President Transparent Finally Get Around to Admitting He Murdered a Teenager

However, because the sixteen year old he murdered without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury or verdict on his unilateral will alone was related to some other guy he also ordered dead, and they both have foreign-sounding names, it’s all fine.

When the President does it, it’s not illegal. And when the President decides that acts of crime–or suspected crime–committed by, oh, the sort of people currently causing such headaches for the IRS with their prayers and Planned Parenthood protests and uppity ways are likewise “terror” there is nothing but custom and the rapidly eroding sense that “the President just wouldn’t go there” to keep him from going there.

If the economy *really* implodes, our Ruling Class would not hestitate for a second to turn on its own citizenry domestically the powers it is already turning on citizens abroad.

“But these people are Bad Guys”. Well yes. So the Administration tells us. So were Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh and Sirhan Sirhan and John Hinckley, Jr (who tried to kill the Commander-in-Chief and today would certainly be called a “terrorist”). To paraphrase Uncle Billy, “Not every heel is in Pakistan and Yemen.” But if “He’s a bad guy according to the people who killed him” is now sufficient for the President to get away with ordering their death–even the death of a sixteen year old boy “not specifically targeted by the United States” then nothing but custom and the fading notion that the State can’t do that to us stands in the way of the state doing it to us.

Yet ironically, the very people being targeted by the IRS are often the same people who spent a decade cheering most loudly for the state’s claim that if we will give it the power to indefinitely detain, torture and murder people in the name of “security”, it will keep us safe.

  • Joseph

    The age, whereabouts, and doings of the innocent boy were not disclosed. Hardly transparent and definitely not repentant. It reads like the boy and his cooking cousins were guilty as charged.

  • Joseph Henzler

    Bravo!

  • Robert Gotcher

    When I teach logic, I point out how important it is to be specific when using the word “some” in an argument. Because :”some” could mean 2 out of 100 or 98 out of 100. “Often” is the same kind of word. It is rhetorically effective, but when you get down to it can be used as too broad a brush which will then tarnish one’s evaluation of people to whom the accusation doesn’t really apply. So, when you say “Yet ironically, the very people being targeted by the IRS are often the same people who spent a decade cheering most loudly for the state’s claim that if we will give it the power to indefinitely detain, torture and murder people in the name of “security”, it will keep us safe.”
    I understand that you want to point out that some people who claim to be Catholic took positions that were contrary to Church teaching. But the isn’t very specific, and therefore runs the risk of harming the reputation of those to whom the accusation doesn’t apply. What percentage of those who are targeted also were “”cheering most loudly,” etc? If only 10% or even 25% is it fair to the other 90% or 75% to bring it up in this discussion without specifying? If it is something more like 80%, how do you know that?

  • baileylamb

    The same people who cry for this kid, generally say Trayvon had it coming. What’s the difference, one may have grown up to be a thug, the other may have grown up to be a terrorist. There is a reason both left and right lose on the drone debate. Hypocrisy is the nuance that most Americans live with. A debate about state vs individual doesn’t help since the state is acting on our behalf and most people probably would have pushed the button to blow this kid away.

  • iamlucky13

    I want to make a point that the teaching that ends to not justify means is one that has to be continually re-taught, and with a great deal of patience for those who forget it. It is a very easy lesson to forget in this complicated and frequently painful world…even more so in this age where we’re all to some degree raised by the media whether we like it or not.

    There’s a cynical observation, for example, that in the show “24″, Jack Bauer tortures a presumed terrorist an average of something like once every third episode, or eight times a day. The audience is expected to accept this as a necessity of preventing whatever evil the season is building towards…maybe the writers will lead you question it a bit to placate the conscience that the torture is not being chosen lightly, but ultimately to conclude that because it all worked out in the end, it was justified.

    So while many were quite happy to justify means to ends when their candidate was in office (including to a degree, myself, back when we still thought he had at least a few scraps of principal in common), it’s important to understand the heavily reinforced cultural source of the message that the end justifies the means when responding to it.

  • Dagnabbit_42

    Mmmm, careful there, Mark.

    The IRS, FEC, Justice Department, OSHA, ATF, and the rest were not let loose specifically and exclusively on pro-torture types. In fact the right-wingers who’re most pro-torture are the right-wingers most ensconced in the D.C. establishment…and those are the group that apparently didn’t get harassed!

    Please recall that the Tea Partiers are a far from homogenous group. You may have noticed a fair number of Ron Paul devotees among them? One is more likely to find pro-torture types among the foreign policy hawks and the country-club moderate conservatives, than among the Tea Partiers (although I don’t deny the Tea Partiers include some also). Bill Kristol’s crew smile indulgently and shake their heads at the Tea Partiers but don’t like it when they primary the more elite, urbane, country-club types in favor of someone whose view of federal power is more restrained.

    And yet it’s Bill Kristol’s crew, who’re apologists for enhanced interrogation, who’re not being audited. It’s all the less-Beltwayesque, less-well-protected, less-connected folks who have been audited, investigated, inspected, subject to extra scrutiny, found their applications delayed, and so on.

    The aforementioned agencies were sicced on Tea Parties, Pro-Constitution nonprofits, Election Integrity Advocates, parents who adopted children through Christian organizations, reporters (including left-liberal reporters) who criticized the President or asked him difficult questions in an interview, and businessmen who contributed to Republican / conservative / traditional / patriotic / Evangelical Christian causes, candidates, or groups. (The list keeps getting longer, but I think that covers most of ‘em.)

    I mean, when I think about GOP enhanced-interrogation hawks, Samaritan’s Purse and True The Vote are not the first groups that spring to mind! Yet those are the folks who got reamed by the IRS, OSHA, ATF, and the rest: Any Federal agency that could plausibly make their lives hellish, did so.

    It’s like Valarie Jarrett said: “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”

    She seems to have made good on this promise. I don’t know how much the President knew about it, of course. I anticipate that they maintained plausible deniability. But, wow, the reaming that so many people have gotten!

    I realize that you said they’re “often the same people…,” not that they’re “exactly the same people.” But while the two sets overlap, I think the divide is more pronounced than you’re suggesting.

    I’m just saying, don’t paint with too broad a brush there, in your ironic final paragraph. An awful lot of civil libertarian types were critical of Bush over the enhanced interrogation stuff. They’ve found plenty to be critical of Obama about, along the same lines. And I suppose their audits have been equally proctological.

  • Chesire11

    While I have some very real and significant problems with how President Obama has prosecuted the “drone war” against Al Qaeda, its affiliates and fellow travelers in militant Islam, I think your criticism is off the mark.

    As I see it, there are three primary problems areas with the drone strikes:

    Principle of sovereignty – by weakening the principle of national sovereignty, we not only do nothing to win the ideological struggle against militant Islam, but we
    actually play into Al Qaeda’s hands by destabilizing secular allies, radicalizing indigenous populations, and discrediting fledgling nation-states – the only secular political-cultural framework organic to the region able to withstand the appeal of radical political Islam.

    Short cuts distract from the decisive contest – the appeal of low cost, low profile strikes that are virtual risk free to American personnel and politicians threatens to distract attention and resources from the more difficult, expensive and riskier long term engagement necessary to defeat radicals and to stabilize the region. Radical Islam will only be defeated through diplomatic engagement and a program of nation-building, which encourages the rise of a political culture that promotes the rights and integrity of the individual, respects the rights of minorities and women, provides peace, justice and stability as well as development that respects local cultural norms. These are difficult and long term solutions. Drone strikes are a short term, short sighted answer to a long term challenge.

    Collateral damages – inevitable intelligence failures, striking targets in population dense areas will inevitably produce a rather large number of innocent victims relative to the number of combatants killed in drone strikes. The fact that the innocent victims are not-American, are often difficult to distinguish from legitimate targets, and are virtually invisible to American media allows the U.S. to recklessly ignore the consequences of our actions.

    These are real, and significant consequences of our current policy of wide scale use of drones to attack suspected Al Qaeda targets in foreign lands. The argument that the drone attacks deny targeted individuals a right to due process, however, is a non-starter IMAO (in my opinion). The analogy you try draw between the Americans targeted either specifically or incidentally and citizens accused of crimes here on American soil is misleading. When an American citizen lends aid, and comfort to, and conspires with sworn enemies of his country, takes up arms against American citizens, and interests, he engages in acts of armed insurrection against the properly constituted government of the United States. It is no more murder to execute without a trial such a person by drone strike, than it was for a Union soldier to kill a Confederate soldier on the field of battle.

    If Obama is guilty of murder, then so was Lincoln.

    Furthermore, when a person flees the territory of the United States, hiding himself among our enemies in areas in an effort to escape the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system, he effectively renounces his right to due process. A person can hardly demand the protections of a system while simultaneously removing himself from that same system!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X