Slouching towards a 4th term (cont.)

.

Last week, the National Review's Rich Lowry had a column titled "Holder's Identity Problem" which took a look at Holder's considerable issues with individual state's voter identification laws.

Clever but not nearly as appropriate or relevant for the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department's identity problem with respect to indefinite detention of suspected terrorists and the killing of alleged terrorists even if they are American citizens.



Let's jump in the way-back machine and catch up with Holder in 2004 during the dark tyranny of the Bush regime:

(Via Patterico's Pontifications):

And yet a disturbing pattern has emerged. Lawyers for this administration have attempted to sanction the wholesale roundup and extended detention of Middle Eastern men on routine immigration violations, and the indefinite detention of American citizens with minimal judicial supervision, and without access to legal counsel.

We must be aggressive in the conduct of the war, and in the interrogation of prisoners taken in that war. But this Administration’s view, that the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief can almost always overcome what it views as burdensome laws, restrictive International treaties, and tired old customs is extremely dangerous.

Now let me be clear. This is not to equate American al-Qaeda sympathizers with law abiding Japanese-American citizens. But citizenship must mean something. The guarantees that come with it must be respected.

Now, let's see how Holder grows in office. Back to the present: Eff, it.. let's kill'em instead:

President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.

That, regrettably, was the most lasting impression from a major address on national security delivered last week by Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.

Eric Holder, in a speech just last week, did indeed claim that the Executive branch had the authority to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without due process.

Quite a turnaround, now isn't it? Imagine the rioting in the streets in Berkeley, Madison and Eugene if Bush had claimed this authority. And let's be clear, Team O did indeed carry through with this threat when they wacked Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen in a drone strike last September.

So, what is the real reason behind this new-found extra-constitutional executive power? A realization of the threat posed by terrorists to this country? A convenient opportunity to accrue even more authority? Maybe. But we think it's a little more simple than that: Obama's lazy. That's it. He doesn't want to have to mess around with the sticky business of capturing, interrogating and, mostly, detaining suspected terrorists. Afterall, this is the administration that made a campaign goal of closing down Gitmo and which still maintains a public position of desiring to see suspected terrorists in civilian courts. It's much, much easier to just wack them... it's a hell of lot cleaner that way.

Let that sink in for a moment: An administration that desires to see Gitmo residents tried in civilian courts doesn't let suspected terrorists see the light of the Cuban day.



Here's Andew Napolitano with Shep Smith talking about the subject matter just prior to Holder's speech (Via Dueling Barstools):

"Due process is not something the government gives, due process is a natural right that every human being has and the Constitution requires that the government respect that in the 5th amendment."

1:45 : Wait, al-Awlaki's son and a family friend, both U.S. citizens were killed also? We've been following this story pretty closely and this is the first time we've heard this.

"On the basis of that summary, the President can be judge, jury and executioner for any American anywhere."

2:40 : That's right - we'd almost forgot. al-Awlaki was the guy the Ft. Hood shooter was reaching out to. Fancy that, it's considered impolite to suggest that the Ft. Hood shooter was a radical Islamist terrorist yet al-Awlaki receives death by drone for being a radical Islamist terrorist... allegedly.

"If what the attorney general is about to say is accepted uncritically by Americans then we are doomed, our freedoms are gone - the President is no longer our President he is a King, he can decide who lives and who dies on his own without any evidence, without any trial."

It's being received uncritically by Americans because the 4th estate has again failed in reporting out on this travesty. One of the very types of things they despised Bush for, they will provide cover when one of their own not only matches the outrage but far exceeds it. It would only be fair then to say then that the media does not suffer any longer from "liberal bias", rather "despotic bias".

.