Poll finds broad support for Obama’s Extra-Judicial Assassinations, Drone Program, & Indefinite Detention

True, look at the response to stuff like this compared to things like SOPA, even though they address the exact same breach of due process.

People don't think this is going to affect them, so they don't care.

Another quote fully I agree with:

"Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. 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.

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it."

How are drone attacks or indefinite detention "morally murky"? They are clearly immoral. Perhaps the struggle some are having with the "murkiness" is that their political choice is advocating positions that are immoral.

"How are drone attacks or indefinite detention "morally murky"?

To many who are loyal to party over principle it depends on your party affiliation and the party affiliation of the one using them. Simple as that. If this were about Bush you would see nothing but deserved outrage from Democrats and blind acceptance from the Bush Republicans.

Very true^. It's a sad state of affairs.

The murkiness your perceive, in my opinion, is your desire to continue to believe in Obama fighting against your actual values as a human being. It really isn't murky at all.

Sad but true.

Considering how poorly you're doing here on you're own mainstream platform, it's possible you're a tribal extremist.Ya think?I think it's funny.

Extremist Paulbot positions will never gain popular acceptance. Crackpots like Paul and his followers are doomed to remain as irrelevant as they are today. That's why he keeps losing election after election after election. If they wish to acheive traction they will have to compromise and reduce their intractability. That will never happen, so the sane will have to continue conducting our foreign policy and keep us safe from the destructive rantings and ravings of libertarian madness.

In case anyone might be confused as to why I put a video that says "Just as Count Dooku predicted", it's because that's what I say to myself whenever I think an evil plan is working as expected.

I still think that the very purpose of the Obama administration is to mute the left wing and to trick them into supporting Bush's disgusting policies and more generally the policies that favor the elite, since they are now labeled under the Obama brand. This particular article feeds my inclination to believe that I am correct.

Amen.

Abso-smurf-ly! I could not agree more.

True. But, a hypocrite would never admit that, would they?

Of course you are right.

They are, and I can't stand that his supporters don't call him out on that.

I agree^.

Pot/kettle.

How true.

YOU, should.

joeredford, your comment have proven that radical progressive views are just as harmful and shameful as radical conservative views.

Another confused statement from the tin hat gallery.I don't know what you're talking about and neither do you. Radical progressives? You're the radical progressive, not me. Radical conservatives? To whom are you referring? You don't know. My moderate viewpoint is supported by the majority of the American people who you condescend to because they wish to be protected from terrorists. You care more about terrorist rights than you do for the rights of your fellow citizens. What could be more harmful than that? It's idiocy like this that allows the right to ridicule the left ,and make them seem so extreme and out of touch, and why moderates feel compelled to vote against their own interests and vote for misleading right leaning candidates. It's destructive to the liberal cause and pathetically naive. Criticism from those who hold opinions such as yours, I wear as a badge of honor.

There is NOTHING moderate about the unilateral power to murder U.S. citizens without trial, without proof and without oversight.

By your reasoning, Iranians are "moderate" in their own country when they hang gays.

The most popular view is by no means moderate in any way, shape or form.

We have gone through this before. I'm not going there again. I have other things to deal with right now.

That's the absolute truth!

And once again you sure believe you have all answers, you think you know what each American believes. It may be news to you but you do not. Each one here on Current has a right to their views, opinions and ability to express it. Once again, I lost interest in the conversation with you.

It appears that you have "gone through this before" with many here on Current.

It's an offered opinion. You don't agree with it, argue the substance . Where do I claim I know what each American thinks? I said as the article says ,that the majority of Americans agree with me, which means they disagree with you, putting you and your comrades here in the very distinct minority. This is an article about politics, not a social networking thread. If you can't stand the heat and back up your own position, that is YOUR problem. Politics ain't bean bag. Those who aren't suited for politics need to ,either get a spine, or find another pursuit.

The only one not backing up their position here is you.

Being in the "majority," assuming the article is right, is not a defense of this insanity. So far you haven't uttered a word about it, you've only attacked the people who are against it.

Take some of your own medicine, put or shut up.

And when was the last time an Obama Derangement Syndrome victim ever paid any attention to anyone who vociferously counters these pathetic arguments ? Never. I know when I'm wasting my time and energy on the closed minded and those who think they are so morally superior to the rest of us because we don't think they are as infallible as they think they are.

there is no way to do that motherfortruth

By giving flowery speeches to Europeans and Arab Muslim nations!

I know, he did not deserve it.

Obama is a great speaker, he fulled many Americans with his "change" speeches. I see change - US is starting more wars.

Love the pic. Love the quote.

The sound of 1000 hands clapping! thank you Frosty! +^^^^^^^^

"Better"? Oh, no you didn't.

I find phony moral superiority objectionable. Tin hatters are notorious for it.

That's it? That's *all* you've got? Alrighty, then...

Have to disagree with you on this Joe, the general consensus (which is based on irrefutable proof) from a who's who list of great intellectual minds, including Prof. Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, demonstrate quite convincingly, that if there is any government which has a very long history of "terrorism" it would be the US, and if the US were to stop "harboring terrorists" than 99% of those on Wall Street-and a very large number of people in the nation's capital-would have to be immediately handed over to the International courts of the world, for crimes against humanity.

You were vague so you forced him to guess.

The rest of your post is a red herring.

Address the argument already.

As do I.

I'm pretty sure they framed the question in such a way that they got inaccurate results.

Something like "do you support the power of drone strikes?" would not be the same as "do you support the illegal killing of American citizens with drone strikes?"

It's a classic trick. Make the question vague and then claim you got the result you wanted.

Regardless how one feels about Jones, you have to give him credit for his research. He saw what was about to happen...a boost to his ego, maybe, but he did try and warn us.