Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

civil rights have been the single biggest disappointment of the obama administration. here's hoping someone gets it right soon.

stevieg8 wrote: civil rights have been the single biggest disappointment of the obama administration. here's hoping someone gets it right soon.

sorry but I am only saying this for youre own good as a person helping another person. Obama is just another political puppet set up by the new world order to drive down youre economy on purpose and crash it around 2016. he keeps passing legislation after legislation to take away freedoms and rights, if he was a REAL president he would end the wars, have a strategy to fix the economy he full well knows it's pretty much unfixable but they can declare bankruptcy and start again. This is because they want to keep everyone ignorant and unprepared for the final crash, which is 100 percent going to happen their is NO way of fixing the economy it will expose wall street and the banking mafia also the new world order want the economy crashed around 2016 I don't no why it's around then but their very specific about how they want to carry out their agendas.

You don't say?

VivaStPauli wrote:You don't say?

It's always sad to see reminders that the US isn't living up to the ideals it was founded upon and truly is just as fallible and imperfect as every other nation on Earth.

Not surprising, but still sad.

stevieg8 wrote: civil rights have been the single biggest disappointment of the obama administration. here's hoping someone gets it right soon.

I can't help but think that if Obama were a republican this would be a national scandal

Careful there BC, your agenda is showing.

Isn't this a national scandal?

And hey, that's American Exceptionalism.
It's exceptionally disappointing.

When I think of the backlash generated by the patriot act and by this I think there was a lot more for the former. Maybe my perception is wrong, though.

What's your political preference BC ?

Not sure what I'd call it. I believe in a government that doesn't interfere with the ordinary life of its citizens or businesses but at the same time provides a social buffer for the worse off. So from an American perspective, I can side with either democrats or republicans on specific issues but don't feel represented by either.

@viva: thanks for beating me to it.

@bc: it absolutely would be a national scandal under a republican. you have to think about why it isn't under a democrat, though. it has nothing to do with media bias - in fact, quite the opposite. the very reason why republicans are typically more likely to act like this is because it is more politically viable for them. if you were to poll americans on this policy without a name attached to it, the vast majority of those who responded in favor would be republicans - it's a part of the security against terrorism message, much like the patriot act was.

meanwhile, the people who have a problem with this obama policy are like myself - liberal, generally democrats. those people, while disappointed in this policy, are not interested in a "scandal" - that would hurt other agendas which we also support. so it doesn't gather the steam, because the people who want to hurt obama don't want to hurt this cause, while the people who want to hurt this cause don't want to hurt obama - and without a combination of those factors, the issue can't enter the necessary echo chamber.

trust me, it's being written about ALL OVER the liberal blogosphere/media, it's just not frontpaging news sources.

Well it is utterly ridiculous, and the White House should be sued about it until there is nothing left standing, but for some reason lawsuits concerning human rights have a tendency to dissipate along the levels of judication.

Also, the basis of this being "illegal", are international laws. 'Muricans notoriously hate international laws, on the grounds of them being too "inter", and not "national" enough.
True story.

Any form of international cooperation requires certain levels of sacrifice, generally in the sphere of sovereignty - look at the problems the EU is having at the moment. Once the benefits disappate for a little while, it's harder to convince member states that the sacrifices are worth making.

When you're the strongest country on the planet (and that's really not disputable - economically or militarily, no one can challenge the US), it becomes more difficult to give up that sovereignty in the first place. The thought process goes, 'Why should we let someone else make decisions for us? Sure, it might be beneficial in some situations, but it'll hurt us in others - we should hold onto our freedom, especially since we're strong enough to do it.'

Not saying it's right, but if the goal of your government is to do what's best for its citizens themselves, and not as a subset of humanity, it makes sense.

I know why the government does it, and it makes sense in a machiavellian way.
But you can't really have your cake, and eat it too.

Not, if that cake is "universal human rights" and you refuse to subject to international courts of law that safeguard those same human rights your country is a) basically founded on, b) might as well have invinted, and c) is breaking like no other Western nation.

TBH I don't have any problems with a country serving national interest first, but it objectively means the end of American Exceptionalism in the spheres of morality, democracy, and rule of law.

For example: European (state-sponsored) customer advocacy agencies warn from using American IT products (like Apple products running iOS or Googles Android systems) because those corporations are subject to American "privacy" laws, which would be hugely illegal in the EU due to our privacy laws.
The little control exercised about things like wiretapping literally make our governments warn citizens of the US. That's kind of sad.

On the other hand, while that's of some concern, in practice, freedom of speech is still hardly in any danger, the US still score in the top20 in the freedom of press index.

I agree with you in terms of maintaining legitimacy. I think the US should be moving towards a less sovereign structure so as to promote more growth (economically and in terms of freedoms) overseas. It's beneficial in the long term in a lot of different ways, and I think maintaining our hegemony because of some strange need to be the strongest has hurt us more than it has helped.

I also think the majority of Americans agree with me on that, and it's my opinion that that was a central factor in his reelection (I can elaborate on that another time). And I think Obama's reelection signals a shift in that direction politically as well - he's been working on moving away from the Bush administration's policies of dominance. The election was a sort of green light from the public, giving legitimacy to an idea that would've been politically impossible not too long ago.

Obama's policies haven't been as progressive in terms of civil liberties, it's true, and I think that hurts us in a different way. But in terms of moving away from "American Exceptionalism," I think this administration has done a very good job in most - although not all - areas.

Obama might kill US citizens but atleast he gives them healthcare until then