MUST agree with all of their policies is fucking nutty.

[sabrina 1]

120. Almost all of the Civil Liberties organizations and Constitutional

lawyers who opposed this policy, still oppose it and disagree with your interpretation, that it is legal.

What did Awlaqi do? Where are the charges? We know he ranted and raved against America on the internet, but when asked for the exact reasons for his execution, the WH Press Sec. could not answer.

Sorry, I oppose the death penalty without charges. I oppose the DP period, but especially the placement of such power in the hands of a single individual, this was something that was always opposed, and should be, and if Obama said he was going to claim the powers of a king, that Bush had claimed before the election, I did not hear him. Our democracy is set up to have a balance of power, no one person should ever have such awesome power in this country.

Clearly none of Bush's Constitution destroying laws are going to be rescinded as we had hoped under this administration, but I hope they will be as quickly as possible. A man has been killed, the public has no proof, nothing to show what he actually did, he was a US citizen, he was not on a battlefield, he was not an imminent threat, yet people are willing to accept this without question. Maybe that is even more scary than the fact that it can happen at all, the unquestioning support for it.

As for Cheney, had Obama moved to rescind Bush policies, started investigations into war crimes at the beginning, made it clear he was going to restore Habeas Corpus, and if necessary issue an executive order to shut down Guantanamo Bay, Cheney would not be able to praise on the one hand for killing a US citizen and attack him on the other. He would be too busy trying to use his deceptive skills to stay out of jail. This is what many people thought they were supporting. Clearly we were wrong.

[Major Nikon]

126. Fine, let them make their arguments in court

They have tried and they have failed already. When they are successful, then we'll have something to discuss regarding the legality.

Targeted killings /= the death penalty and it's just asinine to claim otherwise. It's like saying killing someone in self defense is murder.

Plenty of Dick and Shrub's policies have been rescinded already and many other things are changing, albeit more slowly than many would like. Certainly I'd like to see them both doing the frog march as would most other people here on DU, but Obama decided to not spend considerable time and energy doing so because there is so much of their other shit like the economy they left which has to be cleaned up. I may not agree with that, but at least I can understand it.

As far as Cheney's arguments go, they are completely asinine. Cheney is able to make them because people lack the attention span to get past the headline, listen to what he's saying, and conclude it's complete bullshit. That's hardly Obama's fault.

[sabrina 1]

128. We KNOW what Cheney says, when he opens his mouth, it's bullshit.

'let them make their arguments in court'. Well, they tried, but this administration blocked access to the courts. Too late after you are dead. Why would someone's access to the courts, someone who is targeted for killing, be blocked?

I KNOW if Bush was doing this what the reaction here would be. Do we have to wait for another Republican in the WH to return to the outrage over these Constitutional violations.

It is NOT Constitutional, and no fake laws pushed through Congress by Bush can make it so, no matter how many times you say it. To kill a US citizen without even charging him with any crime. These laws will be rescinded, there is no question about that, or this democracy will not survive.

I'll make a deal with you. Show me where in the Constitution this is covered. And don't give me any of Bush's phony laws, any still in place need to be rescinded. This was a man who called the Constitution 'just a piece of paper' and it's shameful that the laws he forced through Congress to try to legalize his criminal intentions, are still in effect.

How will you feel when a Republican President orders the killing of a US citizen without filing any charges and without explaining and providing evidence to back it up. This is not about Awlaqi or Obama, it is about this country's future as a democracy. I guess we all have to decide what we want it to be. Bush supporters made these laws possible by refusing to see the bigger picture. Now many on the Left are doing the same thing. Focusing on the personal, which is very short-sighted, rather than focusing on the country and what is really best for it.

Awlaqi used to be a friend of the Pentagon even though they knew he knew two of the 9/11 hijackers. The public has a right to know the charges against any person killed by this government. 'Trust us' are not words a democratic society should ever be willing to accept, no matter which party is asking.

What was the imminent threat posed by Awlaqi? No one seems to know, but experts on the ME say he was barely known or of any interest to most people there, and he certainly was not a 'leader of Al Queda'. So where was the threat and why was he not charged and arrested over the past ten years when there was plenty of opportunity to do so?

[Major Nikon]

130. Nobody blocked the ACLU's access to the courts

Al-Awlaki's dad and the ACLU sued to have him removed from the list. They weren't successful.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/10/03/20898/history-is-history

As far as the Constitution goes, just throwing your hands up and claiming something isn't constitutional doesn't help the current debate on this subject much. The Constitution is pretty much mum on this subject. The only real direction and limiting factor is the EO. What is needed is a federal law governing this activity written by congress and signed by the president. Simply saying the country has no right to defend itself is not going to find any traction anywhere. There's very little support for it on the left and none on the right.

[sabrina 1]

132. He was not charged with any crime. Why not?

How can someone access the courts to argue their case when there are no charges filed against them, just an execution order? His father had no alternative but to try to get around that. He could even have been tried in absentia where the evidence could have been presented, but it wasn't and as long as we continue those policies which have been used against Guantanamo detainees for years, now being used against US citizens, the process has no validity. Either we abide by the rule of law, or it would be better to be honest and admit that the phrase '9/11 changed everything' really meant 'we are no longer a democracy'. At least it would honest.

[Major Nikon]

135. The remedy to problems like these can't always be found in the courts

The courts can't make laws. They can only arbitrate disputes on existing laws. Sometimes the remedy you seek can only be found by petitioning the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch. That's why I'm saying the answer to this problem lies in new legislation, not by trying to fight battles in the courts which are unwinnable.

[sabrina 1]

137. The man's life was at stake, his father understandably tried to do

what he could. We've watched this for ten years now, the impossibility of anyone the US accuses of being a terrorist, to get any justice whatsoever. It is one of the most shameful things about this country, a real stain on this democracy. That it was ever condoned by Congress, still makes me so angry I'd rather not think about it. Each time I watched them vote away our Constitutional rights, with both parties involved, I cried in frustration.

As far as his father petitioning the Legislative branch? In this country today? He would have a better chance petitioning a dictator somewhere than to try to get a single politician to risk his career by talking to the family of an accused terrorist.

Awlaqi will always remain merely 'an accused terrorist'. I hope one day we get this democracy back on track, but it will take courageous and real citizens, not career politicians beholden to Corporations, to do that.

Btw, it should bother us greatly that most of the people held in Guantanamo for years without charges and said by our government to 'be among the most dangerous people on the planet' were eventually released without charge. And worse, Wikileaks cables reveal that the Government knew they innocent.

Now, we are asked, once again, to believe that the Government is telling the truth about this man they just killed. A lot of people believed those Guantanamo detainees were vicious terrorists also, even some of the Left. But for me the fact they were not charged or given trials, raised too many questions to believe it. And I feel vindicated since the release of the Wikileaks cables.

[Major Nikon]

156. There's lots of things that bother me greatly

Where I think we have common ground is that neither of us believe the current policy is sustainable. You seem to be arguing that targeted killings aren't acceptable under any circumstances, and I just can't go there with you both from a legal and moral standpoint. My opinion is that at some point, tactical victories obtained by targeted killings defeat the strategic value of them.

[BlueCheese]

122. Okay, replace torture with indefinite detention.

If killing someone is fine, holding that person indefinitely should be fine, then, right? All those people at Guantanamo are people we suspect are terrorists. Surely we're allowed to hold them until the war is over, right?

[Major Nikon]

125. Whole different subject better suited for a whole different post

Once again I don't buy into the nutty claim that just because you support one part of one policy by an administration, you automatically support all of them. That's Cheney's nutty assertion which I'm not going to agree with. YMMV.

[BlueCheese]

127. Well, it seems that killing someone is worse than holding him indefinitely.

So if you support killing someone without charge, then holding someone indefinitely without charge must be okay, right? I'm not asking you to say that because you agree with Cheney on killing Americans without charge, that you have to agree with his position on tax cuts. The question is simply what can the government do to someone it suspects of being a terrorist. If it's okay to kill him, why can't we hold him until the war is over?

[truebrit71]

118. I'd rather be neither and have the President respect the damned document he swore an oath to defend.

...and THAT is the point...

If bush had done this the howls of outrage from the left would have been deafening...just because it's "our guy" doesn't all of a sudden make it right..

[sabrina 1]

129. Exactly. Thank you! The effort to try to justify it is simply stunning

and not working either. When even the Press Sec. can't explain you know they have a problem. It's hard to justify a clearly unconstitutional act. Even Bush/Cheney has some problems with that, so they just forced laws through, such as the one being used to justify this killing, to cover themselves from any arguments involving the Constitution.

[truebrit71]

117. Why isn't this war criminal behind bars???

...THAT should be the focus...not whether or not Obama has continued the bush doctrine (answer: yes, quite clearly he has)...

[Major Nikon]

131. How can you even say that?

The Bush doctrine was pure, unadulterated, neocon bullshit. It dictates unilateral regime change, forced democracy, and initiating preemptive wars, none of which was embraced by Obama.

[truebrit71]

138. Very easily when the President puts themselves ahead of the constitution...

...don't care which party they're from they're wrong...they are there to PROTECT not subvert the Constitution...

The Bush Doctrine was "I'll do whatever the fuck I want, and I DARE you to challenge me"....When it comes to killing people, this particular President seems to be just as adept at it as was his predecessor..

[Major Nikon]

142. Then you appear to have a very poor understanding of the Bush doctrine

The Bush doctrine was written almost exclusively by Paul Wolfowitz. Targeted attacks are nothing new. They at least as far back as the Raygun administration and were carried out by every administration since. If you think targeted attacks are part and parcel to the Bush doctrine, you should read up on the subject a bit more.

[truebrit71]

164. Yeah, okay Mom, thanks....

Whatever :eyes: my point, which you so woefully understood was that Lt AWOL was the first to essentially codify a unilateral Presidency. One that was beholden to no-one, and one that was not bound to the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The fact that Obama has followed along in virtual lockstep is the greatest tragedy of his Presidency...

[Major Nikon]

166. Hogwash

If you think Obama has continued the Bush Doctrine, you either have no clue what the term means, or you are parroting out the opinions of those who have no clue what it means. The Bush Doctrine was a dramatic departure from a foreign policy of multilateralism which has been embraced by every administration since WWII. It was foreign policy written by the Neocons, who finally found a champion of their nutty ideas where they had never had one before. The Bush Doctrine was dead the first day Obama took office. Pointing out how Obama's policy of targeted killings is very similar to Bush's and then jumping up and squealing 'there it is, there's the Bush Doctrine' is simply childish.

Yet the president, with this brief set of remarks, has crafted something of an Obama Doctrine for military intervention: The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation. In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/libya-obama-anti-bush-doctrine

[truebrit71]

167. He has absolutely continued on with the themes of the bush doctrine...

...to say otherwise is to prove oneself un-educated, stupid, ignorant, or all three...

[Major Nikon]

168. Quite the reverse is true

Repeating the same ignorance over and over, especially when you've been provided the tools to better educate yourself, is the essence of stupidity. But please don't let me get in the way of your bullshit mongering, as the comedic value alone is well worth it.

[truebrit71]

170. You are right, he has halted all of the various wars Lt Awol started...

...he has stopped torturing people, he has closed down Gitmo, he hasn't murdered American citizens on his say-so only, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT...

I will now go and flog myself 100 times with a wet noodle as penance for not acknowledging your superior intellect....:sarcasm:

[sabrina 1]

139. Unilateral regime change just happened in Libya.

There is an escalation of a secret war in Pakistan, see Jeremy Scahill to get the details. Drones are killing more innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Somalia and even some in Yemen, that ever happened under Bush. The people of all those countries have gone out in the streets to protest the killing of their children, but have been ignored by this administration and the drone program, operated in parts of the area now by, guess who? Blackwater!

I thought they were not getting any more money from US taxpayers after their murderous rampaging through Iraq?

So what is it that Obama is not embracing? Are we out of any of the wars yet? Is see MORE wars added and more brutal drone strikes killing it is known, 9 innocents for every 1 actual, possible terrorist.

I don't really think about the president anymore, either Obama or Bush. I believe now that it is a system and the POTUS is merely a frontman for that system. They may or not have much choice in what gets done. But so long as they keep changing the letter after the names every few years, the illusion of democracy remains. And as that is the case, both political groups will keep supporting this brutal and failed system, out of loyalty to one party or the other. When that stops and the people are no longer divided, maybe we can get some real change.

But now, I don't expect much from the president. They don't hear the people at all. They are surrounded every day by those who run the system and that's who they listen to. How to fix it is another matter. I see no signs the the people matter, only at election time to elect the latest frontman for Corporate America, but no one will get close to even that stage, unless they have been vetted and seem likely not to kick up too much of a fuss about the system. Dems are given a few crumbs to throw to their side to keep the illusion going, and when Repubs are in power, they get a few crumbs to throw to their supporters.

The problem is now, a majority of the people actually see it which is why they are out in the streets, not just here, but around the globe, hoping to begin what will be a very long process, of fixing it. Sad to say, many just view the POTUS the same way they view CEOs of large Corps. Total disillusionment in a completely failed system which cannot be patched, it has to be knocked down and rebuilt.

[Major Nikon]

141. That's not what happened in Libya

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

[Romulox]

143. "No Fly Zone" = "License for Regime Change"???

:eyes:

[Major Nikon]

144. You do understand what unilateral means, yes?

Just checking.

[Romulox]

145. So, you are disputing "unilateral", but not "illegal regime change"? Because that's picking nits.

:eyes: :hi:

[Major Nikon]

147. I'm using widely used terms exactly as intended

Separating those words, deriving a different meaning, then arguing on that basis is the essence of nitpicking. :think:

[Romulox]

151. Nonsense. You are defending regime change in Libya. Have the courage of your convictions.

:eyes:

[Major Nikon]

154. Since I have no idea what you're talking about

And I'm not convinced you do either. I'm going to end this.

Good bye!

[Romulox]

155. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2041888&mesg_id=2049321

[Romulox]

146. I mean, even George Bush had his "coalition of the willing" (sic). Jeesh.

:puke: :hi:

[Major Nikon]

148. And that keeps it from being unilateral?

That was Shrub's argument. Didn't fly then. Not sure why you'd think it would now.

[Romulox]

150. The phrase was "unilateral regime change". One assumed you were taking issue with the entire phrase

You seem to concede that Obama's regime change in Libya WAS NOT authorized by the UN, and instead want to argue about the "unilateral" nature of the action.

"That was Shrub's argument. Didn't fly then. Not sure why you'd think it would now."

You may have forgotten which account you're logged in as--you were DEFENDING the President's war in Libya. :hi:

[Major Nikon]

152. I conceded no such thing

Quite the opposite is true. Where are you coming up with this tripe?

As far as your last statement goes, I'll just direct you to the notice contained below your post button.

[Romulox]

153. Pathetic. nt

[Romulox]

133. OUCH! That left a mark! nt

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bake]

136. Gitmo still open? Check. Warrantless wiretapping still happening? Check.

Extraordinary rendition? Check.

Yeah. Obama owes Bush an apology.

Bake

[tawadi]

140. Go fuck yourself, heartless man.

[Rex]

169. Dick Cheney can go fuck himself!

That is all I will ever say about that SOB. GO FUCK YOURSELF!