In the spirit of better understanding you, I'll just ask the following questions:
1. Are practices such as drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus and assassination without due process necessary to responsibly prosecute the war on terror?
2. If you approve of Obama's use of the above measures, did you approve (or would you have approved) of Bush's use of them?
3. Are these emergency powers right and defensible only under the present circumstances? Or is it difficult for you to imagine circumstances in which they wouldn't be justified?
4. At what point may these powers be laid down? When is the conflict ended and their use unnecessary? To put it another way, when will it seem politically useful to officeholders that they declare the crisis over, that such practices are no longer needed?
...a condescending post. First of all, stop building straw men and conflating issues.
You have no evidence to support the claim that the administration is engaged in "extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus."
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
<...>
The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors.
Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.
- more -
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.htmlHere's what Holder said:
Mr. Holder, in a speech on Monday at Northwestern University, said government has the authority to kill a "U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack" and cannot be captured. The added fact that the administration has yet to make public its legal argument to justify this position adds insult to injury in terms of accountability to Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=428457
His position is in line with the situation described by Human Rights Watch in 2003. Stop trying to claim that this applies to anyone who isn't a terrorist.
I had no problem with HRW's assessment at the time, and I still don't. Trying to portray this as supporting it just because it's Obama and not Bush is red-herring nonsense.
If you can't make your point without it, you have no point.
= new reply since forum marked as read
