If you have "no place to go," come here!

Democrats cheer Obama execution

lizpolaris's picture

Here's a truly disgusting display of cult-of-personality fanaticism from the Obama fan base. (linked by a commenter on Greenwald's post on the assassination of Al-Awlaki by the US today)

I'm sure these were the same Democrats clucking in dismay over the Republican debate crowd applauding the number of Texas executions.

And the same Democrats who bemoaned Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Amurikan citizens.

I guess it's not ok to listen in on phone conversations without due process but assassination of the same person would be fine, so long as the President declared him or her a personal enemy.

Just curious - I wonder if these same people would be cheering if the murder was carried out in the same manner in say, New Jersey. Any other New Jersey-ites nearby who were killed by the same cluster bomb could be discounted due to guilt by association, right? They either deserved it or just don't matter in the grand scheme of things. As long as Obama OKs it, they are bugs, ipso facto?


Submitted by jawbone on

Per two (or threee?) guests/legal analysts, the Constitution is not clear on what "due process" is, and one stated (served in Bush administration) it's very likely several government lawyers talking over the situation/case internally could serve a "due process."

The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear," says John Bellinger, a lawyer in the State Department under President George W. Bush.

After 10 years of talking about legal authority when it comes to terrorism, he says, there's still no international consensus on the legality of drone strikes — and no clear precedent for using those drones to kill a U.S. citizen.

"Wherever they are in the world, they have a constitutional right to due process," Bellinger says. "But due process doesn't necessarily mean an adversarial judicial hearing."

So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn't have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.

Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki's rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Good grief. No bright line between executive action and indictment, charges, arrest, trial?


Am I some kind of legal innocent that I think there are Constitutional protections?

I feel a Greenwald eruption coming on this issue very soon....