Huge Liberal Hypocrisy on Constitutional Violations

Español: Sello de la NSA English: The seal of ...

Glenn Greenwald rips into liberals who defend President Obama's dismal record on civil liberties:

A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.

Greenwald points to a poll that shockingly shows mass left wing support for Obama's counter terrorism policies despite them being completely unconstitutional.

I must admit that I tend to brush over many of Obama's highly questionable policies because of the danger of letting another Republican into the White House. It's election time and I generally think the left should get behind Obama in order to block whichever lunatic makes it through the GOP primaries. However, there is absolutely no excuse for liberal's unquestioning support of Obama because it is an issue that should supercede party politics. An illegal, unconstitutional activity is an illegal, unconstitutional activity no matter who does it. The law is blind and should be enforced without regard to politics.

Obama won't stop because the current political climate does not allow him to. Obama has to be more militant on 'terrorism' issues than the opposition because he will be painted as a soft liberal. And that is why the public must hold him to account and stop him.

Enhanced by Zemanta

  • http://profile.typepad.com/osborneink1 OsborneInk

    Greenwald sure seems to hate the rule of law. Remember, the president is operating under the AUMF of 2001, which mandates a state of war with AQ.
    That’s “war,” not “criminal complaint.”
    Anwar al-Awlaki earned his death the same way every Confederate at Shiloh earned theirs. He took up arms against his country, and his country killed him. Why are we surprised? How was this outcome ever in doubt? Better yet, why does Greenwald wish to create doubt where none would otherwise exist?
    This shows up in his phrasing: “targeted killing” is a nonsense term. It invokes a reaction in the clueless reader, but all it amounts to is “ready, aim, fire.” To this day there are Southerners who say that Lincoln “assassinated” hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers. I suppose that if we sent Greenwald back to 1863, he would agree. He might even run around the field in front of Pickett’s charge moaning about habeas requests and demanding full jury trials before anyone was killed.
    Or maybe not, if George Bush was in charge of the Union Army.
    See, Greenwald had no problem with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Over one hundred thousand Iraqis lost their lives before he changed his mind; overcompensating now, he makes no room for the president to fulfill the terms of the 2001 AUMF and exercise his Constitutional role as commander-in-chief.
    Note that when I joined the Army, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes someone like Awlaki who takes up arms against the US from a “lawless tribal zone” somewhere. He earned his death, and no amount of Greenwaldian histrionics will change that.