Liberalism Died in a Drone Attack

I’ve sometimes used the term “liberal” to describe the subset of President Obama supporters who put the most positive left-leaning spin on the administration. He gave us “health care” is used when what we really got is a series of waivers, mandatory insurance purchases and a bunch of exchanges which will eventually cost more and do less.

But there are liberals who support the centrist Clinton administration and find President Obama to be a Jackass. There is also that small group of liberals who once supported Obama but had to break ranks when he went against their vision of liberal ideology. Then there are the libertarian who find Obama to be the worst of all worlds.

I’m not very liberal on some issues, but I have a religious devotion to individual liberty. It’s the reason this system of government exists. Libertarians (like Ron Paul) and liberals both believe in the rights of people. The difference is in what to pay for and how to pay for it. That’s where President Obama is the opposite of the liberal / libertarian mindset. He wants to give everything and pay for nothing. When pressed, he wants to tax the rich and take away from the poor. He could care less what people should have the right to do.

Jackass decided some time ago that an American working for al-Qaeda did not have the right to live. Anwar al-Awlaki was not tried or convicted of a crime. He was not charged. He was not sentenced in absentia. He was putting terrorist recruitment videos on YouTube. It doesn’t matter how bad this person was or if he even killed anyone personally. The administration just decided that it would be easier to announce their goal was to make him dead because he made them look bad.

I understand that liberals may consider Obama “their guy,” (for some reason) but this is a step too far. You can’t be a liberal if you don’t believe in personal liberty. You can be a socialist or a communist or a fascist, but liberalism dies in an environment like this.

Otherwise, you’re a party hack who is literally willing to kill anyone to win.

About 1539days

I'm like a word a day calendar for executive disasters.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Liberalism Died in a Drone Attack

  1. Mary says:

    Where’s the ACLU on this thing?

  2. Mary says:

    Oh, and by the way, defense attorney Jeralyn still hasn’t even mentioned it.

    • Mary says:

      Update: She just commented about 45 minutes ago, with inclusion of ACLU press release.

      No condemnation of Obama, though, that I can see.

      Andgarden is claiming the AUMF authorizes this. Uh-huh.

  3. ralphb says:

    The only way for liberals to maintain any dignity at all is if they take Obama down. Anything less and they’ll stay discredited and eventually disappear.

  4. I have to laugh at those who think they are liberals and still support Obama. Obama is a fascist pig.

  5. votermom says:

    Great post. It’s almost as if Obama’s modus operandi is to identify a problem, then use it as an excuse to attack the constitution. Healthcare, TSA, Alwacky …

  6. Three Wickets says:

    Retracing again, I remember DHS connecting this guy to the Ford Hood shooter, was that ever proven. The shooter is going to trial so he could have testified about his link or lack thereof with al-Awlaki.

    Have much respect for Glenn Greenwald. But from a legal point of view, if Congress has explicitly authorized the war against terrorism and this administration has not reversed that authorization (like it, hate it or deeply despise it), then al-Qaeda are enemy combatants and we’re talking about the rules of engagement in war. What are the Geneva Convention rules on targeted killings in war. Has Glenn looked into that. I’m asking the legal question, not a political one. I have my own views on the politics and morality of this.

    • ralphb says:

      Unless my memory is wrong, I believe the AUMF contained language specifically stating that it was NOT A WAR.

      • Three Wickets says:

        So the AUMF has no legal standing re the continuing wars? Should have been sent to Scotus if that’s the case. We’ve been at “war” for a decade.

        • ralphb says:

          It is an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) specifically not a Declaration of War. Like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution for Vietnam. We have not declared War since WWII.

    • votermom says:

      The shooter is going to trial so he could have testified about his link or lack thereof with al-Awlaki.
      I wonder if this will be pursued at all now that he’s dead.

    • 1539days says:

      There is some truth to this. The US does not target foreign heads of state, but Reagan bombed a lot of Gadhafi’s palaces in the 80s. The reality is that as an American, this Awlaki has more right to a trial than every one else in Gitmo. For example, if John Walker Lindh was killed on the battlefield, he’d be collateral damage. Knowing he is an American, however, means he has a right to a trial. We didn’t even charge him with anything and we didn’t try to capture him. Predator drones don’t carry handcuffs. He was tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty.

    • WMCB says:

      TW, some commenters at talkleft got into this conversation, and there is some grounds in the AUMF.

      intellectually honest, the AUMF says more than you quoted. It says: “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

      Whether or not he is endorsing the AUMF (which he didn’t say), Andy is suggesting that if Congress authorizes the use of deadly force against “organizations” that “planned, etc.,” the 9/11 attack, in perpetuity, as long as that organization exists, it is plausible (frightening, but plausible) to suggest that Congress has authorized the targeting killing of those (at least) who assume leadership positions in that organization. Is AQAP the same “organization” as the al-Queda that carried out 9/11? I don’t know that; I would think not. And it is too broad a reading of the over-broad AUMF, which because of its potential implications demands a narrow reading. But that’s the claimed “legal” basis for the killing of al Awlaki, and Andy is right to point that out.

      Hope that helps. I recognize that you were asking whether any plausible legal grounds even exists in the AUMF at all, not whether that interpretation of the AUMF is constitutional, correct, or moral.

      • 1539days says:

        I don’t care if Congress authorized the president to own our souls in perpetuity. The Bill of Rights supersedes every federal law.

        • WMCB says:

          I know. Me too. But I’m pretty sure TW’s question related to whether any wording regarding ongoing targeting of persons was even in the AUMF.

        • ralphb says:

          HONK! Could it get any plainer than that? I would say no.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Well, either in the original authorizations or the Geneva Convention, and if we had an official Declaration of War would targeted killings be covered. Glenn is usually pretty specific about this stuff. He or the ACLU has probably written about the legality of targeted killings. I’ll look around. The fact that he’s an American citizen, dunno if that’s as material as the question of whether the war is legal. If a deserter in wartime has organized and begun killing your side, would guess the military can take him out without trial.

        • 1539days says:

          George Will once pointed out that the Geneva Convention forbade torture or harsh treatment of prisoners of war. However, the Geneva Convention had no problem with putting a bullet in the head of an enemy combatant on the battlefield.

          There are very specific circumstances in which an American can be killed by the government. They have to be found guilty and sentenced or they have to be actively engaged in a deadly crime, like shooting at police officers. Making a YouTube video does not qualify.

        • Three Wickets says:

          He may or may not have done more than make a youtube video. We don’t know what full information the Admin, Justice, DoD, DHS had on him because they won’t release it. But that won’t stop BO from campaigning on it.

        • ralphb says:

          We have probably heard more than they actually have on him. Every rumor etc that they could gather to support killing him is either now or will be public “knowledge?”.

  7. crawdad says:

    What does liberalism have to do with Barack Obama?

    • SYD says:


      But, I fear there is a new brand of Democrat out there who has concluded that any means justifies their “liberal” ends. These people do not… in any way… lean Libertarian. In fact, there is a brand of Republican that now leans Libertarian (ie. Sarah Palin types.)

      I think we need to get real and realize that the Tea Party and the Wall Street protesters are, basically, calling for the same thing. Hence… most of the citizenry opposes what Obama stands for (crony capitalism, and “too big to fail” corporate entities/ banks.)

      Now… how do we get real Liberals to stop dissing those GOPers that, essentially, want to end the same things they do??

      • ralphb says:

        I’m all for it and have been for a couple of years now. I don’t know how to convince those who will not see …

  8. yttik says:

    Liberalism didn’t really die in a drone attack, a piece of America did. Our Constitution isn’t really a left or a right issue, it’s an American issue. I’ve seen people from both the left and the right expressing uneasiness over the trashing of our Constitution and also some from both sides of the aisle celebrating it. I’m hoping that in a few days some of the hypocrisy and political bloviating starts to fade away and some cooler heads prevail.

Comments are closed.