But most of you are genuine hypocrites to the very cores of your tiny little shriveled cockroach souls. So you damn Bush and praise Obama for the same stuff. It’s just who you are.
There is this tiny, infinitesimal percent of liberals for whom the following is any real problem. And even that tiny fraction of a percent of you hypocrites are going to vote for Obama anyway. Because you are amoral slime and you frankly disgust me:
Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki’s Killing
by Carrie Johnson
September 30, 2011
Within moments of Anwar al-Awlaki’s death, debate erupted over whether the U.S. had a legal basis to target one of its own citizens with deadly force.
Last year, President Obama put Awlaki on a secret list that gave the intelligence community a green light to target him in a deadly drone attack.
The move bothered human-rights advocates so much that they sued, enlisting Awlaki’s father as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
“The government should not have the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation,” says Hina Shamsi, who leads the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
But the Justice Department responded that Awlaki wasn’t just any American. He transformed himself from a cleric who inspired young Muslims with words to an operational leader who helped equip terrorist plotters with deadly bombs.
A judge ultimately threw out the ACLU lawsuit, saying it involved state secrets and raised political questions that should be answered in Congress, not the courts.
All those questions came roaring back again today with word of Awlaki’s death at the hands of the U.S. government.
“The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear,” says John Bellinger, a lawyer in the State Department under President George W. Bush.
After 10 years of talking about legal authority when it comes to terrorism, he says, there’s still no international consensus on the legality of drone strikes — and no clear precedent for using those drones to kill a U.S. citizen.
“Wherever they are in the world, they have a constitutional right to due process,” Bellinger says. “But due process doesn’t necessarily mean an adversarial judicial hearing.”
So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn’t have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.
Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki’s rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Ken Anderson, who teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law and follows U.S. policy on drones, says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target — U.S. citizen or not.
“The U.S has always seen somebody who is planning attacks against the United States as a lawful target,” Anderson says.
Either because Awlaki presented an imminent threat to American citizens or because he had become an enemy fighting alongside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Anderson says, he could be seen as a lawful target.
Anderson says in the legal analysis, the place where a target is located matters too.
“[The government's] standard is we’re not going to be targeting somebody in London or Paris or someplace that’s got the effective rule of law,” Anderson says.
But by hiding in Yemen, Awlaki couldn’t be served with a subpoena or easily taken into custody, putting himself in a different category.
The Justice Department wouldn’t talk about specific operations or individuals. Nor did it want to describe the process the government used to put Awlaki on a target list.
One administration official did agree to speak in general about targeting terrorists. “We’re not commenting on any specific individual or operation,” the official said. “As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.”
Experts say that while it might not be required under the law, it would make good political sense to share more information with Congress and the public. Awlaki’s case might be the first case to present these difficult questions, but it won’t be the last.
I would say that I’m on Obama’s side on this one. These rat bastards declared war on our women and children, and we should hunt them down in every single cockroach hole on the planet and we should kill them. But then there’s the embarrassing little fact that Barack Obama repeatedly demonized George Bush for the very sorts of things that he is now himself routinely doing as president. Which qualifies him as a liar without shame or honor or integrity.
Barack Obama came to power on lofty rhetoric that was an abject lie. And from the moment he came to power he has cynically betrayed everything he said and lied to every single American whether that American voted for him or not.
Obama demonized Bush on Guantanamo Bay. The weak, posturing fool swore that he would shut it down within ONE YEAR of taking office. Now he was either the worst kind of cynical and frankly truly depraved liar – and therefore ought to be driven out of office – or he was so incompetent and so fundamentally ignorant of the job of a president that he ought to be driven out of office. You choose which. Either way, Guantanamo Bay continues to be a shining example of the fact that Barack Obama is an abject disgrace to presidential leadership.
He did the same damn thing on issue after issue: whether it was the Patriot Act, domestic eavesdropping, rendition, you name it, he violated his word and did the exact opposite of what he said he would do.
Just take a look at Democrats. Consider what they said about Iraq and WMD before Bush attacked Iraq:
Then consider how they betrayed their own previous statements to attack a president at war. Like the traitors they are. Then consider how they praised themselves for the same exact war they had been for before they hypocritically turned against it as Vice President Joe Biden said:
“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”
The sheer unadulterated hypocrisy and chutzpah of the entire Democrat Party is mind-boggling.
It’s long past time that liberals fell flat on their face and openly admitted that they were treasonous pieces of garbage for attacking George Bush the way they did.