Liberal flip-flop on terrorists and constitutional rights.

In a clean reversal of what the left told us all during the hate filled 8 years of Boosh-Hitler’s reign of terror about how the US constitution should apply to everyone, including terrorists at Club Gitmo that needed to be tried in civilian court, where Holder also guaranteed guilty verdicts I remind you reader, we now find out that Holder thinks terrorists are no longer eligible for constitutional protection now that his boss wants the right to just shoot them dead. Let me first point out how happy I am that Holder and Obama have seen the light and finally discovered that extending constitutional protection to enemy combatants at war with you that specifically hide behind the guise of being a civilian until they can strike at you is suicidal and stupid. I knew that once they had to deal with the mess and the consequences they would see the light. Reality still wins out sometimes.

Now for the fun part, and that is bashing the hypocrisy and pointing out how dangerous the left really is. By now it should be obvious that the only reason they wanted to extend constitutional protection to terrorist when Bush was president was because they felt it would undermine his administration and yield them potential political gains either way. By “they” I mean the cynical leftist power mongers like Obama and Holder that pretended to be morally superior and advocating that constitutional protection be given to terrorists when it brought them political advantage only to reverse themselves now that they stand to reap the fruits of their earlier stance. These people are beyond scumbags. They pretended to be for this insane concept that produced all kinds of problems for the people fighting the Islamist radicals and put American lives in danger, telling everyone that it was out of some higher moral reasoning and lofty idealism, but now that their asses are in the cross hairs and this stance is inconvenient, we find out that it all was for show and pure personal gain. However they didn’t stop at that:

Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an “imminent threat” of attack against the USA and whose capture is “not feasible.”

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Holder said, according to a text of his speech. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Get that? Not only do terrorists not get that constitutional protection these leftist twits once, when it hurt the other side – and I should point out so harshly criticized the previous administration for doing – were for, yet now are against, because it hurts them, but they take it one step further and make the case that citizens that they deem to be terrorists are out of luck too. Look, I believe no terrorist should be granted any kind of constitutional or Geneva Convention protection, especially when they are financed and harbored by foreign entities that are hostile to our way of life, and indubitably they all seem to fall in that category. I also believe we need to start killing traitors, and someone that joins the terrorists and declares war on the US is a traitor, like the constitution told us we should. But I also understand the legitimate concern some have with this practice/power that it can and will be abused, but my bet is that the abuse, as we see now, will come from the power centers on left, which as I pointed out already complained really hard about it then, but now are mostly silent when it gets expanded to include citizens too. And that is fucking hypocritical.

Anyway, their reversal seems to come from this:

The attorney general’s remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. U.S. government officials have asserted that al-Awlaki helped direct the failed Christmas Day bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit in 2009 and the failed effort to blow up U.S. cargo planes with explosives planted in printer cartridges in 2010.

Awalaki needed killing. I applaud Obama for ordering that hit. There is no doubt this guy was an enemy of this country, worked hard for the other side, and had blood on his hands. Awalaki even told us so himself. Maybe the people that are angry he was shot by a drone have a point that he every attempt to capture him instead was not exhausted, but considering the ridiculous stance the left took on terrorist and their treatment as prisoners of war, I can see why Obama and Holder, staring at having to deal with that problem themselves, decided that killing this guy was probably less of a headache for them. We need to remain vigilant though. I would not put it past leftists like Obama and Holder to take this a step further and declare Rush Limbaugh a terrorist, then have on of those drones they have now flying on US soil hit him with a hellfire missile. After all, they mean well unlike that cowboy Bush, whom I do have to point out never did anything like this, despite the lefts beliefs that he would be capable of far worse, while Obama did. And no, that wasn’t because the left was vigilant and prevented Bush from doing bad things, despite how hard they pretend that was the case. Most of them are however now unconcerned when one of their own did what they would have found intolerable from the other side and portends to go much further. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Holder has claimed an unlimited right to, without any review, kill anyone outside the United States. There’s now way to slice that to be anything other than appalling. The ACLU and some are calling him on it. But the silence of the Left on this disgusts me.

    Thumb up 0

  2. hist_ed

    I think we went round a few times on something like this a while back, but here goes again: HAL, if the executive does not get to determine war time targets, who does? Do you really think that civilian judges have the Constitutional power to order the death of US citizens abroad? Do you think they have the expertise to make those decisions? Do you think we should have death penalty cases decided in absentia?
    If you open the door to judges deciding which enemies get killed in a war, don’t you think you’ll get a push to open that a little wider? What if a British citizen is working for AQ. Do we have to ask the Brits before we vaporize him? Does a court have to review that? What if AQ sends a few immigrants to the US to marry willing American brides? They get citizenship a few years later and the return to the fight. Should we have to ask the courts before we kill them?

    Thumb up 2

  3. Hal_10000

    HAL, if the executive does not get to determine war time targets, who does? Do you really think that civilian judges have the Constitutional power to order the death of US citizens abroad? Do you think they have the expertise to make those decisions? Do you think we should have death penalty cases decided in absentia?

    There has to be some kind of process. Keep in mind — this is not a “war” in a traditional sense. We haven’t invaded Yemen. This war on terror is an open-ended endless fight. We are in a situation where war is peace. The President is assuming the power to kill anyone anywhere in the world at any time without any review or explanation. Forever. A few weeks after getting Awalaki, they killed his 16 y/o son. Why?

    I hate it when we get bogged down in this “we’re at war” rhetoric. If the actions of our government are any indication, we will always be at war. These power are open-ended. That’s the danger no one wants to think about.

    This is not like a war like WW2 where we will beat the enemy and then get our freedom back. Maybe you could justify these excesses in that case. But given the nature of the War on Terror, we are talking about permanent changes.

    Think about this. We’re out of Iraq. bin Laden is dead. Terrorism is down. And yet … we are told that the response to this is to give the government more power and to surrender more of our freedom.

    What if a British citizen is working for AQ. Do we have to ask the Brits before we vaporize him?

    Traditionally, we have. Many captures on the field have been turned back over to their native countries if those countries are allies. Keep in mind that under the power Holder is claiming, we could assassinate a British citizen on British soil if we’re convinced he’s dangerous but Britain is not.

    Does a court have to review that? What if AQ sends a few immigrants to the US to marry willing American brides? They get citizenship a few years later and the return to the fight. Should we have to ask the courts before we kill them?

    This is a ridiculous a scenario for an organization that can’t even set off a pipe bomb these days. I really really doubt that AQ is sitting around hatching plot to seduce Americans in the hope they won’t get killed. But if this fantasy situation were to happen, yes, they get constitutional protections (and everyone gets Geneva protections: we ourselves made sure of that after WW2 when our enemies tortured resistance members because they weren’t in uniform). You want to prevent that, have a more focused immigration policy.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    Holder has claimed an unlimited right to, without any review, kill anyone outside the United States. There’s now way to slice that to be anything other than appalling. The ACLU and some are calling him on it. But the silence of the Left on this disgusts me.

    The right better get screaming about this expansion and the hypocrisy of these people too, Hal. I expected nothing but this from the left. I knew they where full of shit back then. It was always about Bush not letting Gore steal the 2000 election and the rest was smoke and mirrors to hide their real motivation behind. But so far things like this are all being drowned out by people more concerned with accusing conservatives of hating women because they do not want big daddy government to rob them so it can then give contraceptives out to all the ladies and claim to be doing them a favor. At least pimps also pretend to love the women they hook out. Then again, a slew of other real frightening problems that will hurt people far more than this nonsense about birth control are also being ignored for the same reason.

    I think we went round a few times on something like this a while back, but here goes again: HAL, if the executive does not get to determine war time targets, who does?

    I believe the executive has that power hist-ed. I have praised Obama for using it to kill terrorists, even when it is clear to me he is doing so because otherwise he would have to acknowledge Gitmo was a stoke of brilliance when it comes to captured terrorists. But what Holder now claims frightens even me, and these people need some checks to this insane expansion of their power. Can they just fire a hellfire at Limbaugh if he is on a boat that leaves territorial waters because he is a pain in their ass? But as long as they are killing terrorists, even when it is to help the French steal Libyan oil, I am going to cheer.

    Thumb up 2

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    I hate it when we get bogged down in this “we’re at war” rhetoric. If the actions of our government are any indication, we will always be at war. These power are open-ended.

    “We are at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We will always be at war with Eastasia”
    George Orwell-1984

    Often times good fiction isn’t really fiction at all. Are you starting to see a pattern?

    That’s the danger no one wants to think about.

    And that is the problem in a nut shell.

    Thumb up 2