Bush 3

~ susie

It’s not exaggerating to say that the Obama administration is, in some respects, just as scary as Bush:

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.

The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there.

Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president’s powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Published by susie

4 thoughts on “Bush 3”

  3. The ‘enthusiasm’ is going to ‘way kewl’ when you left over lefties aka progressives depend on future African American votes. \lol/

    You bet ‘cha I am A/A and NO to all you Dr Laura clones, I didn’t vote for PBHO

  4. And, heeeeere’s Glenn Greenwald!

    At this point, I didn’t believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki’s father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration last late night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That’s not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is “state secrets”: in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate its legality. (Emphasis in original, along with links)

    I used to think this kind of thing went out in, oh, like the early 1200’s and the Magna Carta. Now, that did not prevent English kings from doing away with their enemies and rivals, but it made it more difficult to do so with absolute impunity. People were simply offed, found guilty on the basis of forced confessions, exiled, forced to remain in their own castles unless granted permission to leave, etc. But, just set up death lists, mention them, and then assert that state secrets mean the power of government cannot be questioned in the courts of law?

    Well, Bloody Mary used the power of the Catholic church to do some awful things to many, many people…but still did it under color of law.

    Have we reached authoritarian state status yet?

    From Wiki, which has links in the quoted material:

    Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on the government so that its agents cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

    Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

    The formal concept of civil liberties dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215, which in turn was based on pre-existing documents namely the English Charter of Liberties, a landmark document in English legal history.

    Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    It might be said that the protection of civil liberties is a key responsibility of all citizens of free states, as distinct from authoritarian states.

    Does it take a Constitutional law professor to tear up our Constitutional rights?

Comments are closed.