Quotes of the day

posted at 10:36 pm on February 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

Amid new controversy over his administration’s targeted killing of American citizens overseas by drones, President Barack Obama has yielded to demands that he turn over to Congress classified Justice Department legal advice seeking to justify the policy, an administration official said.

The president’s move comes on the eve of confirmation hearings Thursday for his CIA director nominee John Brennan and amid complaints from senators, including several Democrats, about secrecy surrounding the drone policy…

The president, the official said, was turning over the information because he believes the scrutiny and debate is healthy.

***

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I really don’t understand this sort of hysteria over the idea of killing Americans who have taken up arms against the United States. Thousands of Americans, Southerners, died in Antietam without any due process. When we stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-day, and Americans approached German bunkers, I don’t think anybody asked if they were any German-Americans here, I want to read you the Miranda rights. If you take up arms against the United States you were a target because it was an act of war and you forfeited those rights.

Now, the question is, it’s a different war, these people are in a guerilla war, a terrorist war, we don’t have the same lines. They aren’t representing a country and we need guidelines. I think the critique of this administration, is in the guidelines that you indicated, they were probably written by somebody in the lower quintile of his law school class.

They want to pretend that you can only hit an American al-Qaeda operative who is an imminent threat and then define the imminent threat out of existence by saying al-Qaeda is continually hatching plots, so he’s always, all day and all night, an imminent threat; i.e., that criterion is meaningless. I think that we really have to have an effort in the Congress and in the executive and in the country, have an argument about what are the guidelines, who is the soldier and who loses all rights in this kind of shadow war?

***

As early as 2002, Obama was publicly carving out a decidedly progressive stance on these issues, using a Chicago television appearance to defend the civil liberties of American terror suspects who were being detained indefinitely without charges.

“There always has been a distinction between citizens, and non-citizens,” he said. “It means something to be a citizen. And that’s important.”…

Similarly, when George W. Bush signed the controversial Military Commissions Act of 2006, he did so at a desk with a sign on the front displaying the words, “Protecting America.” Obama was a vocal opponent of the law, which was criticized for its broad definition of an enemy combatant, its justification of torture, and its apparent encroachment on habeas corpus rights.

“I’m still disappointed, and I’m still ashamed,” Obama said in a Senate floor speech in September 2006, criticizing the bill. “Because what we’re doing here today, a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused, should be bigger than politics. This is serious.”…

“In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence,” then-Senator Obama said.

***

But before tomorrow’s Brennan hearing gets underway, Paul had lots of outstanding questions about drone warfare.

“We’re very concerned about having one person in the executive branch get together with some flash cards and decide who they’re going to kill around the world, particularly American citizens,” he said. “There’s never been any answer from the executive branch on the killing of the 16-year old son of somebody who was an admitted terrorist. The son never was. The statement that came out, that was leaked, is particularly concerning — the statement that the condition of an operational leader presents an imminent threat of attack to the U.S. does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific act will take place in the immediate future. One of my staff said, only a team of lawyers could define ‘imminent’ to mean the exact opposite. I agree completely.”

***

SCARBOROUGH: Here you have something truly chilling. Here you have the United States government saying, we can kill you, American citizen. You have no constitutional right to a jury by your peers. You have no constitutional right even to probable cause or to due process. You have no right to a lawyer. You have no right to counsel. You have no right to anything. If we suspect you, just suspect you, without evidence, that you were thinking about committing an act against the United States of America, we can kill you.

There are no checks and there are no balances. We can kill you. We can pick you out of a list and drop a bomb on you, and not only can we kill you, we can then kill your 16-year-old son who is not even affiliated with al Qaeda, and then we can blame it on the father for us having to kill the son.

***

The intelligence and targeting challenge presented by our enemy’s systematic violation of the laws of war — by hiding amongst civilians, refusing to wear uniforms, etc. — is exactly the same regardless of whether the target is an American or Pakistani or Iraqi. In prior wars, American forces have reacted to targeting challenges not with greater restraint, but with greater firepower — for example, one of the reasons for the firebombing of Japanese cities was the decision by Japanese leaders to disperse key manufacturing facilities across urban areas, rendering European-style daylight bombing raids essentially fruitless. We were faced with the terrible choice between area bombing and leaving much of the enemy’s war machine essentially unmolested — in the midst of an existential struggle for our existence. We chose area bombing.

In the current war, we go to great lengths to avoid targeting the wrong individual (when I was in Iraq, our targeting decisions were typically based on multiple, overlapping pieces of intelligence). Killing the enemy while sparing civilians is sound counterinsurgency, and it is sound morally. But when civilians do die, the responsibility for their deaths lies with the enemy that unlawfully used them as human shields.

If all this sounds harsh, or “chilling,” or scary, that’s because it is. War is hell. And there is no constitutional doctrine that exempts American citizens from that hell when they choose to wage war against their own country. Any other legal doctrine will create yet another perverse terrorist incentive: Can an American terrorist now be a unique human shield to prevent direct attack? An American al-Qaeda member would suddenly become the most deadly and dangerous of terrorists — enjoying unique legal protections not enjoyed by, say, Americans who wore German uniforms in World War II.

***

[H]ere’s the ugly truth: Obama is giving us what we want.

We have an unspoken agreement with the president. Obama never promised America he wouldn’t kill people more aggressively than his predecessor. But with a wink and a nod, he gave us plausible deniability.

Americans, it turns out, don’t really have the stomach for the unseemly business of taking prisoners, extracting information from prisoners, and then (maybe) going through the emotional, time consuming, and costly business of a trial.

American citizens want someone who will make the big, bad world disappear. Problems only exist if we have to confront them. Obama has made warfare more convenient for us — and less emotionally taxing. We should thank him.

This dynamic helps explain why some other liberal policies become popular. Ignorance is bliss.

***

Via National Review.

***

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

***

Via Mediaite.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:06 AM

lily-livered snakes

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:08 AM

dear leader accused W of shredding the constitution and he has dones much worse, talk about hypocrisy
-morning joe

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:09 AM

morning joe wants the dems to apologize to W

dont hold your breath….they would be calling for impeachment if this occurred under a gop prez

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:12 AM

*The Chinese Weapon Targetting/LockON Japanese Ship two Days ago Alert*

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters

China says probing Japan complaint about radar lock-on http://reut.rs/XR3r9d
========

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-china-japan-idUSBRE91609520130207

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:13 AM

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:06 AM

lily-livered snakes

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:08 AM

cmsinaz:Lol,ya nailed that one:)

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:26 AM

Two Twitter Linkys for Resource News Info Grabbing!

Results for #sequester

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23sequester
=========================================

Results for #budget

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23budget
======================================

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM

And one more,RE: Twitter.

Senate Republicans Verified account
@Senate_GOPs

News and updates from Republican senators and their staff.

Washington, D.C. · http://www.facebook.com/RepublicanSenators

https://twitter.com/Senate_GOPs

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:45 AM

O/t: “Memphis Changes Parks’ Names. Rewrites History.” The Civil War evidently never happened. My take.

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 6:47 AM

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM

good linky Canopfor…mika thinks congress created the sequester…she seems to forget this was dear leader’s idea…

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:51 AM

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 6:47 AM

pretty sad….PC run amok
the council did it on their own, no request for the change…wow
are they transplants?

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:59 AM

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:59 AM

Nope. They are Memphians. Just very stupid Liberals.

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 7:02 AM

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 7:02 AM

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM

**Economic News Alert**

Two Of Our Favorite Pieces Of Economic Data Are Coming Out Today
Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 7, 2013, 4:24 AM
*****************************************

Early heads up that two of our favorite pieces of economic data are coming out today.

Via Calculated Risk:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/02/thursday-weekly-unemployment-claims.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29

• At 8:30 AM ET, The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released. The consensus is for claims to decrease to 360 thousand from 368 thousand last week. The 4-week average could fall to the lowest level since early 2008.

• At 3:00 PM, Consumer Credit for December from the Federal Reserve. The consensus is for credit to increase $14.5 billion in December.

Initial weekly unemployment claims we love because it tends to be a great barometer of the economy in real time. It has a record of aligning nicely with stocks, thus helping to demonstrate that financial market moves are generally based in real economic activity.

Consumer Credit gets to the heart of the economic slump and the recovery: Where households are in the deleveraging cycle. Consumer Credit isn’t as real time, but the bigger implications are deeper.

http://www.businessinsider.com/initial-claims-and-consumer-credit-2013-2

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:32 AM

Nope. They are Memphians. Just very stupid Liberals.

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 7:02 AM

kingsjester:

Good Morning:)

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Good morning, my friend!

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 7:51 AM

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM

good linky Canopfor…mika thinks congress created the sequester…she seems to forget this was dear leader’s idea…

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:51 AM

cmsinaz:No kidding,sorry for the late response,been jamming ED’s E-mail with Linkys:)

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:55 AM

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Good morning, my friend!

kingsjester on February 7, 2013 at 7:51 AM

kingsjester:And to you:)

canopfor on February 7, 2013 at 7:59 AM

Let’s have some serious vetting of Brennan. The leaking of national security items to the media in order to support O’s candidacy is highly suspect.

Brennan needs to be questioned hard on ten, make that eleven, Obamaleaks to the media prior to the election.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/the-top-ten-obamaleaks-john-brennan-needs-to-explain/

onlineanalyst on February 7, 2013 at 8:01 AM

I’ve got coffee on at the gulch. Just threw a couple more logs on on the fire and the place is heating up nicely. There are a few rockers still available.

Thinking about getting Bishop to build us a bunker… ;)

Oh, loved this:

lily-livered snakes

cmsinaz on February 7, 2013 at 6:08 AM

Fallon on February 7, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Let’s have some serious vetting of Brennan.

onlineanalyst on February 7, 2013 at 8:01 AM

its a done deal. the gop should just get it over with and give brennan a group hug

renalin on February 7, 2013 at 8:10 AM

Jay Carney told the press yesterday that it was okay for them to be asking questions about the administration’s drone policy. That made me really mad because an effective press, one not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC, would decide for themselves what questions to ask without being given permission by the rat-eared wonder and his corrupt staff.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2013 at 8:38 AM

KOOLAID2 on February 6, 2013 at 11:49 PM
Hey, not trying to mind your business. You know how I don’t like it when someone does that to me. Whats up with you and Opinionator? Saw the remarks and was a bit taken a back? History?

Bmore on February 6, 2013 at 11:59 PM

…sorry B…crashed early last night…no history!…I only pee on trolls…but that one was ragging on me for the fish coming down under (Op wants a haven from it)…so I suggested a tampon!… I think it is going to keep menstruating about it anyway it seems.

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 10:33 AM

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Lol! ; )

Bmore on February 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

donabernathy on February 6, 2013 at 11:32 PM

.
“Hit-’n’-run”, “drive-by” trolling? I don’t see where he/she came back, again.

listens2glenn on February 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The high-level assassination of potential ‘threats’ is very unwise.

When I was in Viet Nam and standing my first guard duty, I shot a sapper carrying twenty pounds of explosives under our concertina wire. I was immediately arrested and brought up on charges of disobeying my General Orders. (Of course, the Officer of the Guard never bothered to share those orders with us or answer the radio when I called in the incident, before shooting the sapper).

I was supposed to call the Officer of the Guard so he could have the MPs capture the sapper and turn him over to an intelligence officer for interrogation. Sometimes, intel is more important than headcount. (BTW- I was found not guilty and returned to duty while the OoG faced charges in my place.)

That being said, arbitrarily determining someone is a high-ranking leader and a potential threat and ordering their execution is a vile abuse of power by someone bent on displaying his ‘power’ to the world. Intelligence can save lives…dead bodies have no value.

xmanvietnam on February 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

When I was in Viet Nam and standing my first guard duty, I shot a sapper carrying twenty pounds of explosives under our concertina wire. I was immediately arrested and brought up on charges of disobeying my General Orders.

. . . . . (BTW- I was found not guilty and returned to duty while the OoG faced charges in my place.)

xmanvietnam on February 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

.
WOW … God bless you, xman’. That’s one of the FEW such stories I’ve heard out of Vietnam that had a semi-happy ending.

Glad you were acquitted.

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Interesting

api on February 26, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5