The (Not) Surprising Bloodthirstiness of the (Obamaphile) Left (Daniel McAdams)
Saturday October 1st, 2011
It is funny (in a sick kind of way) to watch the Obamaphile left lashing out at Ron Paul's principled position against a president having the power to order the assassination of an American citizen without charges or trial. Click on any Obama-friendly site like the HuffingtonPost and you will see them machine-gunning the comments section with deep thoughts such as this:
"The right is just mad that Obama has done more to clean up the mess GWBYA left us, in 3 years than G did in 6. He has not been soft on terriorism as the right claimed he would be. As a matter of fact all of the things the right said about Obama have not come to pass. And this:
"Thank you Mr. Pres. for taking out another bad guy. Mr. Paul don't worry about the constitution, it was long ago thrown under the bus by the repubs. Be grateful there is someone on the job doing his job."
"The responsibility of the United States Government is to protect its citizen at home and abroad. Thank you Dept. of Justice...Thank you President Obama." And yet another gem from this embarrassment of riches (as a bonus, this one was from a "HUFFPOST SUPER USER." How super!):
"Anwar al Awaki was a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world in general. Have American citizenship should have no more relevance than killing a mass murderer within our borders. Al Awaki was a known mastermind in several terrorist plots and was also a known Al Qaida leader. President Obama was correct in taking him out just as with Osama bin Laden. GOP detractors are still smarting over the President's victory with killing the world's worst terrorist, Bin Laden. Just because Al Awaki could not be linked directly to a particular incident does not deminish his role instigating others to do these heinous acts." There you have it: just because no evidence could be offered, it should be enough that "everybody knows" he is a terrorist!
This is the same Left that convulsed in (justified) paroxysms when the Ashcroft Justice Department authorized torture.
We see today that, just as in the previous administration, the misnamed Justice Department was given the task to find a way to authorize this horrific injustice. According to today's news:
"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. Of course, as Dr. Paul would point out, we are not "at war" at all. Not even the deeply-flawed, open-ended H J Res 64 in 2001 which authorized retaliation against those who planned the attacks of Sept. 11 would have applied to Anwar al-Aulaqi, who was not implicated in those attacks.
"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.
"'What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,' said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration."
If this assassination of an American is legal because "we are at war, we have always been at war," to paraphrase the great Eric Arthur Blair, then the word "legal" no longer has any meaning.
At these times I reflect on the yearly State Department Human Rights Report, where the US government takes it upon itself to judge the freedom or tyranny of the rest of the world. A key factor in determining whether a foreign regime is lawless and tyrannical? Engaging in extrajudicial killings!
As a dear friend wrote me yesterday, "Even St. Paul got a trial after announcing he was a Roman citizen... It meant something to be a Roman, not so much an American apparently."[NOAD]