2 Oct

Which American citizen will Obama kill next? [Reader Post]

                                       

Barack Obama ordered the assassination of two American citizens. No one is arguing that they weren’t bad, but this is a terrible precedent.

An American President now can order the assassination of American citizens.

An American President can now suspend any American’s constitutional rights at will.

Think about that.

Why did we give Timothy McVeigh a trial?

Why don’t we just kill Case Anthony? We all know she’s guilty.

Why do we even bother having trials?

Over at Huffington Post there is division on this issue. They quote Jane Harman:

“It’s tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law,”

The Justice Department vetted this? Holder vetted this?

That borders on insanity. This is the same Holder “Justice Department” who put an end to the Black Panther intimidation case. The is the same Holder “Justice Department” which intentionally sent weapons into Mexico. This is the same Justice Department that sues states for attempting to protect their borders. This is the same “Justice Department” that wants a civil trial for Khalid Sheik Muhammamed.

HuffPo is allowing no comments that question Obama’s decision to assassinate an American citizen. I suspect that even they know how wrong this was.

What is the threshold for ordering the death of American citizens?

Joe Biden likened Tea Party members to terrorists.

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Golly, if they’re terrorists, then Obama can have them killed, right?

Obama himself called Americans his enemies

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’

And why not punish them with a nice Predator missile?

In fact, we are “treacherous enemies.”

Obama’s website once trumpeted this:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Terrorists. Terrorists need to be killed, even if they are Americans.

How about killing anyone who is a threat to democracy? Barack Obama once said that the Chamber of Commerce was a threat to democracy. Why not kill them?

David Plouffe said those who support Republicans are a threat to democracy

“They are becoming the central financial actors in the 2010 election,” Plouffe told reporters in Washington yesterday. “What’s happening out there is really a hijacking of our democracy.”

I guess they can be killed as well. Eric Holder would no doubt permit it.

A whole new world of opportunity has been opened up for Obama.

What now is the threshold for an American President to order the assassination of American citizens? Who can Obama have killed simply because he’s in a pissy mood?

Who’s next?

Aren’t we bombing Libya because its leader was killing his people?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Constitution, Culture of Corruption, Law Enforcement, Politics, POWER GRAB!, propaganda bureau, WtF? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, October 2nd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
| 2,261 views

192 Responses to Which American citizen will Obama kill next? [Reader Post]

  1. TheTruth says: 151

    “Mercy… you can’t just pull any terrorist related SCOTUS decision out of your hat, and expect this to be your template. SCOTUS addresses only a particular argument presented, and that was Hamdi’s unlawful detention. Or are you confusing it with Hamdan vs Rummy, which was about whether Congress could pass legislation preventing the SCOTUS from hearing Hamdan’s case before his tribunal?

    This relates to a CiC national security directive INRE capture and killing of terrorists, regardless of nationality, how?”

    First of all, you stated that national security matters and the POTUS authority to wage war are beyond the judicial review of the Courts. I began my argument by addressing that point and stating that it was false, because that baseline needs to be established. Now you are shifting gears and attempting to hide from what you said. As the Supreme Court held:

    “But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties”

    Hamdi is relevant for its discussion of the rights of citizens and provides useful background and analysis. It is common practice for Courts to rely upon prior cases for both legal analysis and dicta where there are similar issues (i.e. the rights of citizens). Courts do this even where the caselaw is not directly on point…it is common practice and Courts do it in their opinions all the time…but I will forgive your lack of knowledge on this subject, as your words demonstrate that it is clearly outside your area of expertise.

    You say:
    “As for judicial review, of which you attempted to evoke the irrelvancy of Hamdi, as you would know had you read the federal court 83 pg opinion, there is SCOTUS precedent that keeps the court from crossing the separation of powers that affects the duties of a CiC… which is what I said when mentioning that some things are beyond judicial review. (illegal detainment and habeas corpus not some of those outside their jurisdicational review… i.e. Hamdi)”

    In Hamdi, the administration argued that the detainment was an executive/military action that was beyond the review of the Court. The Court rejected this argument, and in so doing, plainly restricted the president in the performance of his official duties. Hamdi involved an executive/military decision to detain indefinitely a US citizen abroad…the present case involves the decision to execute a US citizen abroad. It stands to reason that if the decision to detain a US citizen abroad is subject to judicial review, then so is the decision to execute a US citizen.

    You say
    “What was provided per news sources was that the WH senior legal advisors were not in dissent in their opinion of legal targeting. What has this to do with the fact that Holder, as the AG for the DOJ, disagrees? And where did I say this was a slam dunk legal opinion from every possible legal source the POTUS may have drawn on for advice? Do either you or drj realize that WH legal advisors are a different critter than the DOJ?”

    What your sources said was:
    “Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers close to the president took a view similar to the ACLU’s. Congress authorized war in Afghanistan, they said, not Yemen. So the “battlefield exception” does not apply. And killing a U.S. citizen was simply wrong.”

    The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

    Try reading your sources for a change. AG Eric Holder AND OTHER LAWYERS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT said that it was wrong. Then the second source says that senior lawyers from across the administration had no dissent. Is it your position that lawyers close to the president are not from “across the administration”? Sounds like he cherry picked the lawyers…but I guess you believe whatever you are told.

    You say
    The flaw both you and drj suffer from is the assumption that a secret directive… of which you and I are not privvy to the specific details AND has been enforce in some degree thru three admins…. did not allow for the peaceful surrender and detainment of this so called “American” citizen.

    For what was he surrendering, by the way? The man was never indicted. For your information, Osama Bin Laden was indicted.

    Perhaps the most misleading of all of your comments:

    “Might I remind you of the obvious? That if an American citizen is, for example, holding hostages and threatening harm, and refuses to peacefully surrender, law enforcement officers are well within their legal rights to “assassinate” or kill the guy on the spot. There is little difference.”

    Where are the hostages that Awlaki was holding? Further, Awlaki is not obligated to turn himself in or face his death. The analogy would be that if the police are going to arrest you, and you fail to turn yourself in at the local police station, you may be killed on site. Thus, an accurate analogy would be if US forces showed up to apprehend him and THEN he refused to surrender. For your argument to make sense, Awlaki would have to have been able to surrender to a predator drone missile…and I think we can reasonably interpret the sense of that analogy.

    You say:
    If a common American thug murderer, holding hostages, refuses to surrender and is therefore legally killed by law enforcement, is he denied his “due process”? Or did he just refuse to participate in the due process that was extended by US law? Just as Awlaki refused his due process rights, nor sanctioned his own father’s lawsuit on his behalf, he also can be killed like the common thug who refuses to surrender.

    He is not denied due process if he forcibly resists surrender and has hostages. But your analogy is irrelevant because Awlaki did not have hostages and did not forcibly resist detainment. Hiding out is not forcibly resisting.

    ReplyReply
  2. TheTruth says: 152

    @Mataharley: If arguments were built on arrogance and condescension, yours would stand the tallest.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 153

    @TheTruth: First of all, you stated that national security matters and the POTUS authority to wage war are beyond the judicial review of the Courts. I began my argument by addressing that point and stating that it was false, because that baseline needs to be established. Now you are shifting gears and attempting to hide from what you said.

    Unlawful detainment and habeas corpus are not “waging war”… i.e. military missions authorized based on intel. ’tis you who are shifting gears and interpreting what is “waging war” as a wide concept to justify your continual references to Hamdi, which is only relevant to Awlaki INRE the ability to appear before the courts personally. You really should just take some time to read the pertinent brief instead of trying to tell me there are apples in the orange grove.

    Please try to let this sink in… you are trying to equate the courts rejection of separation of powers in Hamdi’s unlawful detention with a Commander in Chief’s decision for military action based on intel. They are not the same, no matter how many times you want to ply that tact.

    Try reading your sources for a change. AG Eric Holder AND OTHER LAWYERS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT said that it was wrong.

    sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess. There is an official and not released “opinion” by WH legal advisors, of which none involved in that “opinion” dissented from it’s legality. This has nothing to do with how many others were asked for their legal advice that was not supplied in a written “opinion”.

    Again, I will have to point out that I never said every legalese hound dog that weighed in was in complete agreement. Only those WH legal counselors who signed on to the written “opinion”. Does this sink in yet, or do you also like to bark up the wrong tree in misrepresentation?

    For what was he surrendering, by the way? The man was never indicted.

    The fog over clarity remains, I see. Those on the “lists” are not put there because they have been “indicted” in a court of law… nor is it necessary for that. To seek a court “indictment” would mean having to reveal sensitive intel as evidence, proving why intel agencies and the WH have them on such a designated list. Speaking of shifting gears, you’re off and running.

    Where are the hostages that Awlaki was holding? Further, Awlaki is not obligated to turn himself in or face his death. The analogy would be that if the police are going to arrest you, and you fail to turn yourself in at the local police station, you may be killed on site.

    …snip…

    He is not denied due process if he forcibly resists surrender and has hostages. But your analogy is irrelevant because Awlaki did not have hostages and did not forcibly resist detainment. Hiding out is not forcibly resisting.

    Improper analogy since you are too anal in your thinking via word parsing. Again, if you read the Bates opinion, you would learn that the feds argued there was sufficient evidence in his participation in the underwear bomber and other events as to be a constant threat to the harm of US citizens…. ergo, holding “hostages” to threats of harm.

    You, however, seem to think that the threats to the safety of others – which most certainly gives law enforcement the right to kill when detainment is not feasible – is only limited to Awlaki having innocents within his physical reach. This word parsing, attempting to defend the indefensible is quite tiresome, you know. Perhaps I should have Curt delete this post… LOL

    ReplyReply
  4. Hard Right says: 154

    @Stix:

    Stix, I PRAY your friend is successful in his/her bid.

    Maybe we should send a drone to kill Roman Polanski for raping a 13 year old girl?!

    You could probably sell that on Pay Per View.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 155

    @TheTruth: @Mataharley: If arguments were built on arrogance and condescension, yours would stand the tallest.

    Never fails to happen… argue points of law, provide links, point out the folly in trying to convert an apple into an orange, and I’m “arrogant”. LOL

    Thin skin also run in the family?

    ReplyReply
  6. Stix says: 156

    @Hard Right: ROFLMAO Yes that would be a big time pay per view event.

    Yes my friend is running against Olympia Snowe in Maine http://dodgeforsenate.com

    and the other is running for the House in CA where a new seat is opening up http://stevefoley2012.nationbuilder.com/

    this is all while having a full time job. I do not sleep

    ReplyReply
  7. TheTruth says: 157

    “Please try to let this sink in… you are trying to equate the courts rejection of separation of powers in Hamdi’s unlawful detention with a Commander in Chief’s decision for military action based on intel. They are not the same, no matter how many times you want to ply that tact.”

    Please try to let this sink in…you are calling the execution of a US citizen “military action based on intel.” You are engaging in word-play and re-framing that issue so that it is something that you are comfortable with. You could call a Predator Drone attack on Roman Polanski a “military action based on intel.” You can call anything a “military action based on intel.” The point is, as was made in Hamdi, the executive does not remove an action from the purview of the Courts by referring to it as an executive/military action. When you are dictator, feel free to force your doublespeak on the populace.

    You said:
    “sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess. There is an official and not released “opinion” by WH legal advisors, of which none involved in that “opinion” dissented from it’s legality. This has nothing to do with how many others were asked for their legal advice that was not supplied in a written “opinion”.”

    You just don’t get it, do you? The point is that there were lawyers across the administration who disagreed with the President, but somehow there was no dissent among those selected to write the memo. Perhaps you know how the lawyers doing the writing were selected?

    You say

    “The fog over clarity remains, I see. Those on the lists are not put there because they have been “indicted” in a court of law… nor is it necessary for that. To seek a court “indictment” would mean having to reveal sensitive intel as evidence. Speaking of shifting gears, you’re off and running.”

    I told you that OBL was indicted. Apparently you ignored that, or choose to because it doesn’t support your argument.

    “Improper analogy since you are too anal in your thinking via word parsing. Again, if you read the Bates opinion, you would learn that the feds argued there was sufficient evidence in his participation in the underwear bomber and other events as to be a constant threat to the harm of US citizens…. ergo, holding “hostages” to threats of harm.”

    You said holding hostages AND refusing to surrender. Holding hostages is not the same as conspiracy to act, and you apparently do not grasp that distinction. By your definition, any individual who conspires to commit murder is “holding hostages.” This is an absurdity and not recognized at law. Second, I will reiterate my point that the US made no effort to detain him, and he did not have a chance to resist.

    ReplyReply
  8. TheTruth says: 158

    @Mataharley: Arrogant is presuming that I did not read the Bates decision and confusing that with the fact that I disagree with it.

    You call relying on Hamdi and applying the dicta and analysis of the case as comparing an apple to an orange. In law, it’s called applying precedent. Even if the case is not directly on point, it offers useful guidance. But you wouldn’t understand I guess…

    Tell me Mata, do you always look into the backgrounds of your posters? Paranoid much?

    ReplyReply
  9. TheTruth says: 159

    “Never fails to happen… argue points of law, provide links, point out the folly in trying to convert an apple into an orange, and I’m “arrogant”. LOL ”

    What you do well, like the president, is set up a straw man to knock down. Any reasonable observer could tell you that I am referring to your excessive use of comments such as “Obviously” and “If you had read” and “defend the indefensible.” You don’t point out the “folly” as much as you act as though no reasonable person could disagree with you. That is arrogant and condescending.

    ReplyReply
  10. MataHarley says: 160

    Wow… if you read the Bates opinion, and still keep harping on unrelated Hamdi arguments, it’s worse than I thought. A precedent, of which I am well aware of, is one that has elements that relate within a previous decision. The fact that the courts do not consider habeas corpus or unlawful detainment out of their jurisdictional reach, but a CiC’s authority to authorize military missions based on intel is, is the point. Hamdi, referenced in the Bates opinion, had everything to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear before the courts when Hamdi did not.

    As far as your background, I don’t, nor didn’t care about your personals. However when there is potential for sock puppetry, usually one of the authors or Curt checks into it. I was only advised on a side off forum. Nor did I care. But I can sure tell the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree is debate style. When challenged… even in civil fashion.. you resort to personal insults. Don’t much care. Your presence on this forum, or even this planet, doesn’t interest me in the least. Your erroneous misinformation does.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 161

    You just don’t get it, do you? The point is that there were lawyers across the administration who disagreed with the President, but somehow there was no dissent among those selected to write the memo. Perhaps you know how the lawyers doing the writing were selected?

    What about a CiCs authority to command military operations escapes you? It does not require consensus among his legal advisors or DOJ. It does not require court indictments. A POTUS as CiC has a decision to make. He collects opinions from all related advisors and cabinet members he desires, then makes… and takes responsibility for… his ultimate decision.

    UBL’s indictment, or any of those terrorists on the FBI’s most wanted listing has nothing to do with a suspected terrorist’s presence on the lists maintained by the Treasury (now), and regularly updated by CIA and FBI. Again, some off the beat desperate tangent unrelated.

    You said holding hostages AND refusing to surrender. Holding hostages is not the same as conspiracy to act, and you apparently do not grasp that distinction. By your definition, any individual who conspires to commit murder is “holding hostages.”

    Again you rely upon anal word parsing to argue the indefensible. A threat to the nation’s citizens, as Awlaki was deemed via his presence on the list, does not require the physical presence of hostages. And, again if you had read the Bates opinion, the defendants (feds) presented the arguments that there was strong evidence of more than “conspiracy” in activity to put Awlaki on that list.

    Second, I will reiterate my point that the US made no effort to detain him, and he did not have a chance to resist.

    This is blatantly false and, if you indeed say you read Bates opinion, you would recognize that statement as false. Awlaki was well aware that he was a hunted man, and had ample opportunity to surrender himself to a US embassy with full protection from lethal force. He refused to do so repeatedly, and instead taunted US law. Additionally, Awlaki was required to come before Yemeni courts, and he refused that as well. He was not only in defiance of US authority, he was also in defiance of Yemeni courts.

    Now, like drj, you believe that first the US must attempt to risk soldiers and boots on the ground on foreign sovereign territory as a prerequisite. That’s just not how it is. When capture is not feasible without a high degree of unnecessary risk, killing is the prudent alternative. And nor does Awlaki’s targeted killing, instead of capture, mean that this happens to any citizen, in political dissent with this administration, as this post suggests.

    ReplyReply
  12. TheTruth says: 162

    “A precedent, of which I am well aware of, is one that has elements that relate within a previous decision. The fact that the courts do not consider habeas corpus or unlawful detainment out of their jurisdictional reach, but a CiC’s authority to authorize military missions based on intel is the point. Hamdi, referenced in the Bates opinion, had everything to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear before the courts when Hamdi did not.”

    For you to suggest that the status of a citizen and his rights against the US government, which was explored in Hamdi, has no application to Awlaki is to engage in sophistry of the highest degree. The Administration’s argument for what constituted a military action was challenged and it lost. I believe that the Bates decision was wrong in light of Hamdi…you don’t suddenly get rights before the government because you surrender to it. You are not removed of your rights by executive declaration.

    I never made a personal attack…I attacked your argument. If you want to take it personally, that is your business. Further, you made it personal and decided to bring up my personal life to the forum. You should explain your reasons for doing so, because I find it to be highly inappropriate and irrelevant. Is it fair game to look into your background and start bringing up details about you?

    ReplyReply
  13. MataHarley says: 163

    For you to suggest that the status of a citizen and his rights against the US government, which was explored in Hamdi, has no application to Awlaki is to engage in sophistry of the highest degree.

    This is a blanket and generic assertion. The rights of Hamdi’s unlawful detention has no relationship to Awlaki’s refusal to participate in his due process rights. Were the element of Hamdi and his rights applicable to Awlaki, Bates would have never dismissed the lawsuit, nor evoked the precedent that the “Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the separation-of-powers concerns posed by any judicial attempt to “‘enjoin the President in performance of his official duties.’” In fact, the only element of Hamdi that is referenced in that opinion has to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear personally before the US courts.

    I never made a personal attack…I attacked your argument.

    hummm… let’s try that again, shall we?

    If arguments were built on arrogance and condescension, yours would stand the tallest.

    Dissenting arguments and points of law cannot be arrogant since it’s an adjective used in relationship to a proper noun (a proper adjective). i.e. a “chair” cannot be “arrogant” . Only those putting forth those arguments can be considered so. Therefore, that was a personal statement, and was meant as such. Quite disingenuous of you to attempt to mask your contempt under such a thin disguise. As far as your personals, I don’t care who you are, and I doubt anyone else cares who you are. Nor was there anything specific here for you to feel so threatened. However I would suggest you keep your personal remarks out of your future commentary… assuming I feel the need to be so burdened by repetitive nonsense… and you shall not be met with like kind.

    ReplyReply
  14. drjohn says: 164

    The real Mata emerges.

    In all of these comments, not once have I insulted anyone. Not once have I done anything other than simply defend what I believe. Witness all the invective directed at me personally.

    Now, in contrast:

    Seriously, drj… buck up. You wrote it. You own it. There is no “delete” in the cyberworld. Cache abilities are alive and well. Simply doesn’t go away because you run into dissent.

    you simply stepped out of the realm of reality, and into the world of ODS hyperbole.

    Oh lawdy, the desperate lengths to which you leap in order to defend the indefensible.

    You clearly misrepresent this as your fantasy

    Chutzpah. You are not being honest with yourself in your initial desire for a “delete”.

    I have seen posts deleted on this blog per author’s request. This is not not the first.

    Mata is always the self-appointed arbiter of right, wrong, just and unjust, pretty much everything. No reasonable would dare disagree with her- just ask her. There is no room for dissent. It’s her way or it’s wrong.

    But that’s not the worst of it.

    ReplyReply
  15. just me 95 says: 165

    @Skookum 145 – I agree with everything you wrote and have even said the same. It’s a scary precedent. No one should approve of ‘secret panels’. Or are we now living under a dictatorship?

    Something I don’t think has been touched on yet: trust.

    Do we really trust Obama to do the right thing? He’s given us a false ‘shovel ready’ stimulus package he laughed about later, bailed out the car industry that only helped the unions, O’care, Clash for Clunkers, Frank/Dodd, EO’s – one of which, the Rural Council, gave over a huge swath of our country to the UN Agenda 21, a ‘kinetic action’ in Libya, and the list goes on. For anyone to suddenly believe Obama is capable of doing anything ‘good’, or even lawful, for this country by flaunting a ‘secret memo’ and telling us “It’s okay. I got the legalities on this,” must be…. you fill in the blank. I can’t and don’t trust a thing he does. And I don’t put it past him to do something totally unConstitutional. Even in Skookum’s 145 link, it says they used international law to justify what was done. No. We do not do that. Ever.
    But defend Obama’s actions because it will make you sleep better at night. Unfortunately for me, I now sleep worse knowing for sure there’s what I consider to be a rogue in the WH who is determined to bring America to her knees.
    John Adams wrote: “Power must never be trusted without a Check.” Where’s our check now?

    ReplyReply
  16. drjohn says: 166

    @MataHarley:

    sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess.

    This is singularly the most contemptible thing I have ever seen on a blog- let alone this one. It shreds all pretense at civility. This information derives from a private conversation. Getting pasted by a commenter is not something to which Mata is accustomed, and this was a despicable act in desparation and distraction.

    It entirely customary for Mata to insult those who disagree with her. I have sought to avoid confrontation with her but she seeks me regularly as a target for her condescension. To wit, Skookum and I pretty much share the same opinion on this subject yet Mata steers clear of Skook while zeroing in on me. Mata did the same thing to Mike Miller. She seems to need a whipping boy. Perhaps there’s something deep down inside that we do not know which motivates this behavior.

    Regardless, even if I knew of something I would never make it public. I would not reveal private and personal information to use as a stick of vengeance when losing an argument. I know some things about the authors here but I would not in a million years divulge them over a snit.

    This was loathesome. It was pathetic. It is wrong. I told no one what to say. I told no one what to do. Not being able to argue successfully the facts of the discussion is no reason to violate personal communications.

    Mata said:

    As far as your personals, I don’t care who you are, and I doubt anyone else cares who you are.

    What galactic disingenuousness. To reiterate:

    Mata:

    sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess.

    It doesn’t matter, except that Mata saw fit to share a personal communication. If it didn’t matter, why do it?

    Because it did matter. It was a straw to which Mata had to clutch in order to demean yet another commenter. As if that wasn’t enough, there’s this:

    However I would suggest you keep your personal remarks out of your future commentary… assuming I feel the need to be so burdened by repetitive nonsense…

    You see, only Mata is entitled to make personal remarks. No reasonable person would disagree with her- ever.

    If hypocrisy was a star, this would be a supernova.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 167

    drj, you have an archive full of historic insults. Surely you don’t think your commentary is confined just to this one readers post, do you? And the only posts that were ever deleted from this blog that I know of were all of Mike’s Americas… for an entirely different reason. It was also complied with for an entirely difference reason.

    Nor is your hyperbole in writing and yellow journalism headlines unique. What remains a constant is that whenever you meet dissent with your opinion… most especially with me… you just go off the deep end. I personally thought it hilarious you wanted it “deleted”….

    ReplyReply
  18. drjohn says: 168

    @MataHarley: What private information from others will you be releasing when you don’t like the way a discussion is going? Do you do this at home too?

    ReplyReply
  19. drjohn says: 169

    @MataHarley:

    Nor is your hyperbole in writing and yellow journalism headlines unique. What remains a constant is that whenever you meet dissent with your opinion… most especially with me… you just go off the deep end. I personally thought it hilarious you wanted it “deleted”….

    Me – but not Skookum. Sure, Mata.

    Someone is off the deep end alright.

    ReplyReply
  20. drjohn says: 170

    @MataHarley: Feel free to stop responding whever you like.

    ReplyReply
  21. drjohn says: 171

    @MataHarley:

    And the only posts that were ever deleted from this blog that I know of were all of Mike’s Americas… for an entirely different reason.

    So why not tell us all about that too and take another shot at Mike?

    ReplyReply
  22. Aye says: 172

    And the histrionics rage on.

    ReplyReply
  23. drjohn says: 173

    @MataHarley:

    What remains a constant is that whenever you meet dissent with your opinion… most especially with me… you just go off the deep end

    I don’t believe I went off any deep end on this post. You came into this at comment 134. I responded (not to you in particular) in comment 139 and as I said I do not believe it was off the deep end at all. I explained my opinion without bombast. I insulted no one.

    Your assertion is entirely without merit.

    On the other hand, you have compromised the integrity of this blog.

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 174

    @Aye… LOL! Ya know, I can remember the days when everyone always thought you and I were sock puppets. I always seem to be the scape goat for you, guy. I consider that an honor.

    Speaking of sock puppets, I don’t remember commenting on who the alleged sock puppet was… Nope, I sure didn’t.

    BTW, I’ve disagreed with Skookum often. He just doesn’t go into a tirade of self defense.

    ReplyReply
  25. drjohn says: 175

    The last word.

    ReplyReply
  26. rumcrook says: 176

    a relevant point on this subject:

    Due process does not apply in warfare against foreign countries and entities.
    Warfare is waged under the Law of Armed Conflict.

    The US is officialy in a state of armed conflict with the Al Qaeda group, Taliban and associated forces.

    The Law of Armed Conflict does not state anywhere that enemy soldiers with american citizenship are not lawful combatant targets.

    with that said sultan kinish nails it with this essay in opposition to the supposition of this post

    ReplyReply
  27. just me 95 says: 177

    Sorry, rumcrook, I didn’t read that he nailed anything.

    ReplyReply
  28. just me 95 says: 178

    And now we even have Michael Savage agreeing

    listen here

    ReplyReply
  29. tfhr says: 179

    Dr. John,

    “Useful idiot” comes to mind when I read something like this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

    But with AQ on your side of the fence on this issue, how could you be wrong?!

    ReplyReply
  30. SUZY says: 180

    I don’t know who will do the job that needs doing soon. But I hope someone does the job ASAP

    ReplyReply
  31. Curly Surmudgeon says: 181

    @John Cooper: There is a gaping hole in your argument that it’s ok to assassinate todays bad guy because he committed treason: when was he tried and convicted?

    As bad as the guy may have been he is not a criminal in the legal sense until convicted. That means that Obama assassinated an innocent man and you’re for killing innocent Americans. You are both criminals.

    ReplyReply
  32. Peter Wesson says: 182

    @tfhr:
    The difference is that he was not in a fight when he was killed. It is recognized that police, soldiers, and private citizens can kill to defend themselves and others from direct immediate threat. However, to go outside of this for any other reason is a violation of the 14th amendment. I am opposed to terrrorists and want them stopped, but to answer wrong with illegal actions is wrong. Moral highground is not gained by immoral actions.

    ReplyReply
  33. Aye says: 183

    This just in:

    Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) implied Sunday Congress or some part of it was notified in advance of the air strike that killed al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki:

    CROWLEY: I need a quick yes or no from you, about the use of them and using them targeting Americans overseas. Al-Awlaki, a known terrorist, but an American citizen, as well as his son were killed–you have talked about oversight, you think there’s plenty of oversight for this drone program. Were you told in advance of those two killings?

    ROGERS: For the planning purposes of air strikes against terrorists and enemy combatants overseas, yes.

    CROWLEY: These specific men?

    ROGERS: If people make the target list we know that in advance, there’s appropriate oversight. And then how we target those individuals changes from day to day, but air strikes are certainly a part of that.

    Those who believed that Obama was doing the whole “kill list” “targeting Americans” thing without Congressional oversight should wait by the phone for further instructions.

    ReplyReply
  34. drjohn says: 184

    @Aye:

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers on Sunday defended President Barack Obama’s use of drone strikes, saying he reviews every attack after it happens.

    “I, as chairman, review every single airstrike that we use in the war on terror, both from the civilian and the military side when it comes to airstrikes,” the Michigan Republican said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “There is plenty of oversight here. There’s not an American list somewhere overseas for targeting, that does not exist. … The oversight rules have been consistent.”

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/house-intel-chair-defends-obama-on-drones-156581.html

    ReplyReply
  35. Aye says: 185

    @drjohn:

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers on Sunday defended President Barack Obama’s use of drone strikes, saying he reviews every attack after it happens.

    There’s no evidence that Mike Lee said “after it happens.” In fact, in the video clips, he specifically says the knowledge/review happens prior to action.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said he’s the oversight for every U.S. drone strike that the President orders during his appearance on Face the Nation. On the other Sunday shows, many politicians were questioning the amount of oversight that governs the drone program. John McCain suggested the Pentagon should be in charge of drones instead of the CIA during his appearance on Fox News Sunday. Rogers said he’s the guy who looks over everything before the strikes are authorized. “I, as chairman, review every single airstrike that we use in the war on terror, both from the civilian and the military side when it comes to airstrikes,” Rogers said. “There is plenty of oversight here. There’s not an American list somewhere overseas for targeting, that does not exist. … The oversight rules have been consistent.” Rogers also defended the strike against Anwar al-Awlaki, saying when an American “joins forces with the enemy” they lose their constitutional rights to due process and can become targets of the American military. “Our options were limited,” Rogers said. “This was a tool that we could use to stop further terrorist attacks against Americans.”

    ReplyReply
  36. justme95 says: 186

    So which ‘associated force’ is next? AR15 owners? TEA Party groups?

    ReplyReply
  37. justme95
    you’re back from 2011, now
    it seems to me that now 0n 2013 february 17,
    nothing has move from the OBAMA REGIME, STILL 23 MILLIONS LOOKING FOR JOBS,
    THE DEBT RAISE HIGHER AS THE DAY GO BY, AND THE CLOWNS VOTE FOR OBAMA
    IN NOVEMBER 6TH 2012
    AND drjohn is still being picked on,
    but I see RAND PAUL COMING PUBLIC AND HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT,
    I like him, what do you think, I respect your opinion.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  38. SO OBAMA LIKE TO PLAY WITH PREDATOR DRONES, HEY?
    WHERE WAS THE PREDATOR DRONES IN BENGHASI BEFORE THEY GOT IN THE ANNEX TO KILL THE AMBASSADOR, HOW THERE WAS NOT ONE PREPARED AND READY AS SOON AS THE MOB SHOWED UP
    IN FRONT THE COMPOUND,
    HE HAD TOLD THE PRESIDENT THERE WOULD NOT BE A CHANCE TO ESCAPE AN ATTACK IN APRIL,
    AND IN JUNE, AND IN AUGUST, AND IN SEPTEMBER WHILE THEY WHERE DEMOLISHING AND SETTING FIRE TO HIS PLACE, AND BY THE SEALS ASKING FOR HELP AND ASKING THE OKAY TO GO AND HELP THE AMBASSADOR,
    THE OKAY WAS REFUSE BY A ; STAY DOWN,
    BUT THOSE ARE TRUE AMERICANS HERO, THEY WENT, AND DIED ALSO FIGHTING AND EXPECTING HELP,TILL THE END, WHERE IS THAT FUCKEN PREDATOR, IS IT COMING OR NOT?
    NO OBAMA LET THEM DOWN, THEY DIED. IN SEPTEMBER 2012 11/ 9/12WE SAY,
    A PREDATOR WOULD HAVE DONE THE JOB,I’M SURE

    ReplyReply
  39. justme95 says: 189

    Hi Bees,
    Re: Rand
    I have no opinion of him yet. I do like many things he says, but the courage of his convictions will be known when we see how he votes. AS is said, Actions speak louder than words.
    I do know who I will never support – Rubio because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as is required by the Constitution (BO isn’t one, either, as his father was a foreign national) and depsite him being a TEA Party pick I think he has quickly turned RINO, Chris Christie, and definitely NOT Jeb Bush!

    ReplyReply
  40. justme95
    hi,
    why not JED BUSH ? HE IS KNOWN TO HAVE DONE A SUPER JOB IN FLORIDA AS GOVERNOR, BESIDE A GOVERNOR SHOULD HAVE A HEAD START ON HOW TO ADMINISTER THE COUNTRY,
    LOOK AT RICK PERRY SUCCESSFUL GOVERNOR OF TEXAS WHO TAKE NO BULSHIT FROM THE OPPOSITION CORRUPT ACTIONS,
    I DID NOT FORGET THE TIME THAT RICK PERRY WANTED TO BY THEIR OWN PLANES AND DO WITHOUT THE TSA UNION
    THE WHITE HOUSE WENT AT HIM WITH WARNING AND THREATS TO REMOVE THE FEDERAL ASSET
    WHATEVER, THEY ARE,
    RICK ALMOST CALL THEIR BLUFF, BUT BACKED OF FOR THE SAKE OF THE CITIZENS,
    I always wonder what would have happen if he would have stayed in his position.
    of course he knew better and for his people he gave up.
    but he show resolve and courage and know how.
    yes much courage, because he was in pain
    almost all the time, standing up in front of those asking questions and a vicious media and obamist trying to pin dirt at him, that with the other CANDIDATES
    smearing theother for the sake of wining
    the number one rank ,
    that was the most horrible sight to witness, it must never happen again the vetting is a bloody killing all of them.
    while OBAMA WAS NEVER VETTED, HE WOULD NOT HAVE PASS,
    AND THEY KNEW IT,

    BYE

    ReplyReply
  41. justme95 says: 191

    Hi Bees,
    Sorry I’ve taken so long to reply.
    I will first talk a little bit about tricky Ricky Perry RINO. He’s a NAFTA proponant and that should tell you everything you need to know as to why I would never support him. I’m leaving you to look up just how bad NAFTA is. He also allowed Cscope to be implemented in the school systems.
    Below is one egregious lesson in Cscope as pointed out by by the DailyCaller:
    The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack
    A CSCOPE high school world history lesson plan depicts the Boston Tea Party, the famous protest against taxation without representation, as an act of terrorism.
    “A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port,” the part of the curriculum pertaining to the Boston Tea Party reads. “Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities.”

    Other things Cscope teaches is that Islam is great, Christianity is a cult, Communism is great, it promotes the UN’s depopulation agenda and more. Ok, they are now supposedly going to look into and correct all that garbage, but Texas kids have been learning this junk since 2006!!! And Perry’s done NOTHING to get rid of it or the people who created the non-profit that implemented it. Perry is a skank.

    As for Jeb, read this and pay special attention to the comments. Personally, I hated Pappy Bush – what a complete and total let-down after Reagan. I remember actually being HAPPY Clinton won because I hated Pappy Bush so much – and I voted for Pappy! I hated Clinton, too, just so you know. And as for GWBush, I will NEVER forgive him for created the Dept of Homeland Security, TSA, and for signing the unPATRIOT Act. NEVER! The apples don’t fall far from the tree and these Bushy apples are poison.

    ReplyReply
  42. justme95
    hi, you bring quite a lot of information there,
    now,I am torn between RICK PERRY AND YOUR INFO,
    that give me a problem, I call it a sanwich problem,
    because I like the BUSH FAMILY, I like RICK PERRY, and I like YOU,
    but not the information, was the TEA PARTY a false one or infiltrate?
    I have no reason to not believe you, there is my sanwich problem,
    and because of it, I don’t know what more to say,
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>