Obama can have you killed. But only if he wants to.
Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often. Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show. I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say. And I’m really smrt. (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose. Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic. I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they married know me).
As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief. I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons. The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans. Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:
Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’
Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’
Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.
Look, I’m down with killing terrorists. But the foregoing is asinine. First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids. What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean? Who decides? The President decides, that’s who. All by himself.
Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing. It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution. The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen. That should concern you. Why? Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.
I know, I know…I can hear you now. “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’ San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.” Well, here’s Holder again:
‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.
In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere. Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic. Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen. Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time. Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t. Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up. Again, this should concern you.
The Constitution guarantees due process. What is due process? It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court. Why do we have due process? Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials. According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:
As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’
When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same. The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy. Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself. There’s been no vote; no legislative process. Just one man’s ideas.
I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi. It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make. That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history. Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him. So did Hitler. And Pol Pot. The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”
Am I being extreme? Maybe. After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here. And maybe they’re right. Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.
Obama = George Bush. On steroids. Snorting coke. While driving his moped at 120 mph
In other words: he’s insane and a danger to us all.
We here at Why Not Nashville? like to make tongue-in-cheek references about U.S. troops going into a sovereign nation in the middle of the night and shooting an unarmed man in the face (Osama), or sending drones into another sovereign country and shooting an unarmed, American citizen, in the face (this time with a missile) (Anwar al-Awlaki), as if to say that those things are wrong. Obviously, I’m as in favor of blowing up terrorists as the next guy, and since my government would NEVER lie to me about someone’s guilt, I’ll safely assume that both of the foregoing gentlemen were dangerous terrorists. After removing my tongue from my cheek though, I think everyone has to have a little bit of a problem with our government executing an actual citizen without due process. Especially when all he’s doing is sitting on a dirt floor somewhere talking about how much he hates America. I mean, if that was all it took, why haven’t we executed the entire Democratic party (ZING)?
But those guys were foreigners, so we don’t really care; and it’s not happening here. What, it’s happening here too? Yep. Maybe not the killing part, but the scooping-up of American citizens and indefinitely detaining them without so much as charging them with a crime is happening here (See alleged wikileaker Pfc. Bradley Manning). Well, it’s about to get a whole lot worse. Your government is just about done passing a law that will allow the military to detain an American citizen, any American citizen, for an indefinite period of time, if he or she is suspected of being a terrorist/or annoying the president while he’s filling out his March Madness brackets. The following was actually said on the Senate Floor, during the debate over the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act:
‘It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,’ remarked [Lindsey] Graham. ‘And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’
What the crap? What country is this? When did we suddenly embrace Ivan Drago and deride that plucky southpaw from Philly? Yes, yes, a thousand times YES…they get a lawyer. Unfair? It’s friggin’ unconstitutional. Well, probably not the constitution we have now, but you know what I mean.
And for you idiots who are about to say, “but we’re only talking about Al Qaeda, or some other middle-eastern terrorist group,” shut it. First, unless you were born about five minutes ago, we’re talking about our government here. These are the same people who spend billions of dollars subsidizing cars that burst into flames when you use the defrost…while telling us its for the environment! In other words, even if we assume their motives are good, they’re still morons. Second, most of the time, their motives aren’t good. They’re simply doing what’s in their best interest. Third, it’s not just Al Qaeda we’re talking about. It’s any “terrorist group.” Is the Michigan Militia a terrorist group? How about Occupy Wall Street?
Am I paranoid? Probably. Or…
Senator McCain also told Rand Paul during a hearing on the bill that American citizens could be declared an enemy combatant, sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely, ‘no matter who they are.’
This is incredible. For several reasons. It’s incredible because of how quickly it’s moving through a Congress that can’t agree on what day it is. It’s incredible that the president that is about to sign it into law was elected by a bunch of hippies from the ACLU. In fact, it’s incredible that this bill is causing me to agree with those hippies on something.
I’d tell you to call your Representative and complain, but they don’t actually care what you think (since you’ll forget about all of this by next week). Instead, I would recommend you learn how to hang pictures, because you’re about to be replacing that 46″ plasma with a giant portrait of The Leader.