and of course drone attacks have all but stopped since he

The WashingtonPost, NYTimes and TimesOnline seem to all be saying roughly the same thing. It may be based on the same few sources. It may be true, but it may simply be a continuation of a Bush policy. Or it may be an exaggeration of what Obama has authorized.

http://www.realclear..._week_105515.html

TAPPER: Senator Joe Lieberman and some others introduced legislation this past week which would give the State Department the right to strip the U.S. citizenship from anyone who is designated a foreign terrorist agent. I understand the administration does not support this and thinks that there are constitutional issues, but there's a point that Senator Lieberman made about the fact that President Obama currently has the authority -- at least according to Lieberman, who's the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, the cleric Awlaki, and -- well, this is what Senator Lieberman had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIEBERMAN: If the president can authorize the killing of a United States citizen because he is fighting for a foreign terrorist organization, we can also have a law that allows the U.S. government to revoke Awlaki's citizenship and that of other American citizens who have cast their lot with terrorist organizations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Isn't there a strange double-standard here? The administration gets all offended about revoking, you know, terrorist suspects' citizenship, but feels no compunction at all about ordering their assassination?

HOLDER: Well, I'm not going to assume that what has been said there about ordering anybody's assassination is necessarily true. But with regard to the bill that Senator Lieberman is potentially talking about, that's not something I had a chance to really review. There are potential constitutional issues with it, as I've seen some critics discuss. I've not had a chance, as I said, to review it in any great detail, but I think what people have to understand is that the system we presently have in place takes terrorists and can put them in jail for extended periods of time. We can put people in jail fro the rest of their lives. We can even execute people under the law as it presently exists, and one has to wonder whether we need to go further than that.

(Emphasis added.)

Maybe Holder's not in the loop. Maybe he's lying. Who knows.

AFAIK, Obama never said he was going to stop or curtail the drone attacks (even though there may be good strategic reasons to do so). During the campaign he got a lot of grief for his statement that he was going to escalate Afghanistan (and he has). Greenwald (for good or ill) goes off the deep end when he gets upset about things, and one of those things is Obama and his supporters.

I'm not excusing Obama. I'm simply saying that it's nothing new and it's unrealistic to think that he would reverse policies like these so early in his term. He tried to close Guantanamo and try KSM in a civilian court in NY, remember...

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #326,442 by boxley 5/17/10 9:23:04 PM Reply	and of course drone attacks have all but stopped since he took office, yea right. Note the headline, it doesnt say bush ordered, it states obama ordered http://www.timesonli...rticle7089899.ece The decision is extraordinary not only because Mr al-Awlaki is believed to be the first American whose killing has been approved by a US President, but also because the Obama Administration chose to make the move public. not exactly trying to make it go away or waiting for a better time to stop the program exactly is it? The only modification appears to step it up. Those rose colored glasses must be heavily tinted to miss all the steaming piles of brown around the current resident on the civil rights front
Post #326,443 by Another Scott 5/17/10 9:35:41 PM 5/17/10 9:36:22 PM Reply	Whoops. Posting error. Ignore. Edited by Another Scott May 17, 2010, 09:36:22 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #326,445 by Another Scott 5/17/10 9:51:58 PM Reply	I'm not convinced that anything has changed on that. The WashingtonPost, NYTimes and TimesOnline seem to all be saying roughly the same thing. It may be based on the same few sources. It may be true, but it may simply be a continuation of a Bush policy. Or it may be an exaggeration of what Obama has authorized. http://www.realclear..._week_105515.html TAPPER: Senator Joe Lieberman and some others introduced legislation this past week which would give the State Department the right to strip the U.S. citizenship from anyone who is designated a foreign terrorist agent. I understand the administration does not support this and thinks that there are constitutional issues, but there's a point that Senator Lieberman made about the fact that President Obama currently has the authority -- at least according to Lieberman, who's the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, the cleric Awlaki, and -- well, this is what Senator Lieberman had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LIEBERMAN: If the president can authorize the killing of a United States citizen because he is fighting for a foreign terrorist organization, we can also have a law that allows the U.S. government to revoke Awlaki's citizenship and that of other American citizens who have cast their lot with terrorist organizations. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Isn't there a strange double-standard here? The administration gets all offended about revoking, you know, terrorist suspects' citizenship, but feels no compunction at all about ordering their assassination? HOLDER: Well, I'm not going to assume that what has been said there about ordering anybody's assassination is necessarily true. But with regard to the bill that Senator Lieberman is potentially talking about, that's not something I had a chance to really review. There are potential constitutional issues with it, as I've seen some critics discuss. I've not had a chance, as I said, to review it in any great detail, but I think what people have to understand is that the system we presently have in place takes terrorists and can put them in jail for extended periods of time. We can put people in jail fro the rest of their lives. We can even execute people under the law as it presently exists, and one has to wonder whether we need to go further than that. (Emphasis added.) Maybe Holder's not in the loop. Maybe he's lying. Who knows. AFAIK, Obama never said he was going to stop or curtail the drone attacks (even though there may be good strategic reasons to do so). During the campaign he got a lot of grief for his statement that he was going to escalate Afghanistan (and he has). Greenwald (for good or ill) goes off the deep end when he gets upset about things, and one of those things is Obama and his supporters. I'm not excusing Obama. I'm simply saying that it's nothing new and it's unrealistic to think that he would reverse policies like these so early in his term. He tried to close Guantanamo and try KSM in a civilian court in NY, remember... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #326,447 by boxley 5/17/10 11:38:23 PM Reply	holder is lying or out of the loop if the president cannot come out publically and state that US citizens cannot be targetted for murder by the feds without trial, judicial review or any other agency besides the executive branch, he has just recinded Saint Ronnie's proclamation against assassination. Spin that in any form you care to name.

Welcome to IWETHEY!