You can't be a liberal and not support the Constituti
How do you know he was "recruitin
We're in year ten of a war that has bankrupted us and killed and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. All because of lies told to us by our government
Do you and those like you learn nothing?
Ben Franklin was right.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Back when the FISA court was proposed in the 1970s, I and others warned about the slippery slope we would be embarking on if it was created.
The FISA court was created specifical
The FISA court doesn't even require an accused's lawyer to see the evidence.
But Obama didn't take its case to the FISA court. There were no charges against Awlaki.
Watch Obama's press secretary Jay Carney answer Jake Tapper about what evidence justified the US Government
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I am a liberal and every liberal I know is outraged over this.
About New York Times
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There were no charges against him.
About New York Times
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I recall in the days leading up to the war in Iraq that Lynn Cheney was making the cable news channel rounds calling anyone a traitor who questioned the Bush Administra
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I'm a hard core lifelong (60) lefty liberal, but come on folks, Iraq was wrong, but this was ok. This guy had to go.
the Constitution says that the punishment for treason i.e. waging active war against the US is capital punishment . (since sufficient evidence was gathered and Awlaki incriminat ed himself there was no need for the two witnesses)
During the NSA eavesdropping controvers y, Bush defenders insisted there was no harm from bypassing the FISA court because they were only eavesdropp ing on BadTerrori sts, which prompted this obvious, unanswerab le question: if you really have so much evidence proving that the targets of your eavesdropp ing are terrorists , then why not show it to the court and get a warrant? After all, the more incriminat ing evidence you claim exists, the more (not less) reason there is to show it to a court. Similarly, during the controvers y over Bush’s detentions without due process, administra tion defenders insisted there was no need to charge the detainees or try them in court because they were only imprisonin g the-worst- of-the-wor st, too-danger ous-to-rel ease terrorists , which prompted the same question: if there’s so much evidence proving they’re terrorists , isn’t that even more of a reason to prove that in court?
Now Obama defenders are justifying the Obama’s due-process-free assassinat ion of US citizen AnwarAwlak i based on exactly the same claim and mindset, the same question obviously arises: if there’s so much evidence showing that Awlaki was involved in plotting terrorist attacks on the US (as opposed merely to delivering anti-US sermons protected by the FirstAmend ment), isn’t that even more of a reason to have indicted him and charged him with crimes before killing him?
Watch this video of ABCs‘ JakeTapper persistently questionin g a stonewalli ng, imperious WhiteHouse spokesman JayCarney about this issue; remember: he’s asking the WhiteHouse what evidence justified the US Government ’s targeting of its own citizen for assassinat ion with no due process, and the WhiteHouse is telling him: we have it in secret but don’t need to show anyone.
[...]
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
