GLENNZILLA BRINGS IT
As only he can.
I’m going to say this and I’m sure its going to draw fire from a bunch of you, but here goes:
Barack Obama should be impeached.
There. I said it.
And more importantly, I believe it.
Here’s the thing: Barack Obama has expanded upon the targeted Predator drone killings of “terrorists” started under Bush/Cheney to such a degree that even a depraved, amoral sociopath like General Michael Hayden — Bush’s CIA Director — feels that Obama has gone too far.
Under Obama we have shed any vestige of being a nation of laws by his assertion that as president he can order the killing of an American citizen without any due process whatsoever, simply in the name of the Global War on Terror and because he, The Leader, has determined that a particular American must be killed.
His reasoning being that an American who takes up arms against his native land is an “enemy combatant” and therefore forfeits any expectation of due process.
Which for a so-called constitutional scholar like Obama to make an assertion like that is so incredibly fucked as to be beyond belief.
Because what an American citizen who takes up arms and becomes an “enemy combatant” against the United States is . . . is a traitor. A traitor who has committed TREASON.
Which is a . . . . . wait for it . . . .
CRIME
The Constitution is pretty fucking clear on this issue — here’s Article 3 Section 3 of that document:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
And the key word in that passage is “convicted.”
In America you aren’t supposed to be able to be convicted of a crime without a trial. A trial that the law requires you to be present at and at which you get to defend yourself and challenge the two or more witnesses who claim that you’re traitor.
And you are certainly not supposed to be able to be convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by the President of the United States simply because he got told by someone that you deserve to die.
Even if they’re right and you are a terrorist and you do deserve to die.
Because first and foremost you’re still an American with constitutional rights.
Anwar al-Awlaki along with Samir Khan were killed together this past year by a Predator drone strike ordered by Barack Obama.
Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were both American citizens and by all accounts they probably were terrorists who were either actively levying war against the U.S. or providing aid and comfort to those who were and were, therefore, committing treason.
But you don’t forfeit your rights by being accused of a crime, or of even actually committing that crime. Even if that crime is treason.
And under Article 3 of the Constitution treason is most definitely viewed as a crime — as it has been by every court decision since that article was written. And if you stand charged with committing a crime then the government is supposed to be compelled to prove in a court of law and beyond a reasonable doubt that you’ve committed that crime before they can take your life.
Additionally, the courts have been crystal clear for over 100 years that convictions in absentia are illegal and violate due process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. So if you want to say that an American is a traitor and you want to convict him of treason {or being an “enemy combatant”} you’re supposed to have to go get him and bring him back to stand trial.
Not blow him up with a targeted drone strike.
But now we order the killing of Americans just because the President gets told by some unaccountable, nameless intelligence bureaucrat that so and so is a terrorist and therefore no longer worthy of his constitutional rights and that its OK to go ahead and order his murder without a trial.
And that is why Barack Obama should be impeached.
Because no one is above the law.
And the question needs to be asked — if killing an American with a drone strike who’s been identified as a terrorist and a traitor but who hasn’t been tried and convicted is OK, then why isn’t it OK to kill an American with a drone strike or targeted assassination who’s been accused of say, murder, and who has fled the country to a nation that won’t extradite him.
And then having done that, at what point do we start letting the president — or maybe a secret committee, because the president is so busy — decide to kill Americans or arrest and hold them indefinitely and without a trial for lesser crimes?
Or to do so because maybe the president simply doesn’t like a persons politics or what they have to say about him?
May 30th, 2012 at 7:01 am
Sadly, i have to agree with you 100%. I too have wondered what happend to the Obama i voted for. I think it is safe to say that our Commander in Chief has lost command of some of his senses. I just do not know where this will lead or to what end it will come. It is pretty scary anymore.
May 30th, 2012 at 7:40 am
i, too, sadly agree with you, Scott. For a scholar of Obama’s stature to order such an execution makes it even more scary. Impeachment might be too much, but a censure by Congress would definitely be in order.
In addition, Obama’s badgering comments regarding the Supreme Court’s power (or lack thereof) to curtail Obamacare make me wonder how much he really understands the Constitution. BTW, i support Obamacare, but the Supreme Court certainly has the power to address its constitutionality.
May 30th, 2012 at 7:55 am
yes. i completely agree with you. he is a pawn regurgitating what the men who own him tell him to do. how low we have come as a country. his ndaa signing, his affirming the patriot act are all ways to strip us of our rights and insure a fascist corporate state. smile in your face and stab you in the back. romney and obama are two faces of the totalitarian mentality now pushing this country and freedom over the cliff. impeachment is in order; “adhering to their enemies”, corporate fascist, and “giving them aid and compfort” is what he is doing. we need to remove him and the entire government and re-establish some semblance of sanity and democracy once again….well..ha. too late. the sheeple sleep and the thief comes in the night to take their most precious treasure:freedom.
May 30th, 2012 at 9:09 am
I always think about how Obama and the American population would feel if another country decided to do a drone strike in U.S.A…
Even if that country then said that they had classified top secret information that the guy they bombed was a terrorist – I´m guessing neither Obama or the American population would be to happy about that.
I know that it is never going to happen cause everybody knows that if a country did do it – the United States of America would bomb your ass back to the stone age.
But still…
I.L.T
May 30th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Except Obama probably sees this as an undeclared War on Terrror and in war you don’t have to provide your enemies a trial. This isn’t even that unprecedented. The entire Korean War was really just a police action (at least officially). I’m no fan of these drone attacks, but the idea of Obama being impeached over this is far fetched
Lord knows the repubs would never dare start an impeachment hearing over this
May 30th, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Except Obama probably sees this as an undeclared War on Terrror and in war you don’t have to provide your enemies a trial.”
You do if your so-called enemies are American citizens!
Read my post again DC Todd, this time with better reading comprehension.
Nowhere in the post do I say he should be impeached for the targeted killing of foreign enemies — what I say is that he is violating the law by authorizing the killing of American citizens without a trial. The constitution is ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR when it comes to Article 3 Section 3 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The post is pretty fucking clear too, Todd. All you need to do is read the words. . . . slowly I guess
May 30th, 2012 at 10:21 am
I realize it’s different because he is a citizen, but Obama is probably treating him as if he renounced his citizenship when he sided with the radical Muslims. I’m not saying I agree with Obama, I’m just stating Obamas most likely justification of his actions
May 30th, 2012 at 10:38 am
There is actually a very defined legal process for renouncing one’s citizenship and it includes swearing out a formal oath of renunciation as well as paying a $450 fee. Simply waging war on the U.S. — as heinous as that is — doesn’t accomplish the end result of citizenship renunciation.
And your very cavalier about the level of the law you hold the president to or that he as a lawyer should hold himself to is somewhat shocking to me.
When you serve in the military or take the oath of office of the presidency you swear to uphold the Constitution. Taking that oath presumes you know what that document says and what you’re swearing to uphold.
To simply say as you do that Obama is probably treating an American who joins a terror organization as someone who has renounced his citizenship sets the bar way too low my friend. Because Obama surely knows that that person may be committing treason by his actions, but he is NOT renouncing his citizenship.
You ascribe to Obama what you term as “justifications” for his actions — And to me this implies a degree of Obama believing that he is on the right side of the law here. But I’d posit this theory; I think Obama absolutely knows that what he is doing is completely and utterly against the law. And that he simply doesn’t care.
Because he knows he’ll never get prosecuted for it.
How else can one explain a smart man like Obama, trained in the law and the Constitution, committing such acts?
Which is one of the reasons why we’re no longer a nation of laws.
May 30th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Great, let’s impeach Obama.
Maybe his replacement will treat gay rights better.
Maybe his replacement will discontinue this unconstitutional policy.
Maybe his replacement will end warrantless wire taps as an additional benefit.
Maybe his replacement will stop the Star Chamber courts in Guantanamo.
Or, maybe Obama’s replacement will be a self-serving, right wing fascist fuck in the meme of Cheney, Bush II, or Romney who consider sucking corporate ass to be epitome of gastronomic good taste. And,who consider a giant “Fuck You” to the middle class and poor just part of God’s divine plan.
For the rest of us, who currently have no alternative, I’ll play Realpolitik, hold my nose, and vote for Obama.
Now, if you offered me a genuine, viable third party that actually had some kind of chance at influencing legislation, I might reconsider. But, until that time, I’ll bury my disgust at Obama’s Jesuit equivocations regarding his extra-legal executions.
May 30th, 2012 at 11:32 am
“we need to remove him and the entire government and re-establish some semblance of sanity and democracy once again….well..ha. too late. the sheeple sleep and the thief comes in the night to take their most precious treasure:freedom.”
Was there a time when this democracy and sanity reigned? Obama is wrong in the Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan cases, but let’s not create some past we never had.
May 30th, 2012 at 11:41 am
You raise a valid question, and one I wish I had an answer for. In fact, I genuinely thought Obama was a better man than that when I voted for him in 2008
It’s something I would have expected from “W”, but not Obama
On a tangentially related note, that is a cool drone picture
May 30th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Just a quick note Continuum — but impeachment is, A} not the same as removing him from office. For that to happen you must be impeached in the House and then convicted in the Senate. {See Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton}. I called for his impeachment but not necessarily his removel. The simple act of impeaching him for these crimes would probably serve the purpose of stopping them. At the very least it would send the message that the American people through their representatives are serious about the rule of law. Second, you seem to be a bit confused — his replacement after a conviction and removal from office {should that happen} would be Joe Biden, Not, as you seem to think, Mitt Romney.
Other than that everything you say makes perfect sense. Well, except for the part where you admit that having a president who is personally ordering the murder of American citizens without the benefit of due process is OK with you just because he’s not a republican.
That part is pretty fucked up.
Until Dems are willing to hold members of their own team to account then we’re no better than the other guys.
In fact, on this we’re actually worse. Because we screamed and yelled about Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping and how it was an abomination and worthy of impeachment — but when it comes to a Democratic president actually doing things much worse than Bush/Cheney and ordering the murder of American citizens? You get the sound of crickets from most people on our side.
Or, as bad — you get what you said: which was basically, ‘I hate what he’s doing and know its immoral and illegal but at least its our guy doing it.’
That’s just fucking pathetic.
May 30th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Oh! Just show me some cock! Just kidding. I agree with your sentiments but what can be done if the influence of the (hate to use this refrain) Military Industrial Complex and all it’s associated complex’s (Prison, Intelligence etc..) pretty much own anyone who would become commander in chief? The thing about drones is just wait until ‘the other side’ whoever that is gets that technology. THEN we are going to have fun boys and girls.
May 30th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I’m not on the same page with this, but I understand your beliefs and your right to hold them.
May 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Hours later….. I wanna change my response to “You may be right, but I’d rather see the effort put into deporting Rupert Murdoch in chains”
May 30th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Very good post and comments.
May 30th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
I don’t have the energy to argue, so don’t bother to flame me. But I do wonder how the American constitution was applied to killing American citizens in the South during the Civil War. There was secession on the part of the South, but the North’s position was that this action was invalid. So, while the Southerners proclaimed to be citizens of another country, the Confederate States of America, the Union’s position was very clear, “You are still American citizens, as the Constitution provides no mechanism to leave the Union.” And then we killed the citizens of the South, instead of arresting millions of them and bringing them into American courts for treason.
May 30th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Amen.
Double bonus: President Biden!!!
May 31st, 2012 at 2:13 am
We see rightwingers calling for Obama’s impeachment all the time – they’ve been doing it since Jan 21, 2009 – Yet, of course, they never have any specific reason for such an action.
Stupidly, the only actually impeachable thing Obama has done (is doing) is the one thing the rightwingers like him doing and would never call him out on.
Sadly, there are so many Dems, liberals, etc who know what he’s doing is wrong but won’t raise the issue because he’s ‘their guy’ – So, nothing will be done. And since Obama set a precedent of not bringing investigations into illegal actions of former Presidents and VP’s, he’ll totally walk away unscathed.
Granted, I’m an Obama supporter but his harsh actions against gov’t whistleblowers and American ‘enemy combatants’ really confuses and concerns me. I don’t know what his mindset is but I wish he’s snap out of it.
May 31st, 2012 at 5:19 am
Bill Maher slices and dices the notion that Obama is some kind of commie liberal: http://youtu.be/NJABF5_yBXA
May 31st, 2012 at 5:42 am
I’m with Bob on this, both of his posts. Murdoch in chains, hell yeah! And Ailes too.
May 31st, 2012 at 5:53 am
Michael, I won’t flame you. But I will point out that one doesn’t attempt to arrest 80,000 armed men serving in the Army of Northern Virginia who are marching in ranks abreast, with bayonets fixed on .58 caliber rifles loaded with Minie Balls, and who intend to stop 100 yards from you, aim their weapons, and open fire on you en masse.
The difference is that although a guy like Anwar al Alwaki may have been providing aid and comfort to the enemy, when we had him killed by a drone strike he was in Yemen — not Gettysburg Pennsylvania — and therefore presented no immediate, clear and present danger to the US and was technically able to be arrested.
Oh, and he was in Yemen! A country we are apparently bombing and killing people in without the consent of the American people through their elected representatives. And we’re doing it in secret — without the knowledge of the American people whose name the bombing is being carried out in.
Lat time I checked THAT alone was an impeachable offense.
May 31st, 2012 at 10:33 am
I hope the US can put a stop to this abuse of power now while it is carried out by Obama. If the worse should happen and Mitt Romney wins the next election he could well turn in to a 6+ term President.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Scott: You’re sounding like a hyper kinetic tea party psycho without the education or facts to apply the law. Relax. These killings have been going on as long as the Constitution was ratified. You’re misinterpretation of Constitutional Law is as defenseless as that Alaskan Governors yapping.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Only 7 more months…
June 1st, 2012 at 5:14 am
Padraig, you give away the game when you say that targeted extrajudicial killings of American citizens ordered in secret by the president have been going on as long as the Constitution was ratified — and then in the same breath say I’m misrepresenting Constitutional law.
You’re a troll, sir, and nothing but. If you weren’t you’d make an actual argument with a fact or two to back up your specious assertions the way an adult would.
I’m sorry, but the rule for the comments section here is sort of like what the sign at the roller coaster at the state fair says,
“You have to be THIS tall to go on this ride.”
Padraig, you’re a little too short to be allowed to play unsupervised here.
But thanks for giving it that old third or fourth grade try — and feel free to come back when you grow up a bit.
Now buh-bye.