Skip to comments.Targeted Assassinations...My, How Quiet The Liberals Are
Posted on 03/06/2012 7:00:37 AM PST by Starman417
While I don't disagree with the Administration over this policy, I find the whole situation ironic. It was just a few years ago liberals were crying and protesting all over the fact that the United States waterboarded a few high level terrorists.
But I guess it's ok to just a put a bullet in their head rather than making them a widdle bit scared with water eh?
WASHINGTON Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.
Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack, Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern Universitys law school. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.
...While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens the Pentagons general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example it was notable for the nations top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holders remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administrations counterterrorism policies.
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.
Like I noted, I agree with the Administration.
But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
On the issue of quiet - where is what’s her name the war protester? Is war suddenly good because we have a Democrat for President? I don’t see the folks protesting every Friday at my post office either. Hmmm
Much as I truly hate to defend Obama...
If you join an enemy army, or, in this case, a militant enemy NGO, you don’t get “due process” any more than any other enemy soldier or, for that matter, factory workers in a munitions plant. You get killed when and if the opportunity arises.
And, given the tendency for Islamic terrorism to run in tribes and families, the teenage son was a bonus.
The point is that since it's Obama’s Policy rather than a Republican President's Policy, there is no selective outrage by the Left.
The POINT is not the Policy. lol
In fairness to Cindy Sheehan, she has remained intellectually and philosophically consistent and has continued protesting; she's just not getting the coverage she recieved when GWB was POTUS. The MSM has dropped her like a bad habit.
Unsurprisingly, she's had a few recent problems with her taxes...
The problem is who gets to define, "enemy army." A bureaucratic apparatus hell bent on increasing in size and control can easily label any individual calling for smaller government, "an enemy of the state."
That is a problem. But right now we’re tying the hands of our troops. We shouldn’t give a d@mn about enemy civilians. (aka “Afghanis”) who get between us and somebody we need to kill. Nor should we allow them to riot when we’re conducting wartime operations over there.
And enemies should not be able to use their “not-a-state-actor” status to demand that we serve papers and give them a trial as criminals rather than simply killing them as the opportunity allows.
I’ll wait for them outlaw the NRA or Boy Scouts and take my chances.
You make a really good point. I’m for napalming all those rioting scum, and I agree that with our ridiculous ROEs our troops need all the help they can get. I’m just making the point we also need to think long-term about these issues as well. We are perceived as weak in battle because we try to spare so many civilians, and our sneak-attack drone strikes, which also cause a lot of peripheral damage, are seen as cowardly. This causes us to be even more despised. I wouldn’t worry about that if we were prepared to just kill as many people as we probably need to, but we aren’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.