The slience is defeaning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Whither supporters of the current president in the face of the memo that says the prez can order drone strikes on US citizens?

Answer: They have been served a SuperMondo Cup of "We done told you so!" and are too busy choking this down to answer.

I quote from the paper when I tell you this is how a drone strike on a US citizen is ordered:

"1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States

"2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible

"3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles."

The rest of the 16 page document goes into defense of the indefensible and justifications of why a US citizen can be denied due process, the right to a trial by jury and so on.

Where is the Damnocrat and liarberal outrage? The same people who scream loud enough to be heard on Pluto when they think someone's rights (but only the rights they agree with) are being violated are nowhere.

Even the worst accused murderer deserves the right to a trial, they say.

Except the government now states some people doesn't deserve a trial. Mere suspicion is enough to order their death.

Whither outrage? Could it be they are learning the truth? Nah. That implies the ability to admit to being wrong. And in case you're wondering, I admit when I'm wrong. I've blogged it. Repeatedly.

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong. I take the pain and use it to make me stronger.

Anyway, equally disturbing are the three words "high-level official." In other words, if the pay grade is high enough, it's not murder, it's an order and an act of war. Never mind it's against a US citizen, we have to protect citizens.

Knife or drone, it's murder.

In other words, the Constitution is irrelevant depending on who you are, according to those in power.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that is can be applied to those who support it. POOF! They're gone. Those who studied the history of the Soviet Union under Ioseb Besarionis dze Dzhugashvili can give you about 20 million or more examples of that reasoning being turned 180 degrees.

Not that you can get the most ardent supporters of the current president to comprehend that fact.

What we now have is proof, in the government's own words, that the Constitution may be set aside. Due process is now irrelevant, A trial by jury will happen (as we've seen too many times) only if it's not too inconvenient for the government.

Lemme slap this on you. This is an official statement of what government may do. If you bother to follow the news, you know it is what our government is already doing.

NBC broke the story. Unlike most people, I bothered to actually download and read the white paper. Ya need a copy? Hit me!

Highest grade there is too.

What do I think? I think it's business as usual, except that government got caught.

Of course, the White House is busy scrambling to butt cover (see picture at right).

And while I'm here, for those of you who continue to insist the prez doesn't do the drone strike thing, "Obama 'takes his responsibility in conducting the war against al-Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws,' Carney said."

Me? I can't find anything in the Constitution which allows the president to order the death of an American citizen. Of course I may have missed it. It's probably in that same area which says government can take my guns.