The worst civil liberties president in US history?....

[mick e]

News flash - Obama IS killing American citizens with black ops and drones. He has already done it - not to mention the countless innocent Afghanis, Yemenis, etc who committed the crime of "being in the neighborhood".

So whether it was worth it to get Bin Laden and his henchmen among others is not the question to ask. The problem is that by not following the constitution - and not holding the previous administration accountable for THEIR crimes in this realm, Obama has simply shown future presidents that authoritarian rule in the face of the nation's founding documents is the new normal.

[hal]

mick e wrote: The problem is that by not following the constitution - and not holding the previous administration accountable for THEIR crimes in this realm, Obama has simply shown future presidents that authoritarian rule in the face of the nation's founding documents is the new normal.

argh! yes, this is exactly it... and it really, really sucks!

[michaelb]

mick e wrote:
News flash - Obama IS killing American citizens with black ops and drones. He has already done it - not to mention the countless innocent Afghanis, Yemenis, etc who committed the crime of "being in the neighborhood".

So whether it was worth it to get Bin Laden and his henchmen among others is not the question to ask. The problem is that by not following the constitution - and not holding the previous administration accountable for THEIR crimes in this realm, Obama has simply shown future presidents that authoritarian rule in the face of the nation's founding documents is the new normal.

are you saying he is killing americans in the US with black ops or drone strikes? if not, i dont think the constitution applies, nor is there any clear international law governing international terrorists operating in rogue states.

[mick e]

The constitution applies to the US Government and how it treats its citizens - it says nothing about whether this treatment is only protected when on US soil.

[max]

rjmacs wrote:

You don't actually know what fascism is, do you?

You are complaining about totalitarianism, not fascism.

I'm actually sympathetic to a lot of your points on civil liberties, but this is Political Science 101. You aren't doing your argument very proud.

Do you?
Or did you sleep through your Political Science 101.
Or are you so blinded with your own hypocrisy that you are ignoring reality?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
Try to read more than a paragraph.
The 2007 article was written about Bush, it apples even more so to Obama.
The organs of the state are the same, the same fascist policies have been increased exponentially and more effectively under the new regime.
There is totalitarianism and there is fascism, Obama is a fascist who has honed the tools of totalitarianism.
Presumably you do comprehend the difference....

[deckeda]

mick e wrote:
The constitution applies to the US Government and how it treats its citizens - it says nothing about whether this treatment is only protected when on US soil.

Unless I misunderstood, I think that's exactly what michaelb's getting at.

[RgrF]

mick e wrote:
News flash - Obama IS killing American citizens with black ops and drones. He has already done it - not to mention the countless innocent Afghanis, Yemenis, etc who committed the crime of "being in the neighborhood".

So whether it was worth it to get Bin Laden and his henchmen among others is not the question to ask. The problem is that by not following the constitution - and not holding the previous administration accountable for THEIR crimes in this realm, Obama has simply shown future presidents that authoritarian rule in the face of the nation's founding documents is the new normal.

Agreed!

[mick e]

Anyhoo - here are the facts:

The US Government is spying on you and tracking all or your electronic communications.

The US government is keeping all of your electronic communications on file for future reference.

The US Government conducts unreasonable searches on your person every time you fly on an aircraft.

The US Government has officially carried out the assassination of a US Citizen in Yemen.

The US Government has passed laws that officially allow further intrusions into the lives of American citizens, and is currently seeking to pass MORE.

With all this in mind, consider that Obama was a "constitutional scholar", and swore under oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of The United States of America.

[max]

and under NDAA of 2012 pushed and signed by Obama you can be found guilty by association
(oops, that is fascism, too)....

[michaelb]

deckeda wrote:
[quote=mick e]
The constitution applies to the US Government and how it treats its citizens - it says nothing about whether this treatment is only protected when on US soil.

Unless I misunderstood, I think that's exactly what michaelb's getting at.
Yes, that is what I was saying. But I am not an expert at all in this area either. Generally, you don't have "constitutional rights" when you are out of the country. Those rights may attach if you are taken into US custody outside the US. But don't let anyone suggest these aren't complex legal, ethical and political questions.

If we are talking about killing a US citizen in Yemen for terrorist activities with drone strike, my main point was: nothing in the constitution governs that situation directly and there are no clear international laws on point (it does probably violate some international laws, but their application in a quasi rogue state like Yemen that doesn't abide by laws is unclear).

I do think that is probably "wrong" and not something we should do. But that means that taking out Bin Laden may also have been wrong (for similar but slightly different reasons). And it also means that if we can do this stuff, then Bush may have been right about some of the things his administration was doing, and that is very hard to come to terms with now.