Napolitano: Obama Has Not Hesitated To Kill Foreign and American Innocent Children

**SA210** · 01-19-2013

The Judge and panelists calling out the left on their silence and hypocrisy, for allowing the President to murder innocent children (including American children) just because Obama is "their guy", and the hypocrisy of trotting out children for his bogus speech. He's right, shame on them.

"We have a President who has not hesitated to kill foreign innocent children or American innocent children when they are in a foreign country. He loses credibility when he stands with innocent American children and says 'I'm going to keep you safe,'" Napolitano said.

**FuzzyLumpkins** · 01-19-2013

YOUTUBE!!!

**ChumpDumper** · 01-19-2013

So what?

**redzero** · 01-19-2013

Are you a Christian or a you by any chance, SA210?

**ElNono** · 01-19-2013

Napolitano believes that the 9/11 incidents including the subsequent collapse of the World Trade Tower buildings in New York City did not take place as the US government has publicly communicated. “It's "hard for me to believe that" World Trade Center building 7 "came down by itself," said Napolitano, “twenty years from now, people will look at 9–11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."

**mingus** · 01-19-2013

Liberals? Hypocrites? Noooooooo...

**boutons_deux** · 01-19-2013

Fox Repug Propaganda network.

Totally supporting dubya and head invading Iraq for oil, and 100Ks of civilian Iraqis slaughtered.

FRP network, like the NBA, cares.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

the screeching isn't nearly so dire as under GWB, but it would be crass overstatement to say the press and liberals have fallen completely silent.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

the drone war is more than a club to beat liberals with, or it could be, if you really cared so much.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

seems you don't though

**spursncowboys** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by Winehole23

the screeching isn't nearly so dire as under GWB, but it would be crass overstatement to say the press and liberals have fallen completely silent.

Does anyone have lexis nexis. It would be interesting to search bush's years compared to obama's years in op eds.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

more:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145880
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185176
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185116
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5491279

ACLU related: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160260

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Does anyone have lexis nexis. It would be interesting to search bush's years compared to obama's years in op eds.

not much of a comparison wrt to the drone war. Bush didn't start using drones until 2008. Drone is war is bigger under Obama by at least a factor of five, and under GWB there was no due process-free assassination of US citizens. Obama thought that one up.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

if I had to guess, there have been way more drone related op-eds under Obama.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

simple matter of opportunity. Bush didn't do it for very long.

**Winehole23** · 01-19-2013

I'd be interested to see the results of the search, too. Anybody can guess.

**SA210** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by Winehole23

the screeching isn't nearly so dire as under GWB, but it would be crass overstatement to say the press and liberals have fallen completely silent.

There is no doubt that they are silent and hypocritical, go back to the Bush years and the threds made in this forum at this time. Same libs wanted Bush's head on a stick. That's very different from a couple articles and mentions here and there on Obama. Waaaaay different. Pure bs for anyone to lie about that.

**SA210** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Fox Repug Propaganda network.

Totally supporting dubya and head invading Iraq for oil, and 100Ks of civilian Iraqis slaughtered.

FRP network, like the NBA, cares.

Well, I never supported Bush's wars, invasions, etc. So regardless of the station giving the information, the information itself it factual indeed.

Where are the outspoken anti-war democrats that hated these same policies under Bush?

The extremely loud anti-war news pieces, the anti-war Democrats from over 4 years ago have seemed to have vanished. hmm how convenient. Sorry kiddos, you have to die, because democrats thinks it's ok for their guy to do to you what they hated Bush for.

::crickets::

**boutons_deux** · 01-19-2013

In my anti-right-wing newsfeeds, I've seen no support for drone assassinations, plenty of objection to them.

google "democrat politicians against drone assassination war"

**ChumpDumper** · 01-19-2013

The SA210 echo chamber is still functioning to perfection.

**SA210** · 01-19-2013

NY TIMES: Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Cons ution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill. He must think we should be relieved.

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.

But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Cons ution to receive these do ents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Cons ution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.

In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.

Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic cons utional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the cons utional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the cons utional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former cons utional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new cons utional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving cons utional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, do ents that set forth the detailed cons utional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/op...anted=all&_r=0

================================================== =======================================

^^^^ lol If that was done under Bush, this forum would be as crazy as it was over 4 years ago, outraged, upset, calling for criminal charges, impeachment, etc. And the news would be covering it daily.

lol Murdering Americans without due process of law, hypocrites

**LnGrrrR** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by SA210

Well, I never supported Bush's wars, invasions, etc. So regardless of the station giving the information, the information itself it factual indeed.

Where are the outspoken anti-war democrats that hated these same policies under Bush?

The extremely loud anti-war news pieces, the anti-war Democrats from over 4 years ago have seemed to have vanished. hmm how convenient. Sorry kiddos, you have to die, because democrats thinks it's ok for their guy to do to you what they hated Bush for.

::crickets::

You mean, the Democrats on here that consistently hold Obama to task the same way they did Bush? Could you even provide ONE example that shows the hypocrisy of board liberals? One?

I mean, assuming you could read this.

**ChumpDumper** · 01-19-2013

SA210 doesn't even care about the children -- he only cares about his own self-righteousness.

**SA210** · 01-19-2013

Originally Posted by SA210

NY TIMES: Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Cons ution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill. He must think we should be relieved.

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.

But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Cons ution to receive these do ents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Cons ution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.

In reining in the branches, the courts have been toughest on themselves, however. A long line of Supreme Court cases require that judges wait for cases to come to them. They can take cases only from plaintiffs who have a personal stake in the outcome; they cannot decide political questions; they cannot rule on an issue not squarely before them.

Because of these and other limitations, no case has made it far enough in federal court for a judge to rule on the merits of the basic cons utional questions at stake here. A pending case filed in July by the families of the three dead Americans does raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to the president’s killings of their relatives. We will see if the judge agrees to consider the cons utional questions or dismisses the case, citing limitations on his own power.

In another case, decided two weeks ago, a federal judge in Manhattan, Colleen McMahon, ruled, grudgingly, that the American Civil Liberties Union and two New York Times reporters could not get access, under the Freedom of Information Act, to classified legal memorandums that were relied on to justify the targeted killing program. In her opinion, she expressed serious reservations about the president’s interpretation of the cons utional questions. But the merits of the program were not before her, just access to the Justice Department memos, so her opinion was, in effect, nothing but an interesting read.

So at the moment, the legislature and the courts are flummoxed by, or don’t care about, how or whether to take on this aggressive program. But Mr. Obama, a former cons utional law professor, should know, of all people, what needs to be done. He was highly critical when Mr. Bush applied new cons utional theories to justify warrantless wiretapping and “enhanced interrogation.” In his 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama demanded transparency, and after taking office, he released legal memos that the Bush administration had kept secret. Once the self-serving cons utional analysis that the Bush team had used was revealed, legal scholars from across the spectrum studied and denounced it.

While Mr. Obama has criticized his predecessor, he has also worried about his successors. Last fall, when the election’s outcome was still in doubt, Mr. Obama talked about drone strikes in general and said Congress and the courts should in some manner “rein in” presidents by putting a “legal architecture in place.” His comments seemed to reflect concern that future presidents should perhaps not wield alone such awesome and unchecked power over life and death — of anyone, not just Americans. Oddly, under current law, Congress and the courts are involved when presidents eavesdrop on Americans, detain them or harshly interrogate them — but not when they kill them.

It is not just the most recent president, this one and the next whom we need to worry about when it comes to improper exercise of power. It is every president. Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, do ents that set forth the detailed cons utional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.

Vicki Divoll is a former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/op...anted=all&_r=0

================================================== =======================================

^^^^ lol If that was done under Bush, this forum would be as crazy as it was over 4 years ago, outraged, upset, calling for criminal charges, impeachment, etc. And the news would be covering it daily.

lol Murdering Americans without due process of law, hypocrites

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions