Eric Holder

[Jack]

I voted for Obama specifically because he claimed to be a constitutional scholar and campaigned on a platform of restoring civil liberties (closing the prison at Guantanamo, ending warrantless wiretapping, increasing accountability and transparency, etc.). I had also hoped that he would have a clue about Internet issues (based on his campaign's Facebook prowess) and do things like repeal the DMCA.

He failed miserly, utterly, and completely. He's a lying, authoritarian sack of shit who needs to not only be thrown out of office, but also tried for the war crimes that he chose to look the other way on.

[The Lord of the Jungle]

Not sure I'd concur with the 'miserably, utterly, completely'.  I think the repeal of DADT is a great first step, and from a pragmatic standpoint, I would imagine a fuller endorsement of marriage equality would come in a second term. Can't say I'm a fan of the drone assaults, buti do like that we've adhered to the Iraq withdrawal timetable, and I do like very much that he actually got Public Enemy #1 (and I liked the way it was handled), and I appreciate the handling of the Libyan conflict, and I really appreciate the Affordable Care Act (which I still feel is a far more remarkable stroke than a lot of folks comprehend)....  I won't say I'm 100% keen on all he's done (or failed to do) but again, based on the general state of things when he hit town, and the out and out intractibility of the GOP house, I'd have to be a permanent resident of Never Never Land to believe he's had a slacker first term.

[barbecuesteve]

It isn't about what he's accomplished legislatively, or hasn't accomplished legislatively.

It's about certain authoritarian actions -- expansion of executive independence, claiming the legality of unlimited detainment (g'mo) or summary execution of citizens (al-awlaki), defense of doma leap to mind -- that seem highly contradictory to the guy Obama presented to us in 2008.

[LT]

It isn't about what he's accomplished legislatively, or hasn't accomplished legislatively.

It's about certain authoritarian actions -- expansion of executive independence, claiming the legality of unlimited detainment (g'mo) or summary execution of citizens (al-awlaki), defense of doma leap to mind -- that seem highly contradictory to the guy Obama presented to us in 2008.

Thank You....

[Gmoney]

It isn't about what he's accomplished legislatively, or hasn't accomplished legislatively.

It's about certain authoritarian actions -- expansion of executive independence, claiming the legality of unlimited detainment (g'mo) or summary execution of citizens (al-awlaki), defense of doma leap to mind -- that seem highly contradictory to the guy Obama presented to us in 2008.

Be that as it may, if you expect any of his potential opponents in November to be any better on these fronts...

And as for al-Awlaki, I think when you become an enemy combatant, any expectation of due process gets tossed out the window.  The internets tell me that hundreds of German-Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII.  Should we have verified the Nazis we were firing at weren't American before doing so, just so we don't potentially infringe on their rights?

Obama was by no means perfect, and I do have a few bones to pick with him on policy, but the man has accomplished a shit-ton in the 3 years he's had, particularly when you consider how obstructive the Republicans have been.

[Jack]

Be that as it may, if you expect any of his potential opponents in November to be any better on these fronts...

I would expect Ron Paul and maybe Jon Huntsman to be less authoritarian. Granted, they have little chance at the GOP nomination, but they're still candidates. Even Mitt Romney, who does have a good chance at the nomination, I hope might be an improvement.

And as for al-Awlaki, I think when you become an enemy combatant, any expectation of due process gets tossed out the window.  The internets tell me that hundreds of German-Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII.  Should we have verified the Nazis we were firing at weren't American before doing so, just so we don't potentially infringe on their rights?

In WWII when German-Americans fought for the NAZIs we of course didn't treat them as citizens, but we did at least treat them as prisoners-of-war! Not to mention, they fought as soldiers in uniform, officially declaring their allegiance.

In contrast, people like al-Awlaki occupy a sort of no-man's-land, where they have neither the rights of American citizens nor the rights of prisoners-of-war, and that's unacceptable by itself. Moreover, these people aren't wearing their allegiance on their sleeves; they're merely suspects. And that means there's nothing stopping the government from treating anyone like that, including you or me. And that's also unacceptable by itself.

[barbecuesteve]

In WWII when German-Americans fought for the NAZIs we of course didn't treat them as citizens, but we did at least treat them as prisoners-of-war! Not to mention, they fought as soldiers in uniform, officially declaring their allegiance.

In contrast, people like al-Awlaki occupy a sort of no-man's-land, where they have neither the rights of American citizens nor the rights of prisoners-of-war, and that's unacceptable by itself. Moreover, these people aren't wearing their allegiance on their sleeves; they're merely suspects. And that means there's nothing stopping the government from treating anyone like that, including you or me. And that's also unacceptable by itself.

Thank you for putting it just right.

[barbecuesteve]

It isn't about what he's accomplished legislatively, or hasn't accomplished legislatively.

It's about certain authoritarian actions -- expansion of executive independence, claiming the legality of unlimited detainment (g'mo) or summary execution of citizens (al-awlaki), defense of doma leap to mind -- that seem highly contradictory to the guy Obama presented to us in 2008.

Be that as it may, if you expect any of his potential opponents in November to be any better on these fronts...

Utterly beside the point, or in fact, MAKES my point. The slate on the right is so abhorrent that the election is ONLY a referendum on Obama.

Obama was by no means perfect, and I do have a few bones to pick with him on policy, but the man has accomplished a shit-ton in the 3 years he's had, particularly when you consider how obstructive the Republicans have been.

It isn't about what he's accomplished legislatively, or hasn't accomplished legislatively.

Yes, let's consider how obstructive the Republicans have been. Fully obstructive? I mean, if it were possible to be 175% obstructive, boy, they hit it this time. I wonder if we're going to have a wholesale flip of the House this round. I don't know what Midamerica thinks of the GOP on this one. I hope their view has soured.

But in the face of that, Obama has repeatedly STARTED from a negotiating point to the right of Reagan. The GOP wouldn't bail if their teacup was sinking, so he moves further right to appease them. Finally, just before the whole thing falls apart, they extract one more concession from him, and the deal is sealed. For someone on the left it is excruciating to watch. In the face of an obstructionist Congress, we were all wishing he'd do more, he'd engage, he'd pick up the fight and call these guys out on his bully pulpit. But he just rolled over, and then caved, and then rolled over, and then caved, and so on.

So we got health care. Sort of. We all got new mandates to pay, and something called "insurance." Eventually. Our kids will be covered, that's nice. But it's still really complicated and too many middlemen and no baseline public option. And even then the attack dogs in the GOP are salivating at the chance to tear the rest of it to shreds.

And we ended Dont Ask Dont Tell, while still fighting for DOMA and keeping quiet when states pass anti-gay laws. Is that the guy I remember from 2008?

bin Laden is a PR score, nothing more. The troops in the CIA, the troops in the NSA, the troops on the ground, you know the drill. I know some idiots will put this one in Obama's pocket for 2012, but it means zero to me. No reflection on Obama at all. I suppose it's a nice little gift, a sort of tchotchke. I'd rather have him saying cruel and funny things about the obstructionists every day so they'd get printed.

[Gmoney]

Be that as it may, if you expect any of his potential opponents in November to be any better on these fronts...

I would expect Ron Paul and maybe Jon Huntsman to be less authoritarian. Granted, they have little chance at the GOP nomination, but they're still candidates. Even Mitt Romney, who does have a good chance at the nomination, I hope might be an improvement.

I'll give Ron Paul credit for likely standing up for what he believes in. That said, I think the changes he would try to institute would be catastrophic, but at least he would likely act within the constitutional limits of the office.

I don't think the same could be said of Huntsman, though I'll concede he's probably my favorite of the GOP field (though given the competition, that's not exactly saying much).

And as for al-Awlaki, I think when you become an enemy combatant, any expectation of due process gets tossed out the window.  The internets tell me that hundreds of German-Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII.  Should we have verified the Nazis we were firing at weren't American before doing so, just so we don't potentially infringe on their rights?

In WWII when German-Americans fought for the NAZIs we of course didn't treat them as citizens, but we did at least treat them as prisoners-of-war! Not to mention, they fought as soldiers in uniform, officially declaring their allegiance.

In contrast, people like al-Awlaki occupy a sort of no-man's-land, where they have neither the rights of American citizens nor the rights of prisoners-of-war, and that's unacceptable by itself. Moreover, these people aren't wearing their allegiance on their sleeves; they're merely suspects. And that means there's nothing stopping the government from treating anyone like that, including you or me. And that's also unacceptable by itself.

I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that al-Awlaki did not have a declared allegiance against the US given his repeated calls for jihad against us.  I think that puts him more in the camp of enemy combatant than anything else.  And as an enemy combatant, the use of lethal force is fair game.  If he had surrendered or was a prisoner, that would be something different, but as I recall, he was killed while trying to escape a predator drone, and therefore, was not a prisoner of war.

That said, this is some pretty murky legal waters, and it seems like people such as al-Awlaki weren't really envisioned when various federal and international laws governing combat were written.  Should those laws be clarified, I'd hope they would explicitly allow for the use of lethal force with people like al-Awlaki.  If he hadn't been so publicly outspoken about his allegiance, I might think differently, but I don't think people should be able to use their citizenship as a shield when making war against their own country.