Tag: U.S. government

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.

Another shoe drops…

The El Paso Times has this article dealing with a new accusation made, in court, by the defense for a Mr. Vicente Zambada-Niebla, who was extradited to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges in Chicago of all places, a top lieutenant in the Sinaloa cartel, that’s very disturbing. The accusation? Heck, let me just post the article and let you know what this lawyer is alleging that agents in employ of our federal government have basically done:

U.S. federal agents allegedly allowed the Sinaloa drug cartel to traffic several tons of cocaine into the United States in exchange for information about rival cartels, according to court documents filed in a U.S. federal court.

The allegations are part of the defense of Vicente Zambada-Niebla, who was extradited to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges in Chicago. He is also a top lieutenant of drug kingpin Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, believed to be the brains behind the Sinaloa cartel.

Now let me state that so far this is just a lawyer making the accusation in court, and not much more, but there is a lot of other information in this article that is quite pertinent to recent discussions about another such case involving federal agents engaging in what would amount to an grievous violation of their powers, in order to turn public opinion against the second amendment of our constitution – the right to bear arms against to protect oneself from a tyrannical government – which I found quite interesting.

The first of course is this revelation:

The case could prove to be a bombshell on par with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Operation Fast and Furious,” except that instead of U.S. guns being allowed to walk across the border, the Sinaloa cartel was allowed to bring drugs into the United States. Zambada-Niebla claims he was permitted to smuggle drugs from 2004 until his arrest in 2009.

If this turns out to be true it now shows a second operation where federal agents simply ignored precedent and law to further a goal. While not as harmful and frightening as your government running an operation so they could then create evidence to back their lies that the private US gun dealers seem to be the main suppliers of arms to the warring Mexican cartels just so they could sway public opinion in favor of their gun grabbing political agenda, it nevertheless shows a pattern of serious disregard for the security and safety of the American people. Again, if the story bears out, our government, in order to score a victory, allowed a Mexican cartel to sneak drugs into the US for information. Usually the left goes bullshit nuts when stuff like this is revealed, but then of course, it doesn’t get wide press coverage unless the news hurts non-democrats.

The government’s response to this allegation?

Randall Samborn, assistant U.S. attorney and spokesman for the Justice Department in Chicago, declined comment.

The court in Chicago had a status hearing on Wednesday and ordered the government to respond to allegations in Zambada-Niebla’s motion by Sept. 11.

I understand that. This guy simply might not know anything. I am certain that the people behind this – if it turns out to be true – wouldn’t advertise they did this, or, ever want to admit they did it. Let’s see how they respond.

However, what really intrigued me is the fact that this attorney doesn’t plan to just take the government’s likely answer that this didn’t happen at face value, but is expanding his probe to another real serious series of criminal acts by our feds, with full knowledge and consent for what was done going through the DOJ all the way up to the WH, for what now seems obviously done to sway public opinion and serve a dastardly political agenda.

Zambada-Niebla’s motion seeks U.S. government records about the 2003 Juárez case involving an informant who participated in several homicides for the Carrillo-Fuentes drug cartel, while under ICE’s supervision.

He also requested records about the ATF’s “Operation Fast and Furious,” which permitted weapons purchased illegally in the United States to be smuggled into Mexico, sometimes by paid U.S. informants and cartel leaders.

This is gonna be interesting. I wonder if Eric Holder will suddenly find a reason to declare this guy a terrorist and demand he be shipped to Gitmo and face a military tribunal so they can avoid the headache this would cause them. Of course, since Holder also guaranteed us that they would get a guilty verdict if they brought terrorists to non-military courts – something he could only do if the outcome was already predetermined, making the whole thing nothing but a sham and show trial – I am sure he wouldn’t have trouble “bending” the law to somehow make this all go away or be delayed forever.

Finally I wanted to point this little tidbit out, because it is relevant to a conversation discussing casualty counts because of operation “Fast & Furious”:

“It is estimated that approximately 3,000 people were killed in Mexico as a result of ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ including law enforcement officers in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, the headquarters of the Sinaloa cartel,” the court documents allege. “The Department of Justice’s leadership apparently saw this as an ingenious way of combating drug cartel activities.”

That’s a lot of dead people. Far more than a few hundred. I wonder where they got their numbers, but I am not surprised considering that this war has casualties in the double digits daily…