of course we are never going to get a list of places where the US gov't will say they will consider killing someone and where they won't. but everybody basically knows, right??
― goole, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:02 (twelve years ago) link
it comes down to "can we feasibly arrest this person or not", if it's no, we can kill them. rules are made up afterward at the govt's convenience
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:10 (twelve years ago) link
i'm more confused by what holder means by "judicial process" as opposed to "due process" - pretty sure he completely made this part up
“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:12 (twelve years ago) link
due process could also involve administrative procedures that aren't necessarily judicial review, but he's also giving no justification for removing judicial review from a governmental action (execution) that usually requires one.
― wmlynch, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:19 (twelve years ago) link
it comes down to "can we feasibly arrest this person or not",
I do not think they ever wanted to arrest Anwar al-Awlaki.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:26 (twelve years ago) link
then that's little more than a rhetorical trick on holder's part. as far as i know, "due process" has been interpreted by the judiciary to mean things covered by the fifth and sixth amendments
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:28 (twelve years ago) link
The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
It's high time that the Congress acted to clarify the post-9/11 law that the Bush and Obama administrations have cited to justify this shit. Because, if you take the courts out of the equation all together, all the law says is that whoever is running the executive branch atm can use all the force they think is necessary to eliminate terrorist threats to the USA, which of course becomes an unlimited power to kill anyone with no check or balance, and it's what leads to shit like this.
Yoo-hoo! Congress! How about a little action over here?
― Aimless, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:29 (twelve years ago) link
agreed. it's a bullshit excuse and holder ought to be ashamed for providing it as obama ought to be ashamed for accepting it as good enough.
― wmlynch, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:31 (twelve years ago) link
haha congress.
― wmlynch, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
i don't think the congress itself wants the american public to be more aware of the powers congress exercises -- it would mean americans would start to ask congress to do stuff differently
― goole, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
― wmlynch, Tuesday, March 6, 2012 2:31 PM (3 minutes ago)
another liberal icon, harold koh, is just as complicit
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:37 (twelve years ago) link
Kevin Drum's suggestion:
If you want to kill a U.S. citizen outside of a traditional hot battlefield, there needs to be independent oversight. The FISA court performs this function for surveillance, and we know from experience that it rarely gets in the government's way. But at least it's technically independent and forces the executive branch to follow its own rules. It's the absolute minimum that we should require for targeted killings too.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/holder-oversight-good-idea-if-youre-killing-us-citizens-doesnt-mean-were-going-allow-a
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 20:11 (twelve years ago) link
ha i can already see the ioz post about that kind of reasoning
"let's get some other arm of the state to check the right box before killing someone, the president checking the box himself is just too unseemly"
― goole, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 20:18 (twelve years ago) link
congress even more aggro about killing US citizens/denying due process than the executive, unfortunately
― be scientific, douchebag (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 20:27 (twelve years ago) link
Yes. It plays well on the 6 p.m. news.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 20:30 (twelve years ago) link
No questions to Obama at the press conference about killing Amuricans
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 05:47 (twelve years ago) link
More change we can believe in:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/biden-hires-president-of-a-lobbying-firm/2012/03/05/gIQAFCMGtR_blog.html
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 13:22 (twelve years ago) link
Meanwhile, this happened:http://obamasmyguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/omg-oval-sticker.png
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:40 (twelve years ago) link
Okay roffle:
Despite the public outrage, SeekingArrangement.com, the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website announced today its decision to begin advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show for the first time. The moniker of a Sugar Daddy is that of an older, successful wealthy man romantically involved with a younger, beautiful woman, much like the relationship Rush shares with his much younger wife, Lauryn Rogers.“Rush Limbaugh is one of the greatest examples of the modern day Sugar Daddy,” says Brandon Wade, the Founder & CEO of SeekingArrangement.com. “We wouldn’t feel right if we didn’t come forward and support him in his time of need.”
“Rush Limbaugh is one of the greatest examples of the modern day Sugar Daddy,” says Brandon Wade, the Founder & CEO of SeekingArrangement.com. “We wouldn’t feel right if we didn’t come forward and support him in his time of need.”
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:31 (twelve years ago) link
hahahahahahahahaha
― Vaseline MEN AMAZING JOURNEY (DJP), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:34 (twelve years ago) link
"I'm sorry I called her a slut. Time for a commercial break about whores."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:35 (twelve years ago) link
That's is sublime!
― Morning becomes apopleptic (Michael White), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:39 (twelve years ago) link
"...strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson (explaining why he went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase even though he held it to be extra-Constitutional)
― Morning becomes apopleptic (Michael White), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:45 (twelve years ago) link
wow, john yoo has been around a long time
― buzza, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 16:49 (twelve years ago) link
I am very, very wary of chipping away at habeas corpus, even though the Constitution provides for just that in cases of invasion or rebellion though Al-Awlaki might fit the case for treason:
"...whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 2381
But what's less clear is what Holder means by due process and I should very much like to see the admissable testimony of two witnesses as required by the Constitution. To me, this screams out for Congressional legislative clarification.
― Morning becomes apopleptic (Michael White), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:13 (twelve years ago) link
yeah we went over the treason thing on some other thread. basically it's impossible to prosecute.
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:15 (twelve years ago) link
I assume that the argument goes that as he was levying war against the US and was in a place that made it prohibitively difficult to apprehend him, he would just be killed as an enemy soldier. It's a blind spot in our jurisprudence and a loophole in both American and Common Law personal protections.
― Morning becomes apopleptic (Michael White), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:16 (twelve years ago) link
While it is possible to make a good case for summary execution of persons in Al-Awlaki's position, what is not necessary here is the cloak of mystery surrounding the standards that must be met, the process that must be followed and the safeguards against abuse. FFS, look at all the process involved in a death penalty case and how much abuse still happens in spite of all that.
afaics, what happens here is that a bunch of CIA or FBI gnomes finger some guy as a target, their boss takes their basket of 'intelligence', sifts it down and kicks it up the line until at some point it lands on Obama's desk and he signs a death warrant. How exactly does Obama know if one word of that intelligence is true? He doesn't. How easy would it be to fabricate this shit and start offing political opponents? Sorry, that's a "state secret"!
― Aimless, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:53 (twelve years ago) link
The likes of Paul Begala praising the size of Obama's balls for killing terrorists and Keeping Us Safe doesn't help either.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:57 (twelve years ago) link
unsure whether Obama's testicles themselves killed terrorists though
was gonna say, those are some huge, deadly balls
― Vaseline MEN AMAZING JOURNEY (DJP), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:57 (twelve years ago) link
** WARNING the image you are about to post is unsafe **
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:58 (twelve years ago) link
the constitution says you need two witnesses against you to be convicted of treason. at least that's what it used to mean
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:05 (twelve years ago) link
oh we already mentioned that nvm
― bron paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:06 (twelve years ago) link
John Marshall's decision at Aaron Burr's trial also relevant.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:06 (twelve years ago) link
Now it means that, if there is a video taken by a drone of a small, indistinct figure identified as you by a "expert" piece of personal identification software, and that figure is seen in a place reputed to be an al-Q training facility, and two people watch the tape, you're toast.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:08 (twelve years ago) link
xpost -- Read that as "Josh Marshall's decision" and was all 'what kind of time travel pundit trip are you on'
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:09 (twelve years ago) link
Founding Fathers Yglesias, Weigel and Erickson.
for whom Federalist satrap Glenn Greenwald feels contempt
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
You mean sending a fax about the "kill list" to Congress is not good enough:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing
Holder argues that "robust oversight" is provided by Congress, but that "oversight" actually amounts to members of the relevant congressional committees being briefed. Press reports suggest this can simply amount to a curt fax to intelligence committees notifying them after the fact that an American has been added to a "kill list." It also seems like it would be difficult for Congress to provide "robust oversight" of the targeted killing program when intelligence committee members like Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are still demanding to see the actual legal memo justifying the policy.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:22 (twelve years ago) link
And he didn't call them freedom fries?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 18:36 (twelve years ago) link
don't worry Rush, noted lothario and generally all-around idiot Bill Maher has got yr back!
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 March 2012 00:30 (twelve years ago) link
Obama campaigned on what he called “the most sweeping ethics reform in history” and has frequently criticized the role of money in politics. That hasn’t stopped him from offering government jobs to some of his biggest bundlers, volunteer fundraisers who gather political contributions from other rich donors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-obama-gives-administration-jobs-to-some-big-fundraisers/2012/03/06/gIQA9y3txR_story.html?hpid=z2
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 8 March 2012 13:40 (twelve years ago) link
I just love that Palin has written the playbook for modern GOP candidates. Cannot wait for the Congressional election this fall.
Joe the Plumber blows a gasket on CNN
Samuel Wurzelbacher, who on Thursday morning accused CNN of being like TMZ and trying to trap him with “gotcha questions,” explained to POLITICO immediately following the tense interview that he is “sick of the gossip and drama.”Reached on his cellphone after his early morning TV hit, Wurzelbacher, better known to many Americans as “Joe the Plumber,” explained why he had gotten flustered. . . . During his conversation with CNN’s Zoraida Sambolin, Wurzelbacher – who won an Ohio Republican congressional primary this week — began to show his first signs of frustration when asked why he believes he’s qualified to run for Congress.“What qualifies me?” Wurzelbacher said, laughing. “One, I’m an American citizen. Two, I’m very much involved in the process of what’s going on. I guess my question would be, what qualifies the current politicians who are killing our country, Republicans and Democrats alike?”He added, “I’m sorry, it just seems like a silly question.”Things only got worse when Sambolin cited some of Wurzelbacher’s previous statements about homosexuality, including his claim that the word “queer” is not a slur, as well as his declaration that he would not allow homosexuals “anywhere near my children.”“Have you changed your positions on this at all?” Sambolin asked.“So this is TMZ, this isn’t CNN, is what you’re saying,” Wurzelbacher shot back.“Of course it’s CNN. These are things that you said, that I would like to know if you still stand by them or if you have changed your positions on them.”“Listen, in my dictionary, and everyone’s dictionary in 1970s, the word queer did mean strange and unusual. There was no slur to it. Do you challenge that?” the congressional candidate said, before adding, “Come on, you’re trying to do a ‘gotcha’ moment, it’s quite obvious.”Before the interview came to an end, Wurzelbacher charged, “I’m allowed to have my opinions as an American, but it seems the left becomes very intolerant when you have an opinion other than what they state.”Asked by POLITICO if he will go on CNN again, Wurzelbacher said he is undecided.“You’re going to be asked questions but I’m not afraid of them. I will fight back, I will talk back. I’m not sitting there to be persecuted,” he said. “If they’re going to take me on, they better be ready to take me on.”Wurzelbacher will face off against Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in the fall.
Reached on his cellphone after his early morning TV hit, Wurzelbacher, better known to many Americans as “Joe the Plumber,” explained why he had gotten flustered.
. . . During his conversation with CNN’s Zoraida Sambolin, Wurzelbacher – who won an Ohio Republican congressional primary this week — began to show his first signs of frustration when asked why he believes he’s qualified to run for Congress.
“What qualifies me?” Wurzelbacher said, laughing. “One, I’m an American citizen. Two, I’m very much involved in the process of what’s going on. I guess my question would be, what qualifies the current politicians who are killing our country, Republicans and Democrats alike?”
He added, “I’m sorry, it just seems like a silly question.”
Things only got worse when Sambolin cited some of Wurzelbacher’s previous statements about homosexuality, including his claim that the word “queer” is not a slur, as well as his declaration that he would not allow homosexuals “anywhere near my children.”
“Have you changed your positions on this at all?” Sambolin asked.
“So this is TMZ, this isn’t CNN, is what you’re saying,” Wurzelbacher shot back.
“Of course it’s CNN. These are things that you said, that I would like to know if you still stand by them or if you have changed your positions on them.”
“Listen, in my dictionary, and everyone’s dictionary in 1970s, the word queer did mean strange and unusual. There was no slur to it. Do you challenge that?” the congressional candidate said, before adding, “Come on, you’re trying to do a ‘gotcha’ moment, it’s quite obvious.”
Before the interview came to an end, Wurzelbacher charged, “I’m allowed to have my opinions as an American, but it seems the left becomes very intolerant when you have an opinion other than what they state.”
Asked by POLITICO if he will go on CNN again, Wurzelbacher said he is undecided.
“You’re going to be asked questions but I’m not afraid of them. I will fight back, I will talk back. I’m not sitting there to be persecuted,” he said. “If they’re going to take me on, they better be ready to take me on.”
Wurzelbacher will face off against Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in the fall.
― the Hilary Clinton of Ghostface Killahs (Phil D.), Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:46 (twelve years ago) link
congratulations Rep Kaptur on your imminent reelection
― Vaseline MEN AMAZING JOURNEY (DJP), Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:49 (twelve years ago) link
BREITBART BOMBSHELL VIDEO OF RADICAL OBAMA zzzzzzzz
― the late great, Thursday, 8 March 2012 19:49 (twelve years ago) link
lol
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 March 2012 19:53 (twelve years ago) link
hope that the dead air slowly takes over his entire show.
― wmlynch, Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:07 (twelve years ago) link
hope that the walking dead slowly take over his entire show
― the Hilary Clinton of Ghostface Killahs (Phil D.), Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:08 (twelve years ago) link
this whole thing is interesting, I mean this is far from the most offensive thing this dude has done in his life, this is like, about as offensive as he's been every single day of his life. so why now? internet anger? limbaugh losing influence?
― iatee, Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:10 (twelve years ago) link