Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings

[Demeter]

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/02/07/obama-kill-list-assassinate-48595/

Summary: The Republic is at war against an adaptive foe that seeks its destruction. Not al Qaeda, which might no longer exist in meaningful form, but internal foes seeking its overthrow. That they’re moving incrementally, small steps slowly growing larger with each success, only masks the boldness of their goals. It’s the quiet coup. Here we look at the latest chapter in the war, the most recent rip torn in the Constitution.

As the America-that-Once-Was evolves into the quite different New America, the identity of those responsible becomes increasingly clear. It’s us. Our disinterest in working the Founders’ machinery of self-government. Our passive acceptance of Empire and plutocracy. Saddest of all is our abandonment of America’s ideals, the end point of a thousand year-long struggle.

These things are all seen in our reaction to President Obama’s white paper granting himself powers not seen in Anglo-American history since the Stuart Kings. Limiting the Monarchs’ right of arbitrary arrest and punishment of their subjects took 450 years, from the first tentative agreement in Magna Carta (1215) to its achievement in the English Civil War (1641-1662). Now, with our complaisance, Presidents Bush Jr and Obama have erased much of that progress.

Two provisions of Magna Carta deserve our attention today, a gift to us from the Barons of 13th century England.

38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his “law”, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes. {This was replaced by improved legislation in 1863}

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised {deprived of land} or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. {This remains in force for the people of England, but no longer in the USA}

Our ancestors spent much blood, sweat, and tears between that day at Runnymede and the meeting in 1878 at Philadelphia. The liberties provided by the Constitution were won over those 30 generations, by the unruly Saxons and Normans of Medieval England — and the Founders, jealous of their liberties and willing to fight for them. In the decade since 9-11 we’ve thoughtlessly thrown away political structures that took centuries to build...

[Demeter]

1. The police state implications of Obama’s assassination program

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/02/07/pers-f07.html

The Obama administration’s recently-leaked “white paper” on the assassination of US citizens, and the actions carried out on the basis of the arguments it advances, must be taken as a dire warning to the working class in the United States and around the world. The democratic rights of the people are in grave peril. The American ruling class, steeped in lawlessness and violence, is moving toward dictatorship.

The administration’s frontal assault on democratic rights and constitutional protections—asserting the “right” of the president to unilaterally and secretly order the state murder of American citizens—is undeniably grounds for impeachment. The crimes of Richard Nixon, who nearly 40 years ago resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and removal from office, pale in comparison to Obama’s assertion of unconstrained executive powers.

The pseudo-legal arguments of the Justice Department memo, recalling the Bush administration’s infamous torture memoranda, boil down to the following:

The president and the military-intelligence apparatus, based solely on their own internal deliberations, have the power to assassinate any US citizen who they decide is a leading member of Al Qaeda or its “associated forces.” This power has no geographic boundaries. Nor can it be limited by any form of congressional or judicial oversight. The White House and its military/intelligence advisers are judge, jury and executioner....

[Demeter]

2. “We aren’t known for torturing people any more. In the Obama era, we’re known for killing them.”

http://americablog.com/2013/02/obama-drones-and-death.html

I want to make this discussion of drones and the Obama kill list as brief as possible — first, because each of the news-facts speaks for itself, and second, because there are many important implications to all this, each of which could be a long piece in itself.

So first some background, then the news, then a taste of several implications.

Background — Obama likes his drones

more at link

[Buzz Clik]

9. This is a record. Two responses to the OP by the author of the OP.

I want to make this discussion of drones and the Obama kill list as brief as possible

Uh, okay.

[Demeter]

20. Dear Buzz Clik

I thought it made more sense to put all the eggs in one thread, to save time and bandwidth. Would you have preferred 2 separate postings?

This is what "Aggregation" means. It's what we have to replace real newspaper journalism, which doesn't exist in most of the land, anymore.

[dipsydoodle]

3. unruly Saxons and Normans of Medieval England ?

Given we'd been "Anglo Saxons" here for three hundred years , during which time we'd been more a less a group of kingdoms prior to the Norman invasion , that doesn't leave much else.

It was the Norman's who , despite the fact they never really settled here , subjugated the indigenous population and effectively made England one country.

[Diclotican]

17. dipsydoodle

dipsydoodle

They do settled in England - at least in a fashion, but I guess most of them liked their estates in France/Normandie better than they liked their estates in England.. At least for the first couple of centuries when the castles was not more than wooden fortresses, the older, more comfortable castles in Normandie and France was a better place to live than England... But as time passed - and new ways of using the english to the betterment of the Norman overlord - it could be used to also build some new castles in stones - some of them exist to this days - others are mer memories on a hilltop - or ruins.. But still impressive ruins if you ask me!

The Normans, more or less made England into one country - even though the different kings and kingdoms had make some headway even before William the conquer (or as he also was known, William the bastard, as he was was born out of wedlock, something that was very important that days ) decided to conquer England - after been promised the throne after Edward the confessor.. King Harold - or Kong Harald hårråde as he is known in Norway, was in the way - but when William made a clever fint it all ended with King Harald killed - and most of the old nobel houses in England in shambles.. By 1080, most of the noble houses was either crushed into servitude, and had lost all of their land - or they was killed by the normans outright... And as the story goes - the rest is history...

But it is some interesting, to se that William the bastard - regardless of his lack of trust in the english - used most of the old governance to his own kingdom - and was able to organize his new kingdom into a decent modern one, using in part some of the ideas that had been floating around in the different parts of old England... But he also used the new, modern ideas coming from the continent - and was not shy of crushing rebellions in blood..

Diclotican

[ReRe]

4. Obama repeals Magna Carta...

marking to read later! Thanks Demeter for the post... And Happy Valentines Day!

[Demeter]

21. Thank you! Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours, too.

[Ian Iam]

5. Bilge!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Meeting in 1878? Should we doubt any other "facts" in the post? nt

[Buzz Clik]

8. I didn't get past the title.

I am not surprised that the dates are off by a century or two.

[TalkingDog]

10. Numlexia: 1787 and bad proof reading do not an invalid argument make.

n/t

[Buzz Clik]

7. I guess the old hysteria wasn't enough. It needed a new dimension.

The Magna Carta.

Fantastic.

If we go back far enough, perhaps we can find that Obama is breaking a promise that Adam and Eve made to God. Wouldn't that be totally cool? We could obsess on that for another week.

[Orrex]

11. I heard that he pried open the Ark of the Covenant and pissed on The Decalogue, too

The man's depravity knows no bounds!

[FSogol]

15. I heard Obama pulls the tags off of mattresses too.

[davidpdx]

33. Oh dear god the monster!

[bread_and_roses]

12. Funny - when Bush did these sort of things ...

... when Bush did it - it was bad. When Obama does it, it's good. Bush = R = bad. Obama = D = good.

Some of us have long memories. I remember ...

"Hey hey LBJ, how many kids you kill today?"

Nixon and Ellsberg.

Contelpro.

Bush 1's lies over Iraq War 1

Bush 2's torture and indefinite detention.

Lot's more ....

Including candidate Obama and his promises.

Some of us think slaughtering children and disappearing people and treating peaceful protestors like enemies is wrong - no matter who does it.

[RC]

14. Why do so many here that condemn what bu$h did, defend it when Obama does the same thing?

Or did they really not condemn the killing bu$h did, but just said they did?
How can one person killing innocents to perpetuate a war, be bad and with his successor, the same killing of innocents is given a pass?

Those that excuse the killings done by Obama because he is a (D), quite often use extreme black/white terms like "HATE" to describe those of us that object to those same killings by Obama. This extreme, either/or is Right wing-nut actions on their part. There is no middle ground for them there.

[BrainDrain]

13. wow, what a record.......

Depending on who you listen to, so far Obama has managed to:

1: Destroy the Constitution (along with it various amendments)
2: Destroy most of if not all of The Bill of Rights
3: Various parts of the Bible along with Christianity as we know it here in the USA
4: The Magna Carta

Whats next? The Three Laws of Robotics? Does the man have no limit to his destructive nature?

[Demeter]

22. The 3 Laws of Robotics are Science Fiction and are not implemented in AI today

Otherwise, drones could not exist, by definition. They would be outside the law.

[Historic NY]

16. Magna Carta......ha

I must say our elected President had perfected the use of drones to decimate Al Qaeda and those that outwardly support, aligned or participated with them. Remember things changed after 911. You can bet that if this was available in Medieval England it would been used.....just think of it as an advance trebuchet.

[gtar100]

18. Maybe the reason this trend is going beyond party lines is because

rich people want to go back to a time when having a dungeon was quite the status symbol.

Seriously, what is the point of the Magna Carta if not to stop the abuses of individuals in positions of power and establish a means to justice based on reason and fairness. This trend towards a justice determined by people behind closed doors is not good, even if you agree with the outcome sometimes. Just look at the means of justice practiced before the establishment of the Magna Carta to get an idea of how "fair" the rich and powerful really are.

[blackspade]

19. +1000

[truth2power]

23. Demeter....Thank you for posting, and also for the two addenda to your OP....

This is a serious issue, with frightening implications, whether being enacted by Bush or by Obama himself.

Do not be deterred by the silliness being posted by some in this thread. Why anyone would want to minimize the danger to our civil liberties posed by this policy is beyond me.

When looking for support for a progressive issue, I find that its always a good idea to check out various sources, as any reasonable critical thinker would do.

It's been my observation, from looking at other progressive websites, that DU often doesn't accurately reflect the stance of the progressive community in general. Why this should be, I have no idea, but I can tell you that credible individuals are absolutely outraged by this, and they aren't holding back just because it's Obama that's doing it. It is what it is; I'm only the messenger.

This is wrong on so many levels, and nothing you have said is beyond the pale.

Peace.

t2p

[bvar22]

24. The only surprise...

...is that so many here would embrace the Pre-Magna Carta Powers of a new Royal King, one who is above question, oversight, or Constitutional Restraints.

Before the American revolution, there were colonists who remained loyal to King George (Tories, Royalists), and preferred living under a King.
But even they never supported a King with the unilateral powers claimed by our Unitary Executive under the sanction of a Perpetual WAR on a Word ("Terror&quot .

I guess there will always be people who seek the illusion of comfort from an All Powerful Protector, one who is above reproach or question.
(Its OK because I trust him!)
I sometimes envy those who are capable of bestowing THAT much trust and responsibility in a man.

Of course, in ye olde tymes, that person was believed to be a direct descendent of GAWD,
so it was easier to assume such a submissive posture,
and go mindlessly about the business of a peasant.

Those who don't know History,
are destined to repeat it.

Everybody, please reset your clocks to Pre-1215AD.

[enlightenment]

27. Loyalists, bvar.

Royalists were the English Civil war - loyalists were the American Revolution. By some accounts, upward of a third of the colonial population remained loyal to Great Britain (and her King, I presume). It's something I try to impress on my students - the enormity of throwing away your heritage and taking on a whole new identity. Not a simple decision, despite our tendency to present the colonists as uniformly committed to independence.

[bvar22]

28. While I appreciate your response, ...

...and admit that those who remained loyal to The King during the American Revolution were indeed called "Loyalists",
I must point out that they were also labeled "Royalists".

"Loyalists were American colonists who remained loyal to the Kingdom of Great Britain (and the British monarchy) during the American Revolutionary War. At the time they were often called Tories, Royalists, or King's Men. They were opposed by the Patriots, those who supported the revolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29

[enlightenment]

29. In primary literature, you will generally find

Loyalists - not royalists (and the Wiki article doesn't give a citation, unless the information is in the text of the first footnote, so I'm not convinced . . .)

That said, I won't quibble anymore - my post inaccurately gave precedence to that term as opposed to the my "point" (such as it was) that there were quite a few colonists who didn't take up the banner of independence. My error in how I chose to write it.

[DavidDvorkin]

32. Minor quibble: I don't think anyone in Medieval Europe thought that the king was descended from God

But rather that he was ordained in his position by God and that power descended downwards from Heaven through him and on down through the feudal pyramid.

[rhett o rick]

34. "I sometimes envy those who are capable of bestowing THAT much trust and responsibility in a man."

I know you dont really mean that. Those people need our pity. They want so badly for everything to be happiness that they will give their souls to anyone that promises security.

I dont see there is much we can do to turn around these assaults on our liberties. We need a new Declaration of Independence and American Revolution redux. I dont condone a violent revolution but I see no other outcome.

[Recursion]

25. Err.. persons taken in arms against the king could be summarily executed

And US citizens in arms against the US have always been subject to targeting.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think you're vastly overestimating the protections that Americans off US soil and in arms against the US have had in the past.

[kenny blankenship]

26. Oh that's just for enemies he personally designates

So it isn't like it's a power that could ever be abused. Besides, he won't kill all of them. Some will just be thrown in jail for unspecified charges, without legal representation for an indefinite period of time.

We all trust Obama, right? He wouldn't kill anyone who didn't really need it. DU is unified in its faith on this point. So by extension, he wouldn't sign a bill into law destroying fundamental rights of citizens, thus converting our historical freedoms into a temporary grant from the President to be withdrawn at his will, unless those rights really needed permanent destroying. We trust a man like this. We're Democrats.

[Demeter]

30. Kick for the weekend, for all people

[cbrer]

31. We need a double rec. feature

This article illustrates important issues that, perhaps due to their incremental nature, don't get the respect and anger they deserve. It's quite easy to denigrate, poke fun, and ignore trends. It's either ignorant, or disingenuous, to forget the prices we, as a race, paid for the rights we see so callously, and blithely watch get overturned, ignored, or rolled back to earlier times.

At what point (if any) would we as a people, be willing to rise up to seize back the reins of power as outlined in the Declaration of Independence?

[struggle4progress]

36. Here's a link to the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps you could explain, with relevant

quotes of the Declaration and particular examples from current news, exactly what you are talking about: are you, for example, worried that Mr Obama "has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages"?

Declaration of Independence

[cbrer]

38. Perhaps you could explain why your reply

contains such a stupid and ignorant example of what I think our Constitutional losses are?

If you don't realize governmental abuses concerning our freedoms, how could anything I write have any sway?

If you're the type of person who can ignore real incidents and policies that are occurring daily, and being renewed, then you might be the type of person who's happy to trade freedom for the illusion of security.

And I am not going to do research for you. If you had any sort of desire for the truth, you'd be looking yourself. Instead of posting lame pseudo examples.

And in case you're incapable of reading the Declaration of Independence, here's the relevant statement:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

[struggle4progress]

39. Since the Declaration then lists the long train of alleged abuses, such as endeavoring

to bring to bring the supposedly merciless Indian Savages on the inhabitants of our frontiers, I was wondering exactly which of the alleged abuses enumerated in the Declaration you thought applicable

[cbrer]

40. Your interpretation

Of the Declaration of Independence as holding all the possible interpretations and examples of power abuses is the limiting factor of this discussion.

One would have to first be able to imagine, and then extrapolate those thoughts into ways not specifically enumerated in the original document.

Our forefathers were aware of many possible actions that usurp our powers as free citizens. And use those powers to break laws, ignore the Constitution, and generally bring about a slow slide into a police state.

But please feel free, if so inclined, to study links between current and past administrations lawlessness. Examples abound.

Or alternatively, you could keep bringing up Indians...

[struggle4progress]

35. The authors evidently miss that the limited guarantees of the Magna Carta were superceded

by more modern notions in the US Constitution, in the years after the successful US revolution against the Crown. And "the law of the land," in those days, still granted enormous discretion to the feudal lords. The medieval barons certainly protected their own interests against King John; but in general, as the feudal lords of serfs, who then composed most of the population, the barons cannot be considered great and principled friends of human freedom, in any modern sense

The authors' notion -- that the government must employ due process of law, before a lethal attack against any person who, owing allegience to the government, engages in armed conflict against the same -- is entirely novel. It is most unlikely that anyone, during any of the various English civil wars, considered themselves bound by the Magna Carta to seek condemnation through judicial process of anyone against whom they might employ lethal force in combat context. Similarly, perhaps 100K Confederates were killed or mortally wounded on Civil War battlefields, without a prior judicial determination, person-by-person, that they were guilty of crimes deserving death

We can be quite sure that no one in the US worried that American WWII bombing of Germany or Japan might be prejudicial to the rights of Lord Haw Haw or Tokyo Rose as American citizens

Answering the question, whether international terrorist organizations should be regarded as nonstate agencies engaged in warfare or as criminal conspiracies, answers the related question, whether military operations or criminal prosecution is the appropriate response. There exists a political consensus in the US, that the appropriate response in some circumstances is military, and this consensus is reflected in law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and recognized by the Courts

[appacom]

37. More bullshit yang from the left balancing the yin from the right to keep us from getting shit done

[Blue_Tires]

41. I get the writer's general point, but his reasoning is shoddy and lacks critical thought

which only works to weaken his credibility...

[woo me with science]

42. Kick.