In recent weeks, much has been written and discussed concerning our current Attorney General Eric Holder. Let's be clear, as our president is so fond of saying, that this attorney general may be the most corrupt and incompetent person to hold the job since the Nixon administration. He is a racist bigot who cannot see beyond his own hateful, willful and despicable world view. As such, his administration of his duties hurts all Americans and makes us all much less safe. He is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, defending the Constitution and all the laws of the land, but he is selective in what he does or has his people do and appears to have no intention of supporting the Constitution.
Aside from his egregious failure to support the Defense of Marriage Act, the Voter Rights Act and the Constitutional protections related to electoral procedures in the country, he has presided over one of the most dangerous policies to ever come out of any administration. His rationalizing the authority of this administration to assassinate American citizens overseas is beyond the pale. Though there are clearly black letter and precedents that allow such actions in times of war, this latest set of rules is frightening in its logical consequences.
To rationalize the assassination of Anwar Al-Awaki, the administration through its attorney general offered a set of rules that will allow this administration to murder Americans without the protections guaranteed in the Constitution. I do not care how hideous a person may be, no government, especially one constituted as ours is, has the right to do this without due process. The consequences of leaving this policy unchallenged is frightening.
Could it be possible that this or future administrations could extend the assassination edict to enemies of the state? Think about that--enemies of the state. What might constitute being an enemy of the state? Could it be a radio talk show host who derides the administration and the president? Could it be a person speaking at a tax payer rally? Could it be the editor of a newspaper who allows a piece to appear in his or her publication that is critical of the nations leaders? If one recalls history, imprisoning dissenters was the law of the land back in the 1790s. We have had occasion in this country to jail those who might be considered enemies during times of war. (ask the Japanese-Americans put in camps during WW II). How much of a stretch would it be for the administration to start collecting those they feel are threats to their re-election or any number of other reasons?
One must be careful about siding with a government that thinks it is OK to kill its citizens, even if those citizens are evil incarnate. The slope is steep and slippery, so heed your consent before you give it.
|< Prev||Next >|