Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Hypocrisy of Barack Obama

Recs

41

October 05, 2011 – Comments (36)

DavidKretzmann.com: On the second day of his presidency, Barack Obama promised, “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” Here is an honest look at Barack Obama in his own words, to ensure his promise of transparency does not fall by the wayside.

Due Process

“The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” — Barack Obama; December 2007

Tell that to Anwar al-Alwaki.

Presidential War Powers

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.” — Barack Obama; October 2007

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Barack Obama; December 2007

Message to Obama: You probably wouldn’t have people in Congress suing you over the Libya War if you had followed your own words.

Medical Marijuana

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — Barack Obama, June 2007

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — Barack Obama; August 2007

Obama has undeniably contradicted himself, with his Administration approving raids of medical marijuana businesses (even in states where medical marijuana is legal).

Debt Ceiling

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.” — Barack Obama; March 2006

The debt ceiling has been raised three times under Obama’s presidency as of summer 2011.

Iraq War

“What I am opposed to is a dumb war.” — Barack Obama; October 2002

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.” — Barack Obama; October 2007

The Iraq War is not close to ending. No troops have been brought home; if anything, they have simply been moved to Afghanistan. This doesn’t even account for the thousands of contractorshired by the Department of State and Department of Defense. In addition, the U.S. has continually bombed Pakistan and Yemen under Obama’s presidency.

Libya War

On March 18, 2011, Obama declared that U.S. military excursions in Libya would last “days, not weeks.” Six months later, we’re still counting.

Guantanamo Bay

“Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It’s time to show the world we’re not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with. We’re not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That’s not who we are.” — Barack Obama; 2007

It’s a nice sentiment from Obama, but Guantanamo remains open to this day.

PATRIOT Act

“That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.” — Barack Obama; August 2007

As President, Obama twice signed legislation extending the PATRIOT Act for five years until 2015.

Torture

“The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture.” — Barack Obama, December 2007

“I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like ‘waterboarding’ clearly constitute torture.” — Barack Obama, December 2007

Unfortunately, torture continues under the Obama Administration.

Is this the change we expected when we elected Barack Obama in 2008?

http://davidkretzmann.com/2011/10/the-hypocrisy-of-barack-obama/ 

36 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 05, 2011 at 4:08 PM, djemonk (< 20) wrote:

> Is this the change we expected when we elected Barack Obama in 2008?

No, and the people who elected him are now down on Wall Street sleeping on mattresses.

Report this comment
#2) On October 05, 2011 at 4:25 PM, rfaramir (29.33) wrote:

I only expected change for the worse, when Obama got elected over my protest. I was right. That doesn't make me feel good, but I'm sure not going to let it easily happen again.

To bring things down to investing, inflation will be inevitable so long as the spending on wars and welfare continue unabated. Dollars are no safe place for savings.

Where are the adults who will cut spending, cut taxes, cut regulations, and let the free market bring us the prosperity that is the birthright of all liberty-loving free Americans?

Report this comment
#3) On October 05, 2011 at 6:27 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Where are the adults who will cut spending, cut taxes, cut regulations, and let the free market bring us the prosperity that is the birthright of all liberty-loving free Americans?"

You're an adult, aren't you? Most politicians, and all career politicians, are entirely self-interested...they're not "representatives". If they truly wanted to represent their constituents, they have the budgets and technology available to easily solicit the opinions of their districts on every major issue. Yet some in Congress have openly declared that their constituents don't know what's good for them. Nothing will change until true patriots step up to run, enact change and impose term limits on themselves...most voters are obviously too stupid to vote out even the worst of politicians.

Report this comment
#4) On October 05, 2011 at 10:47 PM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

On January 22, 2009, the White House announced that President Barack Obama had signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and that the detention facility would be shut down within the year.[8][9] On January 29, 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviews how America puts Guantanamo detainees on trial.[10]

On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[ 

It aint all on President Obama. I checked one issue and you blamed the wrong legislative body for the failure. Thats a politics from you.

Second issue; "torture continues under Obama" links to an article that concerns torture under Bush and attempts to connect Obama to torture by quoting the N.I D Obama hired in Jan 2009 as saying in March 2009 torture under bush was successful. Obama fired him in April, 2009.

I'll give you Libya after the first 90 days, unless Congress allowed it after that, and then you don't get it.

The quote about debt limits refers to Congress making an issue of common practice not the practice itself.  

I'm tired though, so I'm done. President Obama has done enough things badly you do not have to stretch the truth or misrepresent information to call him out. That type of hypocrisy reflects as badly on you as it does on him.

Ron Paul will not be a less hypocritical president by the standards of reporting you just used..

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#5) On October 06, 2011 at 12:33 AM, BillyTG (29.18) wrote:

devoish, are you trying to defend Obama? I can't tell if it's that or if you're just pointing out bias in the article.

Being politics and all, in my opinion, Obama's pre-presidential-candidate words compared with his Presidential  actions are indefensible. That's no surprise. I have a tough time understanding why anybody would try to defend liars, as nearly all politicians are. Are there any real differences between Bush and Obama when it comes to the military and corporateaction? Nope. When will people wake up to the fact that these Selected "leaders" are chosen by the same elitists with the same agenda for all their picks regardless of party affiliation, sponsored by the same banks and corporations, pushed into the public consciousness by the corporate-owned media, and put into office as puppets?

Guantanamo is still running full speed. You think some Army colonel is standing in the way of the President. Please. That's just a convenient excuse.

So what if he fired some guy for saying torture works? That could mean several things, including (and most likely) that Obama, like all politicians, does not like those around him sharing the company's dirt with the media.  So he fired the guy. Whoopty do. Do the Bush torture policies continue or not? That's the issue.

Libya is unconstitutional no matter how you spin it. Obama is not a peaceful President. In fact, as far back as I can think, we have not one. 

Ron Paul is not the typical politician. Not by a long shot. What he was saying 30 years ago matches up with what he says today. He is also the only politician who I would trust to make congruent his Presidential actions and promises.

Again, my opinion only.

Report this comment
#6) On October 06, 2011 at 2:53 AM, MrPecuniam (< 20) wrote:

Why do people fail to realize that the problems of Obamas first term are due to the root problems created by the Bush regieme? Are people so obliviously shortsighted?

Report this comment
#7) On October 06, 2011 at 5:41 AM, BillyTG (29.18) wrote:

MrPecuniam,

First Obama's flat out lies discussed here---Libya, Guantanamo, Presidential War Powers, Medical Marijuana---can not be blamed on Bush. What does Bush have to do with whether or not Eric Holder goes agfter marijuana, or whether or not we invade Libya?

Second, this should not even be about Repub vs Dem. There is a structural failure in our political system and economy that have absolutely nothing to do with Bush or Obama, and go back WAY WAY beyond Bush years. Those guys are just the latest puppets put in office to maintain the status quo. Presidents are merely frontmen selling ideas, not their own, to the public.

Report this comment
#8) On October 06, 2011 at 8:23 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Steven,

He murdered an American citizen without due process.  Really, what else is there?  On one side you have Ron Paul, who has consistently defended personal liberty for 70 years.  On the other side you have a cold blooded psychopathic killer.

And no, that's not hyperbole.  Like Bush before him, Obama is a psychopath that should be caged.

David

Report this comment
#9) On October 06, 2011 at 8:35 AM, outoffocus (23.24) wrote:

All those quotes up there tell me is that its not Obama that's really running this country.  I've listened to many of his speeches over the years and one overarching theme is that his speechesmake sense and they are filled with wisdom, yet they dont line up with any of his policies. 

That just lets me know just how entrenched special interests are in DC.   So in that aspect I actually dont blame him. I dont think we've had a real president in this country for quite some time.  Bush was a figurehead and so is Obama. And theres an extremely high chance that our next president will be nothing but a figurehead.  

The minute Americans figure that out will be the minute things begin to turn around.

Report this comment
#10) On October 06, 2011 at 9:35 AM, BroadwayDan (98.27) wrote:

David K and David in Qatar/California,

DK - as we discussed, there's a huge disconnect between Ronald Reagan's policies while President and Paul's positions. So my question, especially to David in Qatar/California - does Paul's hyping of Reagan on his Website bother you? 

Reagan massively escalated the military, the drug war and appointed Rehnquist and Scalia, to name a few things that don't sit well with Paul's desire to cut the warfare state, end the drug war and respect individual liberty.

I like Ron Paul, and consider him a vital voice in American politicis. For his position on the drug war alone, I love the guy. But the worship he receives and the free pass on his own political hypocrisies does not align with the savage attacks his followers put on everyone else. Ron Paul hypes his connection to Reagan because it helps him get elected - he needs some traditional Republican support.

And there's also his position on abortion which is a laughable attack on women's individual liberties. 

Fool On,

DJR

 

Report this comment
#11) On October 06, 2011 at 9:43 AM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

BillyTG,

Pencils wrote that President Obama was not transparent and does not follow the rule of law in the first paragraph. Then down the list of grievances (grievances that are transparent to all of us) he offered an example of President Obama being stopped from closing Guantanamo by a Judge and Congress or "the rule of law". By now though, you have forgotten the grievance that Obama does not follow the rule of law, because the examples keep repeating that Obama broke promises and now you are upset about that.

And while that may be good politics and good messaging, it is not what Pencils described as an honest look at President Obama. So if you want to be easily fooled into exchanging dishonest Republican poitics for dishonest Libertarian ones don't expect me to go with you.

Do you not think there is bias in the article? Do you not think that the article misrepresents at least some of the circumstances surrounding the events its calls out Obama for?

If so why do you think that the same small gov't non intervention ideas promoted by Republicans in the 80s as trickle down and deregulation, Conservatives in the 90s as tax cuts for the rich, and Libertarians now as wealth creating are anything but a policy of keeping business as usual, and a continuation of the policys that corrupt Gov't and line politicians pockets with corporate money and corporate pockets with ours?

1980 Republicans - cut taxes, deregulate.

1995 Conservatives - cut taxes, deregulate.

2010 libertarians - cut taxes, deregulate.

Fool me once shane on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a third time? not likely.

High taxes, and Gov't social spending combined with employees having the share of power and income that participating in unions took for them built a strong healthy middle class.

A healthy mddle class was the foundation that launched entrepeneurs for decades.

If you are already the top 5%, maybe you do not want a strong middle class. Maybe in a free market economy impoverishing the middle class is better for you personally, cheap teachers cost less in taxes after all. (more in education, but less in taxes).

Maybe if you are not the top 5%, maybe you can feel the struggles of the bottom 90% nipping at your heels. Maybe you know that a sickness your heath insurance does not cover will impoverish your family just as surely as if you made $20k. maybe your 401k cannot replace the SSI you might not be getting because of the next corporate tax break and employee pay cut.

You don't have to lie to piss me off at Obama and the Democrats. 401ks will not replace the income you get from SSI in your retirement, neither will they replace pensions. His payroll tax holiday removes money from our future SSI payments and makes it available for us to spend on food that hedge funds are raisng the cost of without adding value to. If low income earners have ten bucks more, it just means that food prices go ten bucks higher before the last in "investors" don't get to sell it for more. But the financial industry gets their sales commissions and any profit they make from buying corn futures before they resell it to their clients, and then tip off private investors to get in through newsletters.

It is not inflation by Gov't printing. It is market intervention by investors/traders that are causing inflation. In the case of food it is also global warming and crop losses, but every bushel of corn is resold through hedge funds and investors over 20 times before it gets from the grain silo to kellogs.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#12) On October 06, 2011 at 9:56 AM, rofgile (99.42) wrote:

devoish's response (#4) was pretty good.

 - Guantanamo failure was not due to Obama, but blocking of Congress (no one wanted to bring terrorists to their home states).  It was a cowardly congress that failed here.  Similar issues hamper much of the economic recovery - we have had a congress with an agenda of limiting and blocking recovery legislation (limiting the bailout to 700 billion, when as Krugman argued for years that it should've been much larger to really move things positively).

 - I fully supported the Libyan efforts.  We never had "boots on the ground", and the mission has been successful (Qaddafi is gone after how many decades??  If Ronald Reagan was president he would've been proud here). 

 - On killing Anwar al-Awlaki - people are not very outraged, because this guy was trying to plot attacks on the United States, having left the country to Yemen.  While he never "formally renounced" his citizenship, Republicans had previously tried to pass a law that would've stripped him of citizenship.  And, if he was only unformally not a US citizen anymore, he was at least a highly treasonous one.  

 Obama's taken at least four major gutsy moves on terrorism: Killing Osama bin Laden with a covert strike mission in a hostile country, expanding afganistan, supporting the Libyan overthrow of gaddafi, and taking out Anwar al-Awlaki.  I think history will remember him as having good judgement and being a leader in this.  In the last 4 years, it has sincerely felt like we have kicked Al-qaeda's butt.  We taken out all the major leaders, we haven't let em gain in Afganistan.  We've shown that any new leaders will be targetted and taken out.  Their group is in disarray, and no major attacks on foreign soil have taken place.  Who would've thought that the one thing Obama was good at was taking on terrorism? :)

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#13) On October 06, 2011 at 10:27 AM, drgroup (69.33) wrote:

obama does not have the rights and powers of a king, emperor or dictator. His speeches are littered with the air and tone of these type of tyrants. He is such a psychopath and narcissist that his ego has developed a total disconnect from what his role as president is and his obligatory connection to the constitution and three levels of government.

Do not dismiss the sanctioning of the drone murder of the American citizen without first asking yourself who is next. Can it be a group of people protesting or just someone eric holder and obama select because they disagree with their socialist/fascist agenda?

I hear the the wash of the drone exhaust now....  

Report this comment
#14) On October 06, 2011 at 11:10 AM, BillyTG (29.18) wrote:

devoish, fair enough.

rofgile, do you really believe what you wrote about Libya? It's laughable, and false in every point you tried to make, to those who really know what's going on.

Don't get me started on terrorism because we'd be at an impasse immediately. If you really think Obama is some kind of anti-terrorism hero for those moves, then I have good news for you. There is more coming: Yemen, much of Africa, Syria, and eventually Saudi Arabia. YAY!! You must be so happy to hear the good news that we are winning the war of terrorism!

The bad news for you is that this progression will have absolutely nothing to do with combatting terrorism. Terrorism, however, will be how the "expansion" is sold to the public. Welcome to my world.

 

Report this comment
#15) On October 06, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.53) wrote:

TheMiracleDJR:

I see what you are getting at with Ron Paul and Reagan. However, you are being unfair to Dr. Paul in this regard. Dr. Paul, while largely in favor Reagan's ideals, was a major critic of Reagan during his administration for some of the issues you brought up as well as deficit spending. Heck, many of the Republicans during the debate attacked Dr. Paul becauseof his criticisms of Reagan.

So, yeah. Paul lauds Reagan because its politics and he wants to attract the base. More importantly, Paul truly adores Reagan and the Reagan ideals (even if President Reagan was ultimately inadequate).

On the issue of abortion, I am interested in hearing your opinion more thoroughly. I used to think along similar lines to you, but I've learned that Dr. Paul is not in anyway in favor of a constitutional ammendment banning abortion. In fact, he's been very clear that it isn't the government's business at all. He believes it should be up to the states, if any government should have say at all.What's so wrong with that? If the people (including the women) of Texas want to ban abortion, then why not let them? If the people (including the women) of Rhode Island want to allow abortions then why not let them? 

Anyway, wanted to sure  understood Dr. Paul's views on abortion properly before you criticise. Personally, I would vote for a women's right to choose in my state... but why not let each state decide? 

Report this comment
#16) On October 06, 2011 at 1:31 PM, TMFPencils (99.80) wrote:

devoish,

"Pencils wrote that President Obama was not transparent and does not follow the rule of law in the first paragraph."

No, I included a quote from President Obama on transparency and the rule of law. Where did I say he doesn't follow these words? That's up for the reader to decide after going through these quotes. Please don't put words in my mouth.  

Report this comment
#17) On October 06, 2011 at 3:43 PM, turdburglar (38.63) wrote:

Obama's mouth may talk about a bunch of liberal nonsense when it comes to terrorists, but he's actually done a pretty good job of continuing the Bush Doctrine (I look at you down my nose over my glasses as I say this).  He killed Bin Laden in Pakistan and that al-Asfukhi US Citizen guy in Yemen.  We haven't had any major attacks over here.

I think of Obama just didn't talk his continuation of the Bush Doctrine would be the one area where he would be considered a competent President.

Report this comment
#18) On October 06, 2011 at 3:51 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

^This

I spent way too much time around the military over the last 20 years to take these kinds of comments seriously.  You need to get over to the Middle East and see for yourself.  The US military is incompetent, immoral, and dangerous.  They need to be brought home so they can get real jobs that serve their fellow man, and the war on boogeymen needs to end.

David

Report this comment
#19) On October 06, 2011 at 3:55 PM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

Pencils2

Your title called Obama a hypocrite for saying "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Don't go all weakling fox opiner on us here. The correct chickensh^t fox technique of deniability is to use the title to ask "Is Obama a Hypocrite", then you can deny having called him a hypocrite. Since you said "The Hypocrisy of Obama" you do not have plausible deniability (not that fox really does by asking and then answering either).

It might be harder for you to sell the integrity of Libertarians if you have to compromise yours to do it.

Is there anything else in my reply you want to talk about?

Rof,

Thank you.

BillyTG,

Thank you for reading and for the acknowledgement, whether I have convinced you of anything or not.

David in Ca,

Supposedly Alwaki is unique because he is an American? Americans have been wanted Dead or Alive for a long time without due process.

Supposedly Alwaki makes Obama unique? Once again Americans have been wanted Dead or Alive for a long time.

If I was on Long Island plotting to kill Americans, I would expect police to come and that could go badly for me before my trial.

If i was in Canada plotting to kill Americans i would expect the US to reach out to Canada and I would expect Mounties.

If I was in Yemen plotting to kill Americans, I suppose it reasonable to expect a drone if I haven't turned myself in for trial.

I don't know the rule of law in Alwakis circumstances. Maybe the rule of law was followed in Alwakis circumstances and President Obama was not hypocritical as Pencils2 said he was. Maybe he was hypocritical.

If you want to step up with the liberal left and abolish the death penalty throughout the United States, to prevent its abuse by Federal and State government, you're with me.

If we've uncovered an area of Government that needs more transparency, lets work on it together. But this is only a month old.

If you want to support Pencils2's effort at using Alwaki along with some misrepresented events to portray President Obama in a bad light, well thats what politicians do and certainly doesn't set you or Pencils2 or Libertarians apart from the Tea Party or from many Republicans or many Conservatives or many of the Democrats. At least not in a good way.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#20) On October 06, 2011 at 4:25 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

^Funny to watch him turn all neo-con on us. 

David

Report this comment
#21) On October 06, 2011 at 5:15 PM, TMFPencils (99.80) wrote:

devoish,

My title called Obama a hypocrite specifically for saying that one statement? Please. Obama said those words, and it's up to us to hold him accountable. Do you think he's matched the promises he made of transparency and the rule of law? Why or why not?

You don't know the rule of law in Alwaki's circumstance? Read the Fifth Amendment and get back to me. Even if a President calls a U.S. citizen a bad person, that citizen still has constitutional rights. The Administration had more than a year to present ANY evidence to a federal court; they didn't. See the post on Alwaki on my website for more details, I linked to it at the top of this article. 

Best,

David 

Report this comment
#22) On October 06, 2011 at 10:05 PM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

My title called Obama a hypocrite specifically for saying that one statement? David K

Pretty much, yes.

In my reply to you I did not defend the Presidents decision to follow the guidance of the US military and the CIA and kill Alwaki.

 The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

I am pretty sure Alwaki was not detained without access to counsel.

But I challenged the quality of your post based on other issues.

I understand you want to talk about the Fifth amendment. But lets not. Lets not talk about the President at all. Lets talk about the responsibilitys of theUS Commander in Chief and Al Qaedas involvement with the World Trade Center and Alwakis involvement with Al Qaeda and his location in Yemen out of reach of the NYPD.

If you think you can make political hay out of a difficult question by pretending it is a simple fifth amendment issue by all means shoot your mouth off. 

The United States Commander in Chief has a more difficult role to play.

But al-Awlaki was more than just a recruiter. AQAP is an effective terror operation (which is why Yemen has so gladly permitted U.S. military and intelligence operations on its soil). AQAP, and al-Awlaki specifically, is believed to have provided guidance, if not outright to support, to recent terrorist incidents in North America. The Toronto 18 claimed to have been radicalized by al-Awlaki's videos. Likewise American Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York City's Times Square in 2010. Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 in a 2010 shooting rampage at America's largest military base, traded emails with al-Awlaki. So did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 2009's infamous "underwear bomber." Attempts to mail bombs to Jewish centres in Chicago in 2010 were also linked to AQAP.

But there are still those who believe his death sets a dangerous precedent of extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens by their own government. U.S. Republican presidential leadership candidate Ron Paul, joined by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, are among the proponents of this view of terrorism as a purely criminal problem warranting legal solutions.

That will sometimes be the case. But al-Alwaki was an exception, whose actions better constituted treason or insurrection than common felonies. Western history and legal precedent has long been clear: Military force is justified, even against citizens, when that citizen chooses to make war on his country, from at home or abroad. Citizenship is not an immunity card against reprisal for those who commit acts of war, or assist others in so doing, against their governments. -  National Post

If you want to make the argument that a US citizen who has joined an organisation actively committing violence against other United States citizens is not a legitimate target for military intervention, go ahead, but I am not with you.

If you want to make the argument that a US citizen who has joined an organisation actively committing violence against other United States citizens still deserves a trial and an open and transparent review of evidence against him even if it may compromise CIA intelligence personell, then you are a reckless liberal.

If you want to make the argument that a US citizen who has joined an organisation actively committing violence against other US citizens still deserves a less transparent and less open trial before a judge in a way that will reduce the chances of compromising CIA intelligence sources, well then, we might have some common ground there.

But I have that same common ground with better leaders than Ron Paul. And I have that same common ground with people who don't mischaracterise events to score political points.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#23) On October 07, 2011 at 1:03 AM, TMFPencils (99.80) wrote:

I'm not saying he wasn't a legitimate target. If all the evidence against Alwaki was so clear, as you are claiming, why on earth didn't the Administration present any evidence before or after the assassination? They had 17 months before the assassination to submit their evidence to a court. 

I'm not saying Alwaki was a swell guy who shouldn't have met his fate. I'm saying that the U.S. is a nation based on the rule of law, and a President saying that this is a bad guy (without any legal procedure through the courts) does not justify the assassination of an American citizen.

Please read my post here: http://davidkretzmann.com/2011/10/anwar-al-awlaki-and-the-constitution/ 

Report this comment
#24) On October 07, 2011 at 7:28 AM, BillyTG (29.18) wrote:

Here's a question I haven't heard asked. I'll ask it.

Why was the killing of Al-Alwaki so heavily publicized and announced by President Obama?

There aren't press conferences for the other suspected/confirmed terrorists that are eliminated. I have my ideas as to why.

Report this comment
#25) On October 07, 2011 at 8:45 AM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

Do you want to go down this road on this issue?

Then I'm saying that you're right that "due process" needs to be better. 

In your article you link to a telegraph article that was your source for the story. The telegraph article includes this sentence;

The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security Council review because of his citizenship.

Now lets go back to what you wrote as an example of President Obama's hypocrisy;

Due Process

“The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” — Barack Obama; December 2007

So lets start with the issue of "due process" and your suggestion that we are a Nation of Laws, which I agree with. Currently the process due someone actively promoting violence against the US (on youtube apparently) and organising with a group that is actively committing violence against the United States is to have the evidence presented to an NSC review board. So he got the due process current law affords him.

If you want to make the argument that such due process is not enough and an American citizen should have the evidence against him reviewed by a federal judge, I will support you. But you had better be willing to add a $200,000 payroll to the United States government for that judge to be available to do that job thoroughly and quickly. And your legislation needs to include process to protect CIA intelligence officers who might be at risk if their contacts and sources are made public.

You are an American citizen in a Democracy. You have taken up Alwakis cause and it is up to you make this process better.

Two years ago the Libertarian mouthpiece (David when he was in Qatar) on this website was busy aligning himself with the tea party. The tea party was busy slamming the civil rights organisations ACORN and the ACLU for only representing minoritys. So we have Libertarians aligned with the tea party slamming civil rights defenders then, and now we have libertarians whining about lost civil rights. The class must be call Hypocrisy101.

Now on this post we have a young Libertarian trying to educate us that our President has violated the Constitution because he authorised the killing of an American citizen who did not get "due process".

On the ACLU website I learned a few things differently. I learned how to spell Alwaki correctly, Anwar-Al Aulaqi. I learned that the ACLU represented Aulaqi's father in court defending his son against this alleged loss of Constitutional protections. And I learned what the Judge ruled.

To quote the judge, 17 months before Aulaqi was killed.

Plaintiff offers no meaningful response to the fact that his son - an operational leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) - could avoid the alleged threat of lethal force at issue in this case by coming forward peacefully. Plaintiffs argument boils down to an assertion that Anwar al-Aulaqi should be entitled to the benefits of the Justice system without making any effort to access the courts on his own behalf.

It seems this Judge takes personal responsibility seriously.

So lets review Obama's allegedly hypocritical quote.

“The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” — Barack Obama; December 2007

Aulaqi wasn't detained and that is why he was without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” — Barack Obama; December 2007 

I would say that the facts show that in this case President Obama has stood tall against the charge of hypocrisy leveled aginst him in the title.

I would also say that our libertarians need to defend themselves against charges of hypocrisy for labeling other politicians as liars willing to say anything in order to score political points as though they are better than that and trustworthy. I would be inclined to make the case that you are the worst of the lot.

David K. You are a young man in a corrupt crowd, no different than a common street gang. You should try to move on.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#26) On October 07, 2011 at 10:11 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

In my opinion when Alwaki decided to join Al Queda and live the life of a fun loving terrorist he effectively renounced his United States citizenship.

How about next time there is a terrorist leader operating overseas that happens to be a naturalized United States citizen and we happen to know when and where he'll be we have the CIA call MI6 and have the Britts do the dirty work for us? I'm sure the SAS would be most obliging so long as we cover the bill.

BTW: I identify myself as a libertarian. But that does not mean that on this subject I am in lock step agreement with others (the majority) of my party with respect to how we use our military. I'm quirky that way.

-Cato, The Black Sheep

Report this comment
#27) On October 07, 2011 at 10:17 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Britt = Brit

I had Brittany Spears run through my mind as I typed this and failed to hit the backspace one more time (sounds like one of her songs) to correct the horrific typo.

 

Report this comment
#28) On October 07, 2011 at 1:05 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

In my opinion when Alwaki decided to join Al Queda and live the life of a fun loving terrorist he effectively renounced his United States citizenship

Yes, Cato, and we understand that, but there is actually a procedure for this in the Constitution.  And Barack, the Constitutional Law Scholar, did not follow it.

Article 3, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

(On top of his blatant hypocrisy concerning GWB's war crimes).

So no court = no treason = no authority to assassinate. 

The government is hiding behind their wall of secrecy.  It is deplorable.  They classify everything, even the color of their underwear a state secret.  They know secrets=power.  Don't let them get away with it.

David

Report this comment
#29) On October 07, 2011 at 2:32 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

David,

But he had divorced himself from his native land. He was an expat. Since he was a expat does this not help Uncle Sam weasel around Article 3, Section3?

Please understand that I am aware of the sociopathic and hypocritical nature of our nation's governing past and present. When you cut through the bullstein our country is just as guilty as the European powers that gave birth to it of so many evils.

I admit without further study and rumination I think Alwaki was an appropriate target. In this case I see it as a us vs. them (Al Queda) situation. The snake of Al Queda had grown a new head. We had the opportunity to lop it off with a surgical strike,  with Yemini permission to use their airspace, without putting any service people in harms way. In the world we currently live in this what passes for a success. Plus this operation helps to highlight our involvement in Yemen. Until now most Americans have been in the dark about this newest front in our War on Terror.

It's obvious that my opinion differs from yours on this subject. I may even come around to share your opinion, given time. But one last point I wish to make is this: He managed to talk a guy into wearing explosive underwear with the goal of using it to bring down a airliner. EXPLOSIVE UNDERWEAR. Not only was Alwaki a terrorist but also a Sith Lord if he could convince someone into doing something so stupid and embarrassing.

-Cato

Report this comment
#30) On October 07, 2011 at 2:42 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Cato,

All we are saying is "please present the evidence in a courtroom before you snuff an American citizen, as it is dictated by the Constitutiuon."  That's it.

Way worse human beings than Alwaki have been handled this way.  It does not bring us any more danger by following the rule of law.  

On a separate subject, there is a vast difference between "inciting people" to acts of violence and committing them yourself. 

On yet another subject,

I certainly have seen up close and personal the brutality of American empire.  I understand the anger of Muslims and what makes Alwaki attractive to them.  How about this?  Let's just stop the madness.  Come home.  Get out of there.  Then we don't have to worry about who hates us now, or how to live with TSA and DHS and the rest of these police State agencies.  

Peace and Prosperity.  

Yes, the American government (not the American people) committed atrocities that led to 9.11 and that continue to lead to people like Alwaki.  Killing him solved nothing.  It just opened a new can of worms.

David

Report this comment
#31) On October 07, 2011 at 4:10 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

David,

I certainly have seen up close and personal the brutality of American empire. 

I know you have. It is something that I wish to see for myself to gain a better understanding of things.

I understand the anger of Muslims and what makes Alwaki attractive to them. 

I undertand it on some level too. I will not go so far to say I know exactly how they feel because I simply can't. I'm part Native American. And we are familiar with how Uncle Sam treated the native peoples and continue to botch things up. I grew up acutely aware of the injustices suffered at the hands of our benevolent leaders. And on a different side of the family tree I am a southerner with deep roots. I grew up listening to accounts of what happened during the Civil War and Reconstruction. To this day we can't shake the ghosts of that war, of slavery, of federal aggression. It stains the land and sours the air. Every day we live with the echos. To sum up one part of my family was forced off their land, away from all they knew to be marched at gunpoint to Oklahoma by the United States Government. Another was left penniless with no crops, seeds or livestock because all was stolen, burned or killed by members of the U.S. Army. Perhaps the past experiences of my family have in some way shaped my world view? Of my government?

How about this?  Let's just stop the madness.  Come home.  Get out of there.  Then we don't have to worry about who hates us now, or how to live with TSA and DHS and the rest of these police State agencies.

I wish it were that simple. If only it were. We'll never be 100% out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We still have bases all over Europe and the Pacific from WW2. I can't help but think something similar will happen. Even if we could wave a magic wand to bring everybody home we'd still have the people that can't put the past behind them, hate us, want to kill us over being over there to begin with. Grudges run deep and for generations. We'd still have the DHS and TSA because they're considered essential now. Maybe you could dismantle them, create a new agency to encompass their duties but we'll never be totally rid of them.

I'm glad you're home and settling into life in California. I hope your new ecommerce job is rewarding and stimulating. If she's not already with you I hope your fiance is by your side before long.

-Cato

Report this comment
#32) On October 07, 2011 at 6:37 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

We'll never be 100% out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Cato, yes we will be.  The French never thought they'd be out of Vietnam until they were routed viciously!   And America will be routed too.  Our military will come running home with their tail between their legs, I swear this to you.

Or they will come home with empty pockets, paid in worthless dollars, angry as all hell and ready to burn the place to the ground.

That's an unfortunate but very likely scenario.  I'm not making promises or threats.  I'm just pointing out that all of this is possible.

We'd still have the DHS and TSA because they're considered essential now

Yep. One of the worst features of war is that even the winners are losers.  You lose your freedoms no matter what!  The leviathan state never recedes to its prewar level.  Robert Higgs' book Leviathan is an amazing documentary of this effect.

The government only recedes when it finally destroys the currency (see Turkey, 1990s, as a brilliant example).  Even then, it's only temporary.

I guess that's what makes 1776-1937 such an amazing run.  A Republic that actually lasted.  It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything in history.  

And now it's down the toilet, even derided by modern day statists (who so curiously resemble fascists).  Oh well. 

I'm glad you're home and settling into life in California. I hope your new ecommerce job is rewarding and stimulating. If she's not already with you I hope your fiance is by your side before long.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  And I always wish you the best as well.  You are a good person, bones to balls.  Everyone on CAPS knows that about you and respects you for it.

Talk to you again soon.

David

Report this comment
#33) On October 07, 2011 at 7:15 PM, kdakota630 (29.64) wrote:

Obama's Broken Promises

Report this comment
#34) On October 07, 2011 at 7:41 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

A major broken promise by Obama was his promise that he would "reach across the aisle" and work with Republicans, that he would end the tension between conservatives and liberals that he attributed to Bush.  Has Obama kept this promise?  Has he gotten conservatives and liberals to get along well and work together?  I don't think so!  If someone says it's not Obama's fault because he can't control the behavior of others, then he shouldn't have made the promise.  I think that a centrist could get the two major parties to work well. It's the balance of power and compromise that makes things work well.   

As for the tiresome complaint--which has lasted 3 years--that Obama can't be blamed for the economy because he inherited it from Bush, let's remember that Bush inherited a bad ecomony from Bill Clinton in early 2001, with the dot.com meltdown.  Bush didnt complain or make excuses; he acted.  Yes, Obama did inherit a bad economy, but he campaigned on the promise that he would fix it, not that if he were elected preisdent, he would blame others. 

When Bush was president, liberals blamed him, saying that the president is the leader of the country and is thus repsonsible.  Now that Obama is president, the president can't be blamed--it's Congress and big corporations, and former presidents. 

Report this comment
#35) On October 07, 2011 at 8:36 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

It was SkyNet.Stop blaming our faultless leaders.

http://news.yahoo.com/american-drones-infected-computer-virus-180019767.html

Report this comment
#36) On October 08, 2011 at 12:48 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

David,

Thank you for the kind words. 

Humbly yours,

Cato

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement