Everyone on the Internets is talking about this Ezra Klein article on the Obama Administration’s response to the financial crisis, and Charlie Savage’s piece on the secret memo authorizing the killing of Awalki.
Shorter Ezra: More could have been done, but anything more radical wouldn’t have passed, and this is pretty consistent with the history of financial panics.
Shorter Savage: The memo was a one-off for Awalaki, and doesn’t explicitly authorize a new legal doctrine of assassination of US citizens.
dr. bloor
Actually, it’s just a continuation of the “Just this once, cuz it’s super important!” doctrine introduced by the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore, and utilized on more-than-just-this-once occasions by George Bush.
Not that any of that led to anything bad or unforeseen.
Amir Khalid
Could I trouble you for a link to the Ezra story?
Ash Can
Very sensible, but this should still make for a 450-comment thread brimming with flying spittle and breathless hysteria.
mistermix
@Amir Khalid: Sorry, fixed.
Mino
The reintroduction of Sarbanes-Oxley could have been a condition of dispensing TARP monies. But no strings was the policy.
And Robert Reich has an essay on the history of Democrats and populism that is interesting reading but not particularly encouraging.
http://robertreich.org/post/11158838569
arguingwithsignposts
I’m going OT because I have to share. My reworking of St. Janis of Port Arthur’s “Mercedes Benz”:
What do ya think? Changes? Suggestions?
Amir Khalid
@mistermix:
Something’s wrong at the Washington Post. That link is supposed to go to the complete story but the page doesn’t have it — only comments.
arguingwithsignposts
@Amir Khalid:
You could have stopped after the first sentence, but I couldn’t get the article either, even after going through a different route and trying to load the page that way.
WereBear
Since the 1930’s, Republicans always bring on financial crises, depend on others to bail them out, and then whine about laws that might prevent them from doing it again.
Bill H.
Does the word “precedent” ring a bell?
Linda Featheringill
Ezra:
A good article. He actually did some research and gave it some thought. But then, Ezra does that.
One thing he did not address is the possibility that the age of expansion is over. I’m not saying for sure that it is but there is a possibility that this is so.
World capitalism has been riding a wave of increasing energy [oil, basically] and increasing customer base. The customer base is going to reach a saturation point sometime. Oil supplies are not increasing.
If the world’s upper crust stopped skimming so much wealth off the top and spread it around more, the demand from the customer base could be increased and maybe maintained.
But the world needs to come up with another source of energy to run our machines. Capitalism was always based on machines. If we can’t make the contraptions work, capitalism will collapse.
Linda Featheringill
Awalaki:
Is killing a US citizen morally worse than killing some dude from another country?
lawguy
“Nothing to see here. Nothing unusual. Just move along please. Don’t bother yourself. It is all going to be ok. Whatever you do don’t arouse yourself. Thank you.”
dr. bloor
@arguingwithsignposts:
Ms. Joplin would approve.
lawguy
The memo about Alwaki is described by a secret someone whose name can’t be reveiled and the memo itself can’t be read. So there you have it.
Quit your bitching. I’m sure you can certainly believe whatever it is the WhiteHouse puts out in this way. And I’m sure the legal arguments are as strong as any advanced by Yoo.
harlana
sorry, OT, but
AaAughH! What has Michele Bachmann done to her face?! It’s startling, I didn’t quite recognize her at first.
Norwonk
And no such memo will ever be written again, right?
harlana
also, she is wearing footlong falsh eyelashes
she simply refuses to answer any question she does not like or have an answer for, “I’m not here to talk about that, I’m here to talk about my campaign, blah blah blah”
geg6
Read both pieces earlier this morning. Both good and both spot on. Not always a big fan of Ezra’s (but he’s not nearly as bad as MattY, so there’s that), but he usually does his homework well. Which puts him on top of 99.99% of pundits.
harlana
Did Jeannine Garafolo or Sara Silverman reject Brietbart’s advances back in the day, because he was trashing them to hell and back the other day. Garafolo is “Hollywood’s sympathy f*ck” and Silverman is “a slut” Or maybe he’s just fuming with jealousy (seems to be the case) and wants to be one of those successful Hollywood entertainer gals.
He’s pissed because, since he has not discernable talent, the only way he can get any attention is the flash pics of somebody else’s junk on his iphone.
My god, he has a lot of nerve calling somebody else a slut.
Amir Khalid
@harlana:
How rude. When you’re running for office, every interview is a job interview. The media should treat her, or any politician running for office, exactly as an interviewer would a job candidate who refuses to answer pertinent questions. “You’re refusing to answer my question? Okay then, I guess you’re not really interested in the job. Thanks for stopping by. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”
Cermet
Let me get this right – after the mass murder of over two hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq by the insane madman cheney the baby killer and his ass puppet the moron bush and lets not forget what the mass murders also did: the heinous murders in terrible ways (amerika warfare, gotta love it) of so many children and babies! Nor forget the far larger numbers of injured (many in terrible manners that will shorten their lives and make their lives a hell) and we unleashed an orgy of murder by the various crazies in that country that caused the death count to exceed even the few hundred thousand we killed all in a totally trumped up and illegal war by war criminals that weren’t even elected and our whore media and little minds of people who are all so concerned by the killing of one amerikan who was a self-declared enemy and determined terrorist who was attacking the US using any and all means?
Lets not forget that we have fallen into a terrible near depression due, in large part, to the utter waste of over a trillion dollars (when added up) while we maintain a war machine that spends more than all other major countries combined to fight a few thousand (at best) terrorist while our country imposes laws that just steal our rights away. Yes, lets worry about this issue – stupid, one and all.
amk
Are others having problem with ezra klein link ? I see only a blank page with photos of the wacko talking heads/pundtwits.
Edit: Never mind. It’s working now.
Xenos
@Linda Featheringill:
No. But if we kill a Czech in Yemen, for example, we at least have to answer to the Czech government. If we kill Americans, whether at home or overseas in lawless areas, there is no diplomatic repercussion, no other government with standing to stop us.
When such a thing takes place, it can’t be permissible without due process. Due process is flexible in different situations (the emphasis is on the due, not the process), but you can’t really pretend that there is any kind of process when you just blow up someone via drone.
So even though it is not a big moral point, it is a pretty big legal issue.
dr. bloor
@Cermet:
Mr. Punctuation is your friend. As would be Mr. Rational Thinking, although that would be asking for too much.
Anya
Why is Awalaki’s killing be any different from all the other “Al-Qaeda number two” who were killed? Is there a difference morally or legally? They either all deserve a due process or their killing is justified. I know some would argue that we are at war in Afghanistan but not in Yemen. But are we at war with Pakistan? Why is the killing of a bad guy who’s a citizen of another country justified but not an American citizen who’s equally a bad guy?
amk
In re, klein and economy, with the globalization, aren’t the ‘economic experts’ concentrating only on their own countries for a solution ? Do we even have ‘global’ economic experts ?
amk
Haven’t the pl gotten over that awalaki guy yet ? Their poutrage normally lasts a weel, at the max.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Norwonk: I doubt it, because it’s not like American’s have never fought for other countries against the US before, and I’m pretty sure some will do it again.
Now, if we could only get all of the anti-government militias to move to Mexico, and then start launching attacks against the US, either 1) we could finally do what needed to be done to get rid of them, or 2) they would enjoy the immunity of being American citizens in another country, and we wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop them.
Amir Khalid
From a moral and practical perspective, I find it hard to dispute that Anwar al-Awlaki’s life should be forfeit. But I also understand, and sympathize with, Americans who want assurances that it was not an arbitrary decision; that the Obama administration followed legality and due process in deciding to kill him; and that no precedent for arbitrary killings is set. And yes, I agree that the sourcing of the New York Times story doesn’t quite reassure on on these points.
harlana
Holee shite! I can’t help it, I can’t even read further at the moment b/c, for the life of me, I am just stunned that a fucking loser nobody like myself figured out “it was different” b/c I was fucking paying attention for the last several years. Even with an addled, tortured brain I understood the gravity of the problem! And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, with all the resources, reports and facts and figures, still let this happen! And then, at the very time the people are suffering the most, we shift to the DEFICIT “CRISIS” fucking DEBATE.
Brilliant. Really, thank you so much.
(golf clap)
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Xenos:
Trying a little too hard, I think. Do you really think we’re going to answer to the Czech government? Here a least, if Congress were doing it’s job, they would be either trying to define how to handle American’s the fight for the enemy, or be conducting hearings. The president also has to answer to the American people. Now, if you’re not happy that there just isn’t a massive public outcry for Obama’s head over this, then you’ve got a majority of voters you need to talk to, so that they will bug their congresspeople.
harlana
@Amir Khalid: i have to give Candy Crowley credit, altho it pains me to do so, she gave it the old college try.
SBJules
I’ll be your dixie chicken, you’ll be my Tennesee lamb.
They were a great band.
drkrick
@Amir Khalid:
Actually, no. The voters are supposed to treat her that way – it’s not the job of the media to rule anyone in or out of the race. I’d say that the voter’s reaction to Sarah Palin’s “I’m not here to talk to that, too, also, you betcha” act has a lot to do with her current lack of popularity outside of the cult and the results of the 2008 election.
The only time candidates don’t get punished for that kind of thing is when the voters hate the opponent even more, which is probably the way the game should work.
amk
american style democracy, now in france.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-15232383
Bruce S
My question about Alwaki is if we would have had this discussion over killing a German-American who expatriated and joined the Wehrmacht in WWII? Not likely, nor should we have. The questions we need to be asking ourselves – and while they’re troubling I come down on the side of doing pretty much what we’ve been doing with the drone strikes – is how do we rationally conduct a war against non-state actors who have without a doubt declared war on us, and how do we insure maximum effectiveness of these semi-unprecedented tactics.
Frankly, the circumstances of a single bombing raid over Germany or Japan in WWII is more morally troubling to me in terms of non-combatant victims who would inevitably be killed than offing some POS like Alwaki who implicated himself in al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks. Citizenship is a non-issue IMHO, “all other things being equal” in terms of determining a direct connection to al Qaeda. I don’t expect the burden of proof to reach – or even approximate – the level of our domestic criminal trial system in wartime. This won’t happen for a couple of reasons, one being the fact that dispositive intelligence often cannot be disclosed because it compromises sources and networks, exposing vulnerabilities that we intend to further exploit.
War is a godawful thing – implicating us in acts that are undeniably sinful and beyond the pale of how we seek to conduct ourselves in “normal” times. A fact. And ugly. Which is why we should only engage in war if we feel so pressed by events as a nation that we see no other option. Unlike a lot of liberals, who should be embarrassed – and some, like Josh Marshall, Hillary Clinton, etc. probably are, but others not so much – I absolutely opposed the Iraq war as a fraud, as in no arguable sense “necessary” and a “worse than a crime, a blunder” diversion from our necessary objectives in dealing with those who attacked us and declared war on us on 9/11. I absolutely do not oppose attacking al Qaeda and it’s operatives no matter their “citizenship”, as long as we can do it effectively. I know this decision implicates me in some terrible stuff, but I think it’s bullshit to imagine we can engage in a war without doing terrible things. The alternative is total pacifism, which I don’t see as viable.
I think there is something a bit disingenuous about discussing the “legality” of killing someone who has taken on the full and outspoken identity of the enemy in wartime. The bar is a lot lower in wartime for engaging in lethal attacks on apparent enemies. I don’t see a way around this. I worry far more – and feel shame – about individuals like children who will inevitably be in the proximity of many combat or bombing operations who get killed in war. War compromises our humanity – and frankly trying to sanitize it is a big lie that makes it more apparently palatable than the terrible, dehumanizing choice that it inevitably is. I prefer to take responsibility for my choices and see them for what they truly are – our sinfulness, if you will pardon the term, or “humanness” which is far less than “perfect” or our ideal of “just” – than try to fit them into some neat boxes of “legality” or “just war.” As the veteran said in opening Ken Burns epic doc on WWII – don’t call it a just war. No war is “just.” Some are necessary, but let’s not kid ourselves about “justice” in the context of war. That fiction makes the decision to go to war a bit easier, which is one thing we should actually avoid at all costs.
wilfred
From the article:
“The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis”.
Oh, then, yeah, it’s cool. Cuz it’s secret and stuff, yeah.
rumpole
Most of what he says seems right, but there’s one really big problem. These leaks were clearly authorized for purposes of damage control. In litigation, the government stated that the factual predicate (as well as the rationale itself) is a state secret.
Yet, miraculously, someone’s now talking. The idea that the legal rationale is “classified” is now revealed to be official BS. The only person talking is the government, either someone like the chief of staff or some other similar official that’s been authorized to take the wind out of this story’s sails before it gets to be a real problem. Of course it’s going to -sound- reasonable.
And it may well be. But we’ll never know. I will say that other than obnoxious and hateful sermons (which last I checked the First Amendment protects), where’s the proof of operational involvement?
If it came out that John Yoo wrote that memo, would you now believe it was OK?
This ought to be a very public debate, not a star chamber proceeding.
arguingwithsignposts
@amk:
BBC carrying water for the bankster elites. Subtly.
harlana
and may I just say that the whole job retraining thing, while noble in theory, is worthless if there are no jobs to go to when you finish retraining or you are fighting tooth and nail to get that job that your younger counterpart is more likely to get anyway (God bless them, they have to pay the bills and eat as well).
I know this from personal experience and all my interactions with the 50+ yo ladies in my class (yes, some were in their 60’s). While I was praised as one of the “best” in my classes. Even so, I had to volunteer my time to a medical office for months before they offered me a $10 an hour job in a wildly dysfunctional situation for 3 months of pure, unadulterated hell. The office has since been closed and a new owner is now in charge, but new boss, from what I hear, same as the old boss.
The job opening came up actually because the girl before me broke down in front of everybody, including patients. After my experience, I could understand fully – every fiber of my being was dedicated to doing my job and not to breaking down because of the daily chaos and abuse. And praying they would fire me.
It is a cruel lie for most people and the only ones who benefit are the schools. I think even the instructors understood that.
doofus
@harlana: It gets bleaker.
Bloix
Linda Featheringill – “Is killing a US citizen morally worse than killing some dude from another country?”
Whether it’s moral is one question. Another is whether it’s constitutional.
There’s a settled body of law that constitutional protections of individual rights don’t run to persons outside the US. So, for example, a person inside the US can’t be deported without due process of law, but a person outside the US can be prevented from entering on the administration’s say-so, no due process (like a trial or some other objective procedure) required.
And you can argue back and forth about whether the killing of bin Ladin was legal pursuant to laws passed by Congress, but you can’t make the case that he had a constitutional right to due process to determine his guilt before he was killed.
The exception is that American citizens retain their right to constitutional protections no matter where they are. And the most important of all the rights in the constitution is that the government may not deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
If this means anything, it means that the government can’t gun you down on the street. It doesn’t matter whether the gun is held by an FBI agent or is in a drone aircraft, and it doesn’t matter if the street is in Chicago or Paris or Yemen.
If you are carrying a rifle and are part of an armed force opposing American soldiers on a field of battle, and you get yourself shot, that’s different. The US Army has no obligation to inspect the papers of all opposing forces to make sure that none are American citizens.
But that’s not what happened here. Awlaki was present in a country that is receiving American aid. He was not killed resisting arrest or on a field of battle.
You might say that he was guilty of treason (there’s a letter to the editor in the Post this morning calling him a traitor). Well, the Constitution is very clear in prohibiting the government from labeling people traitors and killing or imprisoning them without trial – because the Founders were well aware that the charge of treason is a powerful tool of tyrants and wanted to prevent its use except in the clearest of cases.
Here’s what the Constitution says about treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Awlaki may have been guilty of treason, but he was not convicted of it, and the evidence and legal analysis that supported his assassination is secret (all we have are allegations that have been strategically leaked, without supporting evidence). That to my eyes anyway appears to be unconstitutional. Perhaps the administration’s legal memo would change my mind, but since I’m not allowed to read it, my mind will stay unchanged for the time being.
wilfred
This is also convincing:
“But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.”
Because it has to remain fucking secret, you know. But we’ll tell you what’s in it.
Really, this demands the complete suspension of critical thinking.
harlana
and may i say also, when you are the new person walking into a chaotic, dysfunctional work situation, everyone wants to shit on you and degrade you because they, themselves, are frustrated and scared and primal instinct kicks in, which means, attack the weakest one, the one with the least power to control the situation. i swear, if we were on an island, i think they would have taken a baseball bat and beat me to death!
job hunting is a blast, lemme tell ya! i can’t say it doesn’t build character!
wilfred
And it just couldn’t be a Bill of Attainder, now could it?
Obama’s people planted yet another anonymous article in the NYT as an ass-covering. Period.
Time to move on, I say.
Amir Khalid
@drkrick:
When I did my own time as a journalist, I sometimes found myself wishing I could shut down an interview with that kind of uncooperative subject, and report that he/she refused to answer pertinent questions. My editors wouldn’t have been happy. Had I been reporting on politics and done that with an editor’s political patron, I would have put my job at risk.
It’s not the media’s job to rule candidates out, but it is their job to refuse to tolerate such evasiveness, and to call the public’s attention to it.
WereBear
I can’t get upset about Awlaki not getting a trial because a trial is a request of the accused when they claim they are innocent.
This doesn’t apply. We have a self-confessed terrorist. Caring about our fellow citizens means not wasting their lives trying to drag a terrorist back for a trial that is already pointless.
I don’t see how the fact that this one was a US citizen makes the situation any different than Osama bin Laden’s; declaring war on one’s nation makes that point a bit moot, I think.
Cermet
@dr. bloor: A few periods would help but nothing can help your thinking if you are a bush mass murder supporter, so I’ll just let both slide.
harlana
@doofus: ok, see now i know i can’t read the rest of the article lest my brain explode and then, who is going to clean up the mess? Cats, as we know, do not have opposable thumbs.
Linda Featheringill
@harlana:
Job hunting is a bitch.
How is it going? Any rays of sunshine out there?
Bruce S
“Awlaki was present in a country that is receiving American aid. He was not killed resisting arrest or on a field of battle.”
Like bin Laden. If, as is alleged according to the intelligence, Awlaki was involved in al Qaeda operations he deserved what he got as much as bin Laden did. I don’t assume that a legal brief convicting a guy like Awlaki according to “criminal justice” standards will be submitted by the intelligence agencies during wartime. That’s an absurd notion. The problems exist in the nature of the war we’re engaged in. We should be debating this on broader terrain than this guy’s citizenship. That borders on moot IMHO – while the larger issues of how we are conducting this war are indeed troubling. I don’t have an alternative plan to persuade myself that we need to do something totally different – but I definitely want debate on the nature and conduct of this war to continue. I just think the Awlaki “citizenship debate” is dealing with “tree” rather than “forest.”
Professor
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Why all this gnashing of teeth and crying about Awalaki’s death? I recall when an American citizen was murdered by the Israeli Army in international waters, there was not a pipsqueak of protest. In fact the USA houses of congress passed a resolution congratulating Israel for that act. It was only Turkey that raised any protest. May I take this to mean that we are more afraid of Israel than the USA?
amk
@arguingwithsignposts:
Yup. BBC’s yet another concern trolling on behalf of business interests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-15231991
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Bloix: It doesn’t matter that Yemen was receiving American aid. That doesn’t change al Awaki’s citizenship status.
I refer you to my comment at 26. Are you saying that all you have to do to be allowed to carry out attacks on the US is move to a country that cannot or will not extradite you, and then plan and help carry out attacks on the US, as long as you make it known that you are an American citizen?
Bill H.
@wilfred:
Not when done by the executive, only when passed by Congress.
Actually, the constitution does not limit the government to American citizens. The fifth amendment says “No person shall be deprived of life…” It does not say “No citizen shall be deprived of life…” This is a document describing what the government may and may not do, not defining what citizens may or may not do and in many cases only indirectly defining the rights of citizens by prohibiting government activity against them.
Be all of that as it may be, the image of this country having a fleet of drones flying around the world firing Hellfire missiles and killing at will, without regard to national borders or the niceties of law, makes me uncomfortable and unhappy. I don’t care whether it is legal or not, I don’t really care what purpose it serves, it is a profoundly ugly scenario which just makes me unhappy about what my nation has become.
Davis X. Machina
And no such memo will ever be written again, right?
And the absence of such a memo would prevent such a deed from ever being done again?
The US is a nation-state. This is what nation-states do. They’re not that different from a drug cartel or a mob family.
I’d indict the administration for the fact that we’re having this argument. None of its members seems to ever have had Munich in their Netflix queue.
dr. bloor
@Cermet:
Discussing legitimacy of killing Awalaki = support for George Bush’s murderous misadventures. OK.
Rational thinking, how does that work again?
dr. bloor
@WereBear:
A trial is declined, not requested.
Bill H.
@WereBear:
Oh, I have to beg to differ with you on that one. Trial does not have to be a request at all, it is an absolute requirement, an inviolable requirement of government. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” There is nothing in the fifth amendment about the person making any kind of request.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I think…I think its weird that one’s birth citizenship is something that you inherit and carry throughout life, regardless of your actions. The law should be changed, so that if you become a member of a terrorist group, you lose your American citizenship. I severely doubt it (though we’ll never know) but I’d guess that Awalki probably didn’t consider himself an American citizen. I’d think that being a citizen implies at least a minimum amount of loyalty to the constitution and the desire to…well, not take up arms against the United States?
wilfred
So to summarize:
A secret document is described by anonymous sources to a reporter at a newspaper with a hx of publishing government lies. We are to feel reassured.
Cloudcuckooland for modern volks.
harlana
@Linda Featheringill: Don’t know what happened to my earlier response. BJ comments seem a bit buggie this morning.
I now have a good job with benefits in a healthy environment. The business is doing surprisingly well, all things considered, so you also don’t have the added pressure of constantly worrying about the business failing.
Thanks for asking! I’m blessed and thankful and learning to be more at peace, after 5 years of worrying about basic survival, it takes some adjustment, learning to be happy! But I’m working on it every day, being a normal person, that is.
Unemployment can destroy your soul – We Are the 99%
(once I have fully recovered, I have dreams of becoming a Warrior for the Unemployed)
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Bill H.: I share your unease that the president now has the power to do this. I’m comforted by the fact that Obama took the time to decide if he was allowed to do this, and also got authorization from the Yemeni president to do the attack. I’m not comforted that Bush III (whatever his last name is) could decide to do this without deliberating. I’m under no illusion that Bush III would take into account anything that a previous president has done when deciding to go after anyone, whether a US citizen or not.
I believe the constitution constrains what the government can do, not gives or takes rights away from other people, therefore it equally applied to the government going after bin Laden as well as al Awaki.
Maybe people will think about this when they choose their leaders, that the president has a lot of technological power. Maybe it will make people vote when they otherwise would not have and make people vote for the right person. I don’t hold out hope.
Also, maybe we’ll be getting our mechs soon.
Mino
@rumpole: Could you explain to me why his citizenship was not revoked? Surely Congress would have done so if they had been asked. That has happened before, right?
B W Smith
@rumpole:
I find this premise interesting. When do you suggest having this public debate? Should the debate be in congress? I hardly think that will happen since they shirk their constitutional check and balance and foreign policy duties on a routine basis. Should the debate be open for all Americans to discuss what the policy should be before we make a decision? If I had to hazard a guess, I would think that most Americans would have no problem with the method or actual death Awalaki. So after this huge group discussion, would civil libertarians be any happier with the outcome? I doubt it.
Professor
@Bloix: Have you considered the possibility that the US government didn’t want to kill him but, rather to apprehend and arrest him. They were tracking him and wanted to incapacitate him to facilitate arrest and brought to the USA for due process. Regrettably, he was killed in that process! Satisfied?
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@arguingwithsignposts: Some of your lines don’t scan right: You’ve got too many syllables. My take on parodies is that you’ve got to get the rhythm perfect and you can slide on the rhyme a little bit. But the beat and emphasis on your new words has to be exactly the same as the original. For example:
David Brooks, Gregory, Ross Douthat and friends,
Sounds better as:
Ross Douthat, Dave Gregory, Dave Brooks, and their friends,
wilfred
“I’m comforted by the fact that Obama took the time to decide if he was allowed to do this, and also got authorization from the Yemeni president to do the attack.”
Staggering. Salih is clipping 30 people a day; kids in the street protesting for regime change and civil liberties.
Obama got his permission. Al hamdulill-h.
RAM
If we were actually at war with “terror” or whatever, a case might be made for the murder of Awalaki. But we are not at war. Congress has not declared war, so a state of war does not exist. This is really pretty simple: The U.S. Government is not allowed, by its own laws, to kill its citizens without due process. All this legal stuff is inconvenient, but it’s what used to put a brake on government actions. And now it no longer exists so that a former vice president can write a book boasting about breaking U.S. and international laws against crimes against humanity, the financial industry can cheat and rob without consequences, and the government can hunt citizens down and murder them using secret laws, interpretations, and justifications. What I keep wondering is if there would have been any serious repercussions if Awalaki had been murdered on U.S. soil. We’ve come so far down this extremely bad road that don’t think so.
arguingwithsignposts
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason: Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve made the change to the post on my blog. I did try very hard to get the syllables to match up, but that one was tough. Nothing quite fit like “Krauthammer” on the first stanza.
harlana
Fuck the War on Terrr. I was right about this too. It’s so sad I was right about everything, except . . .
JOHN EDWARDS!
Aaauugggh!
I guess my credibility is pretty much fucked.
Occupier
I am comforted that this Administration promises not to kill any more American Citizens without a trial. They do, they really do.
WereBear
@dr. bloor: So noted. And thanks!
Bill E Pilgrim
@amk:
Don’t kid yourself, there’s still this part:
Imagine reading “Mr Clinton is running for President against his former partner, with whom he was never married but had a child….”
Bruce S
“Congress has not declared war, so a state of war does not exist”
This is where our system has broken down. I don’t have any illusions that “declaring war” will make any of the ugliness of this war any less ugly, but it’ is a fact that Congress has totally abrogated its constitutional responsibilities. If it isn’t a war against al Qaeda, congressional representatives should quit using those terms. If it is, they should take responsibility that the Constitution demands they take. This is way beyond an operation or reaction that a President can legitimately command in “real time.” Congress has failed. It won’t eradicate any of the moral quandries, but it is the minimum our constitutional system demands.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bruce S: Unfortunately, the use of the term “war” to describe amorphous efforts to eradicate vague problems (terror, poverty, drugs) is a horse that long ago left the barn.
B W Smith
@Mino: I don’t think congress can do that for a natural born citizen. It is possible for a naturalized citizen to have his citizenship revoked. For a natural born citizen to have his citizenship revoked, certain pre-conditions apply. And I believe that also requires due process. IANAL, so I will wait to be corrected.
Bill E Pilgrim
The Alwaki piece was an interesting article. It’s good to see laid out what the thinking was, and it’s important that they’re at least trying to say that it sets no precedent.
I’ll just second what a few others said here: the entire justification hinges on this being “war” with terrorism. I remember when that was one of the harshest criticisms of the Bush Administration by non-Republicans, the idea that Bush and Cheney were treating it as “war on terror” rather than responding to murder and other criminal acts.
Now, of course….
Villago Delenda Est
@Davis X. Machina:
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?
wilfred
Don’t we have a War on Drugs, too? We certainly
know what those dark skinned people standing on corners are doing – I mean, we all saw The Wire, right? Couldn’t we just send a Hellfire missile up their collective cracks and put a stop to this kind of domestic terrorism?
Hey, do we still have the War on Poverty?
Bruce S
arguing – al Qaeda isn’t a “vague problem.”
I take your point. But the “war on terror” is an idiotic concept and always has been. And another of those metaphors that signal “we don’t have a fucking clue.” But there are real al Qaeda networks, linked by operational connections, self-declared goals and ideology that can be identified and tracked. I don’t think it’s “amorphous” to mount an effort against them on their own terms – which is warfare. They aren’t a “criminal syndicate” or some such. The fact that we have failed miserably in doing this is an indictment, but I have, frankly, never had much trouble conceiving of what we probably should be doing in response to 9/11. It wasn’t using “vague terminology,” demonizing religion or ethnicity or fabricating connections between random bad guys to the group that attacked us on 9/11. Bush/Cheney started us down a road that was IMHO a form of madness. It was a cynical opportunism combined with total cluelessness and extreme hubris. That said, I am absolutely for a concerted war-footing effort to take al Qaeda out. And I don’t think simply sending the FBI out – as we would against a drug lord or some such – is going to do the job.
My 2 cents…and pretty consistently what I’ve thought since 9/12/01. Well, probably not 9/12 when I was still likely in a state of semi-shock, but in the couple of months after.
Villago Delenda Est
@wilfred:
Hellfire missiles being fired at soup lines. Gotta love it.
Judas Escargot
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Good idea in principle. But I’d worry about the possibility of some some future government abusing the definition of “terrorist group” to abuse the law. Join the ACLU? You’re no longer an American! Launch the drones!.
I feel no pity or shame or anger at Awlaki’s death. And I’m more irritated/disappointed than upset at the way the legal issues were handled. Using a one-shot memo is a copout that doesn’t solve the real problem.
IMO, people should be more worried about the possibility of armed drones being used for domestic law enforcement. Cops are already lusting after this technology, and I don’t think they should be permitted to have it (any more than cops should be allowed the use of M1 tanks or nukes).
arguingwithsignposts
@Bruce S: I think we’re pretty much in agreement on the gist of what you’re saying. But it was never a war on Al Qaeda for Bush. It was a war on terra’, which is why they took out Saddam Hussein and referred to the “Axis of Evil,” TYVFM David Frum.
Villago Delenda Est
@arguingwithsignposts:
Indeed, the Dark Lord was, on the very morning of the 9-11 attacks, looking to make a connection between them and Saddam. Actually going after Al Qaeda became a sideshow in the “war on terra”, which was itself just a cover story for a raid on the Treasury for the Dark Lord’s Deatheater minions.
Bruce S
arguing – when I heard Bush deliver that nonsensical “Axis of Evil” line in his SOTU address, I pretty much figured we were fucked and they had decided to haul out a barrell of shotguns rather than the target rifle with scope that might have gotten the job done. I’m not kidding – that’s when I knew that I was being an idiot trying to get on board with the program, which I’d done despite my disgust after the 2000 debacle. I also began to suspect that they’d blown Tora Bora deliberately at that point. The handwriting was on the wall – which is why I can’t find it in my heart to praise some of Frum’s current relatively sane declarations without also referring back to the first time I ever heard of him.
CaseyL
_____________________________________________
They’re not that different, and I’m not sure how they could be different, since they serve the same essential tribal functions (for, granted, very differently-sized tribes). And the most essential function of all for any tribal government is to protect the tribe by killing enemies of the tribe.
We can argue over the details. I would say one of the most salient differences between a genetic-ethnic tribe (like the Corleones) and a nation-state tribe is that the processes by which enemies are declared and then killed. Nation states have more complicated processes with more participants – imagine ol’ Vito asking his capos whether someone should be killed or, better yet, taking a vote on the matter – for various reasons having to do with institutional and ethical credibility.
But the visceral response to attack and the general, though not universal, acquiescence to targeted assassination are instinctive, whether displayed on a personal or social level.
As Obama once said he was opposed, not to war, but to dumb war; I have to say I’m not opposed to targeted assassination per se; my concern is with its implementation. And I do, yeah, trust the Obama Administration to implement targeted assassinations more intelligently, effectively, and appropriately than the Bush Maladministration… and, for that matter, better than any Republican at all. Period.
ETA: The blockquote command codes are there; WP is just ignoring them. So I added breaks the old fashioned way, which half-worked. sigh
Maude
@Villago Delenda Est:
That’s the best synopsis I’ve read of the war on terra.
Bloix
#52 – “Like bin Laden.” As I said as clearly as I knew how, bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States.
#55 – Belafon, You ask whether this would mean that a person could “move to country that cannot or will not extradite you and then then plan and help carry out attacks against the US.”
This is apparently the justification found in the secret legal memo. Here’s what I think about that: (1) are you aware that there were any efforts made to extradite Awlaki from Yemen? I’m not. (2) in the case of drug dealers, the US Supreme Court has held that the US can kidnap and abduct people and bring them to the US for trial. US v. Alzarex-Machain (1992). Did in anyone think about running a Navy Seals operation to capture Awlaki and bring him back? Maybe they did but we don’t know what the conclusion was. Obviously it would have been expensive and dangerous – just as capturing and trying Mafiosi is expensive and dangerous. That doesn’t mean the FBI gets to shoot them down in the street. (3) What evidence is there that Awlaki was more than a propagandist? There’s clear Supreme Court precedent that advocating overthrow of the government by force is protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v Ohio (1969). What evidence – I don’t mean leaks, suspicions, or allegations, I mean evidence – is there that Awlaki was doing more than advocacy?
#61 & 65- “Could you explain to me why his citizenship was not revoked?”
Congress does not have the power to revoke anyone’s citizenship. Neither does the Executive. In Afroyim v Rusk (1967), the Supreme Court held that “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.” Committing a crime, even treason, does not take away your citizenship. You go to the chair, after trial, as a citizen of the United States.
TaosJohn
@arguingwithsignposts: Don’t watch, don’t listen, don’t read. Works for me.
Corner Stone
@CaseyL:
I see people say this here. It puzzles me.
Corner Stone
Welp, as long as Charlie Savage says we’re in the “all clear” mode on this issue then I guess I’m good with it.
Thanks Charlie!
lol
@Bloix:
IIRC, Yemen tried and convicted Alwaki and ordered him captured dead or alive.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
There’s some interesting information in the Wikipedia entry on al Awaki, especially in the “Final Years” section. It talks about how one Congressperson asked the state department to revoke al Awaki’s US citizenship, how the Yemeni government tried to negotiate with tribal leaders to have him turned over, and how said tribal leaders resisted. It also lays out a timeline on a number of events.
He also declared that Muslims did not have to get a fatwa issued to kill Americans.
burnspbesq
@lawguy:
“And I’m sure the legal arguments are as strong as any advanced by Yoo.”
No one who has any familiarity with Marty Lederman’s scholarly work or his years of blogging at Balkanization could say what you said or anything like it.
Lawguy: lazy or stupid? Inquiring minds want to know.
burnspbesq
@wilfred:
Would you rather that there were no publicly available information about the OLC memo? I rather suspect you would, because with nothing to argue against you could give free rein to your imagination, and continue to gin up the same sort of ridiculous shit we’ve come to expect from you.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
I guess you dimwits don’t understand that there is no proof that Allwhacky was a violent evil “operational” Terrist. He didn’t like the official U.S. policy of “we can kill anyone we’re afraid of, especially Muslims, and they cannot try to fight back because President Obama, his administration, the U.S. military, and a squadron of fiercely keyboarding Cult of Personality balloonbaggers is chickenshit to the core.”
Being one of the few rational and fair folks on this site, I will impartially review all the actual evidence you people are using to justify letting your president arbitrarily murder your own countrymen and adjust my opinion if any of it contradicts the known facts and supports suspending Allwhacky’s Constitutional protections. You may submit this evidence at any time, beginning now.
.
.
wilfred
@burnspbesq:
Huh? Why is the memo secret at all? Is it some kind of fucking state secret? Or is it because some potential American terrorist might find out the reasons why he can be assassinated and…what? not be a terrorist?
“publicly available information” = some anonymnous sources telling Savage what’s in the memo?
Keep clicking your heels.
JC
I keep coming to these discussions late, but, here’s a point I’m uncomfortable with.
There is a DIFFERENCE between
1. preaching attacking the U.S – it’s military forces.
2. preaching attacking the U.S., without distinction between military and civilian
3. Providing ‘aid and comfort’. Giving water? Food and shelter, as opposed to weapons?
4. Assisting in the carrying out of an attack.
So, I think it would be good to get clear about what is right and wrong, on these points, before applying to Awalki.
In the case of Awalki, we know that points 1 and 3 are true, but points 2 and 4 are murky, or at least, there are no verifiable independent sources of information, other than the government who performed the hit on Awalki.
JC
I was listening to a couple of talks by Awalki, and it’s eerie how one of the talks, at least, seemed consciously modeled on a Mandela tract from the 1970’s.
That was interesting.
Bloix
#95- Awlaki was put on trial in absentia last year, but the trial was not concluded and he was not convicted. A judge ordered was wanted “dead or alive,” meaning that he was a fugitive, not the same as saying he was convicted – he wasn’t.
OzoneR
@Xenos:
Judge John Bates disagrees
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Judge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US-kill-list
AA+ Bonds
My my, what a divisive post this was to make…. hmmm……
AA+ Bonds
@harlana:
Breitbart went after Mark Ames and found out that posers can’t mess with the original. (BB’s brilliant plan was to use quotes from the eXile book, which is of course still in print and for sale on the website and hasn’t ended Matt Taibbi’s career either so . . .)
In response, Ames ripped Breitbart and his lackey, Joel Pollak, a new one in a series of stories. And then certain people here started posting propaganda stories fed by Breitbart to Dave Weigel through Pollak, which I guess was Pollak’s next assignment after the Ames hit went FUBAR, and no one should ever reprint anything Weigel writes without mocking him up and down, but I digress . . .
Since then, pissy ol’ Breitbart’s been trying to step up his game by getting Amesier and Amesier with his salty talk – the problem is that he’s an ass-kissing, impotent nerd, so it’s completely unconvincing. If the left can bring itself to recognize its own capacity for venom, we’ll have a good chance against his ilk.
AA+ Bonds
Oh, by the way, close thread and erase original post from existence, thanks :D
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@OzoneR:
Of course he does. He’s a known Federalist Society fascism enabler.
By the way, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales also disagree.
.
.
Corner Stone
Yeah, Judge John Bates, Reality Check, jwest, burnspbesq and about half of the commenters here at BJ.
You’d think that would make them wonder what the hell they are agreeing with. But somehow it does not.
benjoya
@wilfred: @wilfred:
Really, this demands the complete suspension of critical thinking.
such demands having been met by millions.
brewmn
@Corner Stone: You do know that Charlie Savage is (or probably was, thanks to this article) Glenn Greenwald’s favorite reporter, don’t you?
Frickin’ hilarious how Firebaggers cite the words of some reporter or opinion columnist as unassailable authority until the moment that heroic truth-teller writes something they don’t agree with, and are suddenly Obama-worshiping sellouts who were never worth a crap. See, Olbermann, Keith and Stewart, John.
Corner Stone
@brewmn: I guess my question for you is, should I care in some way? Some ineffable measure I am currently unable to summon?
brewmn
@Corner Stone: I couldn’t care less how you feel about Charlie Savage. But a fair-minded person would likely take a minute to familiarize themselves to a writer’s work before trying to consign them to the crapper because they don’t like that writer’s most recent product. You apparently disagree.
Corner Stone
@brewmn: No, someone who understands that the “all clear” bullshit of the conclusion by Savage doesn’t translate out to anything else he may or may not have written.
I don’t need Savage, or GG for that matter, to tell me what to think about important issues.
For fuck’s sake, the memo is secret and the reporting/leaking is by an anonymous source. You want to give credence to that?
Because I do not.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@brewmn:
Here’s Mr. Savage’s most recent work: “The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.”
So, the memorandum doesn’t actually prove anything, and it may be all lies, but we’re going to kill Allwhacky anyway because President Obama is the depraved Chickenshit in Chief, and he’s got a posse of fearless, peerless, School of John Woo pixie-dust lawyers, aides, and equally yellow balloonbaggers.
.
.
Corner Stone
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
Uncle Clarence Thomas, I like the way you worked the modern cultural reference of director John Woo in there.
Because a bunch of assholes here just don’t seem to get it otherwise.
You want sweeping ground shots? You want two gun action? You want fast foreign cars speeding into a shipping port, filled with guys ready to throw down? You want guys who haven’t mastered the idiom?
Bring on the fucking drones.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@Corner Stone:
Thank you, Corner. The technique works equally well when I reference Mr. Christie Christie. (And by “works well” I mean I receive mainly dull-witted incomprehension from tasteless balloonbaggers, of course.)
.
.
brewmn
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: I like how a deranged crank like yourself is able to weigh evidence which, you admit, ordinary Americans ordinary americans are not in possession of to come to the opposite conclusion of those in actual possession of said evidence.
And I am also impressed that you think this administration was so fearful of a mere propagandist that they spent years concocting a legal rationale for killing him, not to mention untold weeks of intelligence and military work finding a way to rub him out.
Firebaggers will never let facts, logic or common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, going so far as to defend an avowed operative in the service of killing innocent Americans from reaping the rewards that his personal declaration of war brought him.
Next headline on the Firebagger blogs: Hitler – Actually worse than Obama, or merely a misunderstood painter?
El Cid
I think it would be intriguing to read some discussions in comments over what should be the policies regarding these matters, including restrictions (if any) which were to be, or at least desired to be, placed upon Executive Branch actions.
It might elucidate some actual principles, because at the moment any such questions appear to trigger the fear and rage that anyone wondering such things must be doing so because they hate Obama and are firebaggers and mainlining Glenn Greenwald, and also you love the terrorists and would fight for Pol Pot and love Hitler and want to have his babies.
It also might focus on policies themselves rather than a personal identification of US policy with a beloved or hated President.
Corner Stone
Love it. A secret memo leaked by an anon source to an NYT reporter.
It’s just fucking mind boggling anyone here could take this as justification for any action. What is this, 2002?