President Obama: Trending Toward Cheneyism

Kevin D. Williamson talks sense at The Corner, repudiating President Obama’s imprudent assertion of executive power:

I hate to play the squish, but am I the only one who is just a little bit queasy over the fact that the president of the United States is authorizing the assassination of American citizens? Andy writes that this is “obviously the right call.” I might be persuaded that this is, in fact, the right call. But obviously? No hesitation there? It seems to me that the fact of U.S. citizenship ought to be a bright line on the political map.

Surely there has to be some operational constraint on the executive when it comes to the killing of U.S. citizens. It is not impossible to imagine a president who, for instance, sincerely believes that Andy McCarthy is undermining the Justice Department’s ability to prosecute the war on terror on the legal front. A government that can kill its citizens can shut them up, no? I ask this not as a legal question, but as a moral and political question: How is it that a government that can assassinate Citizen Awlaki is unable to censor Citizen McCarthy, or drop him in an oubliette? Practically every journalist of any consequence in Washington has illegally handled a piece of classified information. Can the president have them assassinated in the name of national security? Under the Awlaki standard, why not?

Odious as Awlaki is, this seems to me to be setting an awful and reckless precedent. Consider how “interstate commerce” has been redefined over time to cover that which is neither interstate nor commerce, for the sake of political expediency. It is easy to imagine “national security” being treated the same way, particularly in an open-ended conflict against a loosely defined enemy. And we aren’t assassinating U.S. citizens under the rubric of interstate commerce.

I’ve been raising this point too, and I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Mr. McCarthy is addressing the same subject today, and for once I agree with a lot of what he has to say:

According to the report, a U.S. official told Reuters that “Awlaki is a proven threat,” and therefore someone who could properly be targeted for killing. But by leftist standards — including those urged by Attorney General Holder when he was in private practice filing briefs in support of American-born “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla — Awlaki is most certainly not a proven threat. He has not been convicted in a court of law.

So here is the Obama Left’s position. If an alien enemy combatant, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mass-murders 3000 Americans and is then captured outside the U.S. in wartime, we need to bring him to the United States and give him a civilian trial with all attendant due process rights. If an alien enemy combatant is sending emails from outside the U.S. to an al Qaeda cell inside the U.S., the commander-in-chief needs a judge’s permission (on a showing of probable cause) to intercept those communications. If an American citizen terrorist outside the United States — say, Awlaki in Yemen — is calling or emailing the United States (or anyplace else), the commander-in-chief needs a judge’s permission to intercept those communications. If we capture an alien enemy combatant conducting war operations against the U.S. overseas, we should give him Miranda warnings, a judicial right to challenge his detention as a war prisoner, and (quite likely) a civilian trial. But, if the commander-in-chief decides to short-circuit the whole menu of civil rights by killing an American citizen, that’s fine — no due process, no interference by a judge, no Miranda, no nothing. He is a proven threat because … the president says so.

Of course, Mr. McCarthy agrees that individuals are proven threats who can be summarily killed merely because the president says so. Indeed, he somehow simultaneously believes that President Obama should have the unchecked power to kill American citizens, that he is a closet radical with jihadist sympathies, and that he is rightly ordering the assassination of an American jihadist. Incoherent as this is, the most troubling thing is that Obama apparently agrees with the part of this warped worldview that is most corrosive to liberty and limited government. When the Cheney wing of the Republican Party is endorsing your actions on national security, it’s a good sign you’re exercising dangerous amounts of unchecked power.

Will liberals go along with this?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “President Obama: Trending Toward Cheneyism”

  1. Michael Roston Says:

    I hate to be echoing myself on multiple blog posts today, but executive assassinations are precisely the authority that Congress gave the President under the September 2001 AUMF. We’re long past due to update the AUMF. But Congress had assassinations in mind when it passed that authority almost unanimously 8 and a half years ago. They did not have torture, warrantless wiretapping, or the construction of a vast new gulag archipelago/judicial system in mind when they passed the AUMF.

  2. beelzebud Says:

    This is why a lot of us were warning about giving too much power to the executive branch during the Bush years. When do people in power, willingly give that power up? Never.

    Bush/Cheney spent 6 years talking about a “unitary executive” branch. Basically a dictatorship. Don’t act shocked now that the new president doesn’t hand over all those new powers Bush/Cheney got for him.

    If conservatives were really worried about abuse of power, they wouldn’t have bought Bush/Cheney’s Unitary Executive Bullshit hook line and sinker…

  3. smalzz Says:

    Will liberals go along with this? Of course they will because their love for Obama leads them to willful self-deception about many and glaring shortcomings.
    The real left in this country knows now that Obama is a fraud and a corporatist who sold us a bill of goods during his campaign. We won’t go along with this but that won’t matter. It is obvious that we have no voice in our government–we are marginalized at every turn, even by our ostensible allies in the Democrap party.

    It is my opinion that our system of government is fundamentally broken and is beyond repair. Everything that either party sells to the public as “reform” is in fact designed to concentrate more money and more power in the hands of the oligarchs who control the country.

    • dougem Says:

      I’m a hard-cored liberal and I think this action is wrong and I hope Eric Holder or somebody with a shread of integrety will stop this insane bullshit.

  4. Friedersdorf: Obama’s Trending Toward Cheneyism | NewsReal Blog Says:

    […] Read the full article. […]

  5. mfarmer Says:

    It also fits into the concerns I’ve written about on my blog regarding drone attacks. This is some combination of video games and kangaroo courts. Now that we are fighting “wars” with no immediately identifiable, distinctive enemy, we’re flying deadly toys into areas and killing people based on an assumption of guilt by association, not really knowing if they are a part of the active enemy group who are killing our soldiers, or whether they are simply sympathetic with the radical Islamic cause.

  6. dougem Says:

    I thought that this president would obey the Constitution but I guess since it was shreaded by the prior president this one sees no use in following the rule of law. Once we believed that no matter how bad the bad guy was he still had the right to a fair trial. Now that that ideal has been flushed down the toilet what new surprises does our President and government have for us? Storm troops would be a nice touch. It’s a shame to see this national become the enemy we fought during the cold war. I am so ashamed to be a citizen of a country where laws are simply for show.

    • smalzz Says:

      When Bush II was presidential appointee I repeatedly pointed out to people that the concentration of power in the presidency was getting out of hand and had the potential to be extremely dangerous. Power gained is not easily taken away and even more rarely is it voluntarily given back. This holds true for both “sides”. Right-wingers dismissed my argument as mere Bush-bashing while Dems are so self-righteous and convinced of their oewn inherent goodness that they could not or would not accept that a Dem president would do the same thing. Well now we have proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: