Obama’s actual Constitutional power grab.

Riddle thee this:

Would Andrew be comfortable with a future Republican President — let’s say, just to pick a random example . . . . President Sarah Palin — having the power to order American citizens killed based solely on her unchecked accusation that they are somehow involved with or helping Al Qaeda Terrorists, while the targeted citizens have no recourse to any courts and she has no obligation to offer any evidence to justify the targeting?

I’m not immune to the fact that we’re talking about a likely active jihadi in another country waging war against us, but in the end it’s never really about whether or not we go after the guy. It’s always about the secrecy and lack of accountability that we imbue the President with, and the fact that power creeps. Always. It’s just a law of human nature we’ll never get around, and that knowledge is what informed the formation of this country as it fled the overreach of British power.

-hw

UPDATE: Sullivan provides a pretty compelling case that al-Awlaki’s targeting is a pretty routine and Constitutionally backed act of war, but like I said, that’s not really the point, and Sullivan seems to respect the fact that the way the Obama administration has dealt with the public on this issue isn’t acceptable. And I think Greenwald’s energy is partially derided from his practically solitary nature in staying vigilant on executive powers, whether the president be Republican or Democrat. The fact is that Republicans damn near transcend party when it comes to executive war powers, and will gladly leave Obama alone for his incredibly dangerous and aggressive war against Al Queda in Pakistan. They’ll mostly stay quiet on it, and babble about “making apologies” for U.S. GREATNESS!!! More Democrats care about civil liberties, but when a Democrat’s in office most focus on domestic policies and forgive whatever Democrat leaders do in making war.

Comments are closed.